Hide All / Expand All
Toggle - Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff
Toggle - Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite
Introduction
Isaiah 42:16 "And I will bring the blind by a way that they know not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and the crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them."
Legacy can be a bitch for disingenuous debaters. Legacy (or lack thereof) cuts them on the back-swing if they haven't been collecting and preserving their genius efforts made in other people's forums, because it can be disappeared and then nothing remains to substantiate them having supposedly made such stellar effort. Legacy (of others) can cut them on the fore-swing when someone else faithfully [OCD: el-oh-el] collects their words and handily proves them hypocrites, liars, weasels, game players, etc.
Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff have been the most vocal -- if not near duet -- voices against my nuclear DEW premises. The disingenuous debating of Mr. Rogue comprise a huge portion of this blog in recent years. Although Mr. Ruff has had representation those years, it isn't until his participation with me is collected in one place that disingenuous patterns emerge.
On 2015-03-06, I provided an example of how Mr. Ruff could save face and demonstrate some integrity, were he so inclined. He would write words like:
"I was shocked to discover through my research -- seeded by Mr. SEO {aka Mr. MCB} -- that time delays in sampling, small numbers of samples, and scope-limited reports indeed provide sufficient wiggle room in the evidence analysis to make plausible the involvement of 4th generation nuclear devices on 9/11 at the WTC. I was personally disappointed to learn how lacking were the good faith estimates into chemical based destruction methods by various PhD's, how absurd the implied quantities, and how pitiful the nuclear considerations."
But this doesn't appear to be how Mr. Ruff is presently playing his cards. Walt Disney wrote:
"Everyone needs deadlines. Even the beavers. They loaf around all summer, but when they are faced with the winter deadline, they work like fury. If we didn’t have deadlines, we’d stagnate."
Stagnant appears to be Mr. Ruff, because not only after one month did he blow by his first deadline without as much as a single on-blog, on-venue, courteous request:
"I'm reviewing your links [Andre Gsponer 2005 Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects] but am not finished with my analysis and write-up. Might you be so kind as to grant me a humble extension of ____ days?"
... But then Mr. Ruff let a second month blow by without any estimation on when he'd get to his previous promises:
- [2015-02-09 or x204] " I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so. "
- [2015-02-10 or x206] "I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly."
Mr. Adam Ruff has my sincere hopes to publicly change his mind -- or at least hop onto the fence -- with regards to 9/11 nuclear DEW devices playing significant roles at the WTC. But, nope. Mr. Ruff has played games, defaulted, and subsequently failed his objectivity test administered (below).
Applicable definitions of "Discredit" in this situation with this particular disingenuous debate opponent:
- to cause (someone or something) to seem dishonest or untrue
- to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
- loss of credit or reputation
- lack or loss of belief or confidence
Hide All / Expand All
Toggle - Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff
Toggle - Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite
Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff
Sometimes the patterns aren't seen until the collection. Then the hypocrisy, game-playing, and stalling become clear.
DISCLAIMER: Everything in this part was published previously in other works, in addition to the source venues. What makes this collection unique is its focus on Mr. Ruff's exchanges with me. Pay attention to the date stamps, both for the time of the discussion (going back to 2012) as well as for links that go to the source discussion, which validate the veracity of Mr. Ruff's words and quotations... before getting shredded.
Compared to Mr. Rogue, my total communication with Mr. Ruff is small, particularly when considering the years that this section spans. Yet out of those years we see Mr. Ruff playing the same games in avoiding a rational debate on nuclear DEW. He cycles through the same arguments, because he ignores the counter arguments each time. The repetition is astounding. He attempts to peg discussions at straw-men (Dr. Wood, holograms), because he thinks he can knock them down.
One could argue based on this collection alone, that Mr. Ruff has long ago discredited his participation in any future discussion about 9/11 nuclear DEW themes by his unwillingness to do the legwork. Worse, he boasts about already having done the legwork (on the DEW issue) in the past, but alas it was not saved outside of other venues and was supposedly removed by vengeful administrators. Aside from showing damn little of the artist's ego in preserving one's own words one self, when a data accident forces work to be recreated a second time, the second version is usually better. Mr. Ruff has had need in debates of that second version for literally years and has had intention for years to get to it.
Everyone is entitled to redemption from their past deeds and procrastination, which the Part after this one gives/gave Mr. Ruff ample opportunity to achieve. Alas, the next Part will demonstrate more of the same game playing and carousel that this historic record already exposed.
x69 Adam Ruff : a DEW fires essentially a beam
2012-06-03
ruffadam
June 3, 2012 at 6:48 am
I too have no problem having the discussion about Judy Wood. It is in the spirit of free speech to do so. Although I have spent a good deal of time in the past debunking Wood those blogs are now gone so I will reluctantly agree to spend some time doing it again. To start with however I will post a short outline of some of the major issues with Wood that I sent to a friend a while back. I will be glad to expand on the points I made in that letter if anyone wants a clarification or more detail.
“I have not read her book but I have studied her theories and conclusions. I have also debated this issue extensively with one of Wood’s staunchest supporters on-line. An anonymous blogger that goes by the name “WHO” which may actually be Wood herself I am not sure. At any rate I debated this exaustively with WHO down to the fine details and in the process learned a lot about directed energy weapons. One of the biggest issues with the DEW theory is that no matter how you slice it a DEW fires essentially a beam. It could be a particle beam, a laser beam, a pure energy beam, or whatever kind of beam. The reason that is important to think about is because a DEW beam must have a path of destruction consistent with a beam. In other words a beam fired from the side of the tower would destroy the closest side first and essentially burrow through the building until finally piercing the opposite side. If the beam were fired from space for example it must destroy the building from the top down with the top floor going first and progressively destroying the building floor by floor down. This damage pattern was not seen on 9/11. The buildings were destroyed symmetrically, from the inside out, starting from well below the top floor. A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded. Think of a DEW beam as a red hot sword swinging lightning fast through a tower made of butter. No matter how you slice it and no matter from what angle the blade comes in, it still MUST start slicing from one side to the other. The damage on the close side would be blasted inward and the damage on the far side would be outward. No way around that. What we see in the towers is explosives from inside blasting all four sides out simultaneously. This observation is fatal to Wood’s theory when you get right down to it.
There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable. Her “toasted cars” for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives. Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser. Impressive as hell yeah, but the power needed made it completely impractical. Wood’s theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out. Anyway I hope I explained this reasonably well. I will go into more detail about specifics if you want me to XXXX. Just let me know.
++++++++++
June 3, 2012 at 6:48 am
A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded.
x70 Señor El Once : Not so fast and be more specific
Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:
A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded.
Not so fast and be more specific.
If you want to rule out space-based DEW for the towers and WTC-7, I'll probably be in agreement. But let's not take it off the table too quickly for WTC-6, WTC-5, and WTC-4 that don't have adequate explanations.
In a similar vein, you frame ground-based DEW in a stilted fashion.
The proper framing is multiple DEW devices and "spire-based DEW".
You write:
There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable.
I can find agreement with what you say. Sometimes her analysis is questionable. I have found errors (repeated in her book), but not to the extent that it discredits everything.
You write:
Her "toasted cars" for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.
I disagree with this strongly. It is the "specificity" of the destruction that rules out "pyroclastic flow generated by explosives" and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a "hot" (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser.
You are very much correct that DEW would require a massive energy source. This is why my modification to Dr. Wood's "hinting" has been "nuclear-powered spire-based DEW". A small nuclear reactor akin to what the US Navy uses seems to me would be easier to come by that trying to get "free-energy from Hurricane Erin". Radiation was measured at ground zero; the govt did write up reports on those readings; Dr. Jones did comment on those readings and did a nifty slight-of-scientific hand by saying: "These don't match three known nuclear weapons types, so no nukes were used." [... and no further speculation was made into the source of such radiation.] First responder ailments also mirror that of Hiroshima survivors.
Wood's theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out.
I'll bite that Wood's theories are full of holes. Of course, we don't eat the holes from Swiss cheese, so let's not get hung up on too many of the holes with Dr. Wood. Case in point, both a space-based and a ground-based DEW device could not get its beam to "skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out." But gee, a spire-based DEW wouldn't have to skip past outer walls; it'd be destroying the building from the inside out, as observed.
x71 ruffadam : massive power supply
2012-06-04
ruffadam
June 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Senior,
This claim you make is typical of the errors Wood herself makes when analyzing photos:
“It is the “specificity” of the destruction that rules out “pyroclastic flow generated by explosives” and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a “hot” (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.”
Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed. In fact that is almost certainly what happened, and since photos capture only a single moment in time you cannot say different because you don’t know what happened before the photo was taken, or after. As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc . This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific. Show a specific photo and point out what you consider the anomalies to be and we can discuss it.
One of the reasons space based DEW’s can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky. If you take a look at the orbit of the kind that travels around the earth you will discover how fast it has to move in order to stay in orbit. From the time of the first tower destruction event to the second such a satellite would literally be over another country. So for this type to explain the destruction there would have to be two of them in orbit at least. A stationary satellite has to be positioned at a VERY high altitude in order to escape Earth’s gravity. Hundreds of miles up in fact. So the DEW fired from such a platform would have to travel hundreds of miles to reach its target AFTER passing through the atmosphere. This type of platform cannot move in relation to the ground so it could only ever be used against NYC and surrounding area. Would the military want a weapon like that which they couldn’t use against anyone else ever?
Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.
A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim. Wood’s claims when you look closely at them are actually the claims NOT supported by the evidence. More later.
x72 Señor El Once : more easily combustible materials than paint on cars did not ignite
Dear Mr. Adam wrote:
Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed.
Paper was scattered about from the plane impacts. Even more paper was scattered about after the first tower came down.
As for the leaves, they were on the trees. The flags were on the flag poles.
The point is, materials that were more easily combustible at lower temperatures (than paint on cars) were readily available and did not ignite.
You write:
As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc.
Mr. OneSliceShort wrote:
I read recently of an EMT who arrived on the scene at the WTC7 loading dock triage as the north tower collapsed and stated that as she was running away her hair and jacket caught fire.
That would be Patricia Ondrovic.
We don't know exactly what lit her hair and parametric coat on fire. She left the impression with me that it was NOT the dust, but was the after-effects of a car exploding right next to her. If memory serves me, said in one of her interviews that the door of one car popped right off of its hinges and out and slammed her into a wall.
You write:
This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific.
I'll give you that Dr. Wood has been sloppy in some areas, but she had been very specific in others. She has at least two web pages full of fire damage to vehicles (but sloppy in regards to where they were when they got damaged). I've pointed out to you before the fires to vehicles along West Broadway next to the WTC-7 before it came down. If the pyroclastic flow was as hot as you claim and because we know this flow went around corners, we would have seen more fires in a more radial pattern from the source. That camera filming the news reporter should have picked up fire damage all over (e.g., on the cross-street), not just on West Broadway.
Instead, my understanding is that much happened line-of-sight as if it snuck out through gaps in the debris and window slits.
You write:
One of the reasons space based DEW's can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky.
I'm okay with that.
I guess I'm okay with space-based DEW being completely trashed, despite it being one of the things hinted at by Dr. Wood.
The reason I'm okay with it is that it is not my position or belief (on the towers) for reasons of the destruction originating within albeit high up in the towers. Space-based DEW would have scorched it from the roof on down.
You write:
Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.
I'm not earnestly arguing this point.
You are correct in the HUGE power requirements. Dr. Wood makes reference to free Tesla energy and tapping into hurricane Erin.
However, you should be aware that meeting the energy requirements of a space-based DEW isn't so hard to come by. In the 1980's when Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative were in full swing, one serious idea was to detonate a type of nuclear bomb in space and to channel its "useful" wavelengths (into targeting and destroying incoming missiles and whatnot) before the blast and heat waves obliviated the portions of the device doing that channeling.
In such an event, Hurricane Erin could be useful in hiding that nuclear detonation in space from prying eyes on Earth.
Again, it is not my intent to be arguing AGAINST you FOR space-based DEW. The purpose of this comment is to help you think out of the box.
A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim.
Sure, no evidence attributed to such devices exists in the public realm. As I've wrote before:
Star Wars and SDI were not some sort of jobs creation programs for the overly educated with no expectations of ever producing anything useful to the Defense Department.
How does the expression go? "We could fill libraries with the information the public doesn't know."
x73 ruffadam : make your observations about what the photo shows
2012-06-04
June 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Post a specific photo(s) and make your observations about what the photo shows and we will discuss it. Without a specific photo(s) to evaluate we cannot have a real discussion about the claims being made.
x74 Señor El Once : specific photos of WTC-7 and West Broadway
Dear Señor Adam,
I apologize in my previous post that was written initially with me thinking Señor Rogue and making references to our previous discussion. Before posting I managed to catch the error on whom I was addressing and quoting, but not some of the internal references to, say, West Broadway vehicle destruction.
You asked for specific photos. Because you are not Señor Rogue, it allows me to re-post passages from an earlier thread [2012-05-07] for analysis here.
++++++
The first image is West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. More importantly, you can see WTC-7. The second image is West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg
There's a great video of WCBS 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 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=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
You are correct that timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn't flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been NOT line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred (Image19swamp.jpg and Image20swamp.jpg) mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later (081swamp.jpg and 080.jpg) [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
Ergo, WTF caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not light-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
x75 Señor El Once : the spire is indeed falling
Dear Señor RuffAdam writes:
Regarding the spire Andrew I have studied that particular issue quite a bit and I can tell you from looking at full screen videos in the highest possible resolution that the spire is indeed falling and not turning to dust.
I agree, too.
However, the standing spire has various amounts of concrete, drywall, and such still afixed to it and acts partially as "glue", in addition to "piled" dust from other parts of the pulverized contents. IMHO something (probably from below) hit the spire with a DEW beam causing the residual water molecules in that left-over concrete/drywall/etc. to turn into steam and whose rapid volume expansion dustified it. The steam and dust linger in the air and no longer act as "glue" causing the steel to fall.
x76 Señor El Once : embrace it and own it
Dear Mr. Ruff Adam,
In my multiple laps around the 9/11 block, I have been dealt rhetorical blows at times that would seem at first reading to be crippling. In deed, were I in a social gathering among friends or colleagues and had someone's identical ad hominem rant been verbally aimed at me, I would have been caught tongue-tied and flat-footed with no witty comeback while the ranter high-five's his lackey's with their agreeing "b-b-b-b-bur-r-r-rn!" or "sco-o-o-o-o-ore!" yelps.
Online can or ought to be more contemplative. From my moments of pause in contemplating the "burn", the divine inspiration that came to me was: "embrace it!" This is applicable on so many levels of meaning.
A logical derivative of "embrace it!" is "own it!"
"Bat-shit crazy" I probably already am, because it is a fitting explanation for thinking that expressing my meager opinion that uses evidence and science properly-applied would ever sway the juggernaut of media-hyped patriotism regarding talking-point opinions on where in the world "the next parking lot should be nuked into place" (or other equally brain-dead tough-talking expressions.)
I discovered that when I owned the slur, it couldn't be added to or enhanced by the opponent without it reflectively making them look like unoriginal and repetitive idiots and weakening the slur itself: a real two-for-one deal.
When someone calls me a conspiracy theorist (which really means nutjob) I call them a koolaid drinker (meaning they will swallow any BS fed to them).
With respect to 9/11, I often deployed as the opposite of the "conspiracy theorist" slur the phrase "coincidence theorist" until our Saint Dr. D.R. Griffin started pointing out that the official story is also a "conspiracy theory." Thus, the divine inspiration along the "embrace it" lines would be to not start new tracks & attacks (e.g., "koolaid drinker", "coincidence theorist"), but to put a period at the end of the existing track: "You are a conspiracy theorist, too."
//
x77 Señor El Once : does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!
I apologize to all [except the F-Troops], but I just can't resist.
Dr. Fetzer writes [with my emphasis] August 27, 2012 at 11:45 am:
And Richard Hall's study seems to me to be impeccable in taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path (locations and times) based upon those that were useful for that purpose, so I am not entirely clear why OBF wants to dispute it.
Dr. Fetzer writes August 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm:
How can this guy, ruffadam, post something this ignorant while complaining about posts on NPT, when he OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about? Astounding!
The backstory that eventually makes it so funny?
Mr. RuffAdam commented on the video last twelve seconds of UA175 previously linked by me and embedded by Mr. OneSliceShort:
Outstanding video OSS I am adding it to my collection immediately. I am glad a lot of the debunking work has already been done of NPT so I don't have to do it again.
The punchline: When Dr. Fetzer praises Richard Hall's "impeccable ... taking some 56 videos and sorting out the flight path", he is in fact referencing the exact same video. At this point, let's quote Dr. Fetzer back to himself:
[Dr. Fetzer] OBVIOUSLY does not have any idea what he is talking about. Astounding!
My recollection is that the work was not Mr. Hall's and that he makes no claims of ownership. Mr. Hall's value-add is in malframing and dis-interpretting the radar data in order to promote holograms.
More important to the hilarity, the video in question does mortally wound the NPT theory.
And I should know, having been chumped by NPT and championed NPT for four years waiting for something like this to convince me otherwise. A cornerstone of my chumping was the seeming multiple flight paths, hyped by September Clues and its offshoots. When these seeming multiple flight paths are proven to be a singular flight path AND in agreement with two sets of rada data that only ping off of physical objects, not photons from holograms or video manipulation, then the probability of an actual special plane being used starts approaching 1. The impossible speeds and targeting accuracy were only impossible for the alleged aircraft of known model type, not special plane-looking-missiles of a different unknown model type or modification.
Dr. Fetzer writes:
NPT means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
"NPT" [No Plane Theory] means "no planes" and would also exclude Dr. Fetzer's special cloaked plane, as well as special plane-looking-missiles that, after all, look like planes and may even have the infrastructure of a plane.
Correction to the language used by an esteemed former professor of logic and scientific reasoning:
NCPT [No Commercial Plane Theory] means Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower; Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Because I think it is important to document the depth of the purposeful disception, let's look at Dr. Fetzer's August 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm posting:
I AM SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS? ... How do you explain the tracks on the military radar that are parallel to the path of the plane approaching the South Tower, which Richard Hall presents in his fine study? How do you explain that?
This was addressed in my August 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm posting, so a quick summary is merited here.
Rhetorically speaking, the military radar tracks are parallel to what, Dr. Fetzer? They are parallel to the civilian radar tracks, which were proven the same as the tracks in the fine source video referenced by Mr. Hall in his not-so-fine study. Neither the civilian radar nor the military radar record two objects. When the accuracy of each system is taken into consideration, greater uncertainty enters the path for where exactly an aircraft flew. In the case of the military radar, the aircraft could have flown a path (a) that overlaps civilian radar or even to the left of it, (b) that is the data point from military radar that is 1400' to the right of the civilian radar path, or (C) that is 2800' or more to the right of the civilian radar path. See this image:
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg
Let us now mangle Dr. Fetzer's rhetorical question:
{Dr. Fetzer is} SUPPOSED TO BE AN OP {in part} BECAUSE {he proves he doesn't} UNDERSTAND PHYSICS {but mostly because he purposely skews physics to push bullshit.}
I wish to offer my condolenses to Dr. Fetzer for the loss of income that ought to result from losing all credibility that only has a few (non-mutually-exclusive) explanations ranging from early onset of dimentia to being on an agency's payroll. Dr. Fetzer has other outlets for his free-speech, so thankfully maybe his paid-to-post income won't suffer too tremedously from such a pounding to his reputation.
Alas, any additional postings from Dr. Fetzer (and his wingman Mr. Tamborine Man) permitted on T&S will be looked at by me for amusement purposes only.
// a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual
x78 Señor El Once : disinformation techniques and logical fallacies
ruffadam says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:41 am
Objection: Asked and answered.
Furthermore your honor the following disinformation techniques and logical fallacies are being employed in the many statements above by Fetzer.
Cireulus in probando – Cireulus in probando is a specialized and very attractive form of
the petitio principii. It consists of using as evidence a fact which is authenticated by the very conclusion it supports. It is thus arguing in a circle. (I.E. "I didn't do it, sir. Smith minor will vouch for my honesty.' ‘Why should I trust Smith minor?' ‘Oh, I can guarantee his honesty, sir)
Nauseam, argumentum ad – Simple repetition of a point of view does nothing by way of supplying additional evidence or support. Yet it can erode the critical faculty. There is a completely mistaken supposition that a thing is more likely to be true if it is often heard. The argumentum ad nauseam uses constant repetition, often in the face of massive evidence against a contention, to make it more likely to be accepted.
Bifurcation – The presentation of only two alternatives where others exist is called the fallacy of bifurcation. Sometimes known as the ‘black and white' fallacy, it presents an ‘either/or' situation when in reality there is a range of options.
Affirming the consequent – To those who confuse hopelessly the order of horses and carts, affirming the consequent is a fallacy which comes naturally. An occupational hazard of those who engage in conditional arguments, this particular fallacy fails to recognize that there is more than one way of killing a cat.(I.E. "When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously there is a rabid hedgehog about")
Apriorism – Normally we allow facts to be the test of our principles. When we see what the facts are, we can retain or modify our principles. To start out with principles from the first (a priori) and to use them as the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is to do it the wrong
way round. It is to commit the fallacy of apriorism.
Definitional retreat – A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.
(I.E. ‘He's never once been abroad/ ‘As a matter of fact, he has been to Boulogne. ‘ ‘You cannot call visiting Boulogne going abroad!'
Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad – If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer. While an insult itself is not fallacious, it is if made in a way calculated to undermine an opponent's argument, and to encourage an audience to give it less weight than it merits. When this is done, the famous argumentum ad hominem abusive is committed.
Poisoning the well – The most attractive feature of poisoning the well is that the opposition is discredited before they have uttered a single word. At its crudest, the fallacy consists in making unpleasant remarks about anyone who might disagree with a chosen position. When some willing victim steps forward to dispute that position, he only shows that the unpleasant remarks apply to him, (I.E. "Everyone except an idiot knows that not enough money is spent on education".)
The straw man – The straw man of logic does not scare anyone. No self-respecting crow would even rustle a feather at him; he is too easy to knock down. Precisely. The straw man is made incredibly easy to knock down so that when you are unable to refute your opponent's argument, you can topple the straw man instead. The straw man is, in short, a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, created by you for the express purpose of being knocked down.
x79 Señor El Once : appealing to your own authority
Dear Mr. Adam,
Your posting is so well done, that I've saved a copy of it for future reference.
I guess the one disinformation technique that you missed is "appealing to your own authority."
How did I know that your reference posting will come in handy in the future? How did I know that appealing to your own authority was a trick you missed and is soon to be replayed upon us?
From this thread alone, here's some "triggered patterns" that were spouted out of the keyboard of our former Marine Corps officer and professor extraordinar.
August 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I am an authority in the areas of logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning...
I am sorry to be so frank with you, ... but after teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I can spot a mental mediocrity, especially when they are obvious as you. Intellectually and morally speaking, you are the equivalent of white trash.
You would have flunked my courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning...
{mcb: pseudoscience punk sauce from Mr. Rogue to Mr. Ruff.}
x80 Señor El Once : ticks that tock into a boom
Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:
Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.
It isn't that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.
The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980's to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a "two thumbs up!" from them for me to not just put the movie on my "to watch" list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with "nice" people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a negative critic sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.
The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me positive or negative critics [on some subject] were sincere. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and "enjoy" some movie.]
With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.
And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.
Specifically, ticks to them and their agenda might become exposed in an ah-ha moment, sometimes purposely, so that it tocks into a boom to decimates all of their works, the good as well as the purposely bad and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.
Good cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:
Sometimes disinformation is the best source for valid tidbits of information (nuggets of truth). Disinformation by design contains large swaths of truth, otherwise it will not be effective. We must mine, re-fine, and re-purpose those nuggets of truth even after the ticks have tocked to a boom regarding the overall merits of that source, lest we inadvertently play into the hands of (nuggets of) truth suppression.
The ticks of the source of the material should be used to gauge the number of bullshit-filters you apply to the material and how much second-source validation you apply to any extracted nuggets of truth.
Here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
This may or may not be leveled at me. For the sake of discussion, allow me to hijack it by making the ass-umption that I fall into that category. I hope to have (honest) instances where I operated dishonestly pointed out, and I will apologize profusely for my actions in those instances. [If my ass-umption was wrong, then allow me to humbly give my imitation of the Emily Latella (the late Gilde Radner of SNL): "Oooh... Nevermind.]
Skipping over my postings can be the right thing for many participants to consider... [particularly if certain individuals don't want "nookiedoo" getting squished into the waffle treads of their govt-issued black paratrooper boots.]
I would hope that I don't have that "certain personality type" with whom engaging in debate is "futile", because I try to cultivate an open-mind and objectivity in considering that which I haven't before. [In my younger days, I listened to both Punk and Classical. Nowadays it is World Music; if I don't understand the words, I'm more likely to enjoy listening.]
Evidence and science properly applied on 9/11 can get this duped useful idiot to change his opinions.
The ego is NOT our friend and our adversaries know that very well and use it to their advantage to keep us separated as individuals instead of unstoppable as a group.
Agreed. This is why it is best to circle our wagons around what we perceive to be nuggets of truth that we've separated from its original publishing source (e.g., ego) albeit while giving credit where credit is due (for the sake of their ego).
//
x81 Señor El Once : not trusting a single word
RuffAdam wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. ... I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
Gee, in this very thread, maybe we should evaluate one particular source of information.
Until I posted this, he capped this thread with three
October 4, 2012 – 10:06 am
October 4, 2012 – 3:25 pm
October 4, 2012 – 3:42 pm
October 4, 2012 – 4:02 pm
Allow me to repost the second one in its entirety, because it is such a great example of a PR hypnotic suggestion sprinkled with vulgarity:
So now, rather than every single thread here being sprayed with "NPT", "Holograms" & "V-Fakery" – we are now treated to the Rhapsody in DEW, and it's attendant nuclear rantings.
Enough whizz biz, drop the fizz. That is of course unless we are now to believe that the Pentagon was nuked and dewed and screwed by the same jolly green dildo.
Here's another great re-inforcing PR hypnotic suggestion from Lord No-Nookie's third one:
Again, I assert with increasing confidence that this whole "New Wave 9/11? of "NPT" "Video Fakery" "Holograms" "Nukes" and "DEWS" is PSYOPS THEATER. A Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation'.
This is in addition to Lord No-Nookie's attempts at steering the nuclear discussion in another thread and covering for Dr. Jones.
September 28, 2012 – 10:04 am
October 4, 2012 – 10:53 am
October 4, 2012 – 2:16 pm
October 4, 2012 – 2:21 pm
Why is Lord No-Nookie so invested in propping up the work of Dr. Jones?
The work either stands or falls on its own.
Here's the quote from Nietzsche right back at you (and Dr. Jones):
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Gotta love his accusations that I:
... [breeze] through the real empirical data and rational conclusions based on those.
Lord No-Nookie can't seem to handle that my "breezy" review of Dr. Jones' "empirical data and rational conclusions" has Nietzsche nailed how Dr. Jones and his swornsword, Lord No-Nookie, are "defending [no-nookiedoo] deliberately with faulty arguments."
The phrase neutron bomb as being applicable to 9/11 has been dropped before, yet do you think Lord No-Nookie would google it and Wiki it (as I have done in this very paragraph) to find out how it relates to 9/11?
Lord No-Nookie's posting frequency combined with the tenor of his unobjective words might just resemble the "Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation' and PSYOPS THEATER" that he would peg on others. Of the 70 postings to this thread, Lord No-Nookie has 31.4% (while I have only 8.6%). On the other thread at 69 postings as well, Lord No-Nookie has 27.9% (while I'm at 19%).
The [Lord No-Nookie] doth protest too much, methinks.
//
x82 Señor El Once : demand for substantiation of belittling Professor Jones
Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, wrote an unsubstantiated assertion that I demand he substantiate:
Why does this useful idiot make it his crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones?
Ser Rogue should prove it with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links.
Ser Rogue regularly gets his knight's helmut rung to refresh his faulty medium- and long-term memory in the discussions here. I'll wager that the instances of me "belittling" Professor Jones or otherwise attacking him personally -- other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11 -- will turn out to be illusions that slipped into Ser Rogue's thinking relative to me exclusively from the "belittling" and unwarranted personal ad hominem attacks coming from his own keyboard and aimed at me. Do we need look any further than "Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic?" Or how about "Señor El Sashadik" from not all that long ago?
In case any one missed it from much earlier threads, two of the reasons Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, is so knowledgable and eloquent in discussing Bernays and "public relations" treatment into public perceptions (such as what the comments of Truth & Shadows projects) are that his professional career was in visual media industries using his artistic talents and that PR was one of the subjects of his personal study.
Applying what he learned, here is but one example of such a PR hypnotic statement:
It is correct that Jones' information stands on it's merits. It is also correct that his detractors disinformation fails by the demerits.
Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones' information "stands or falls on its own merits." It is the missing "or falls" phrase that disproves the former, because I've legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter.
And I maintain that I accomplished this repeatedly without having to attack or belittle Dr. Jones personally other than speculations on a much larger agenda that would conceivably tap Dr. Jones as a resource, not much different than I do with Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord.
Three (3) falsehood's addressed.
Mr. RuffAdam wrote in another thread:
Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
Speaking of "operating dishonestly," the rest of Ser Rogue's posting "[tries to] stand but falls" on its own (de)merits, needing no further comment from me.
// the bizarre character, Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic
x83 hybridrogue1 : spurious nonsense
hybridrogue1
October 6, 2012 – 6:24 pm
Señor says, that I should prove his attacks on Jones. I need not as he has admitted to references to it thus:
> "other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11…"
. . . . . . . . . . .
This charge is in itself spurious nonsense.
But he continues as follows:
>"Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones' information "stands or falls on its own merits." It is the missing "or falls" phrase that disproves the former, because I've legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter."
. . . . . . . . . .
This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones' work is spurious nonsense as well.
I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used "ad hominems" or "belittled Jones' PERSONALLY "- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones' work.
I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.
I am speaking to his claiming that Jones' first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is "scientific slight of hand",that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply does not grasp the issues spoken to. Any "demerits" the useful idiots has spoken to is from his own fevered imagination.
Señor Idiot's disingenuous combining of my personal studies into Bernays and the topic of propaganda with my career as a special effects artist, is in itself the use of the very same PR tactics he accuses me of using.
Señor claims his engineering teacher advised him to get into law rather than continuing engineering, I think that was bad advice – Señor should have stuck with the Tango.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 6, 2012 – 6:58 pm
I will also mention that Señor's quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.
It is obvious to me that Señor has no ethics nor sense of shame, and will say ANYTHING to win an argument. He is already chugging from Circe's poisoned goblet and will soon turn into a complete pig to be roasted for her feast.
Or perhaps she will keep him alive awhile for entertainment, a tango dancing pig is a pretty funny thing to picture in the minds eye.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 6, 2012 – 9:45 pm
As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…
Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor:
STOP.
It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product' – it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.
Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.
I am sure that Mr McKee will provide you with an article on the topic where you rhetorically tango away to your hearts desire. Until then, let it be digested that you are becoming a fanatical bore with your constant trip of pushing.
\\][//
x84 Señor El Once : operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.
Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, posts three in a row as a clear indication of his hasty "shoot from the hip" ways. Damage control, I suppose, because the details of his threesome try to weasel out of the dishonesty in his attacks on me.
Ser Rogue stated that I had a "crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones." I demanded that he prove this assertion "with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links."
None of his responses had any URLs in them. None of his responses proved anything of a multi-posting "crusade." None of his postings proved anything of the "belittling" language that I might have used on Professor Jones.
So this glaring lie remains at Ser Rogue's feet as but one example of him "operating dishonestly."
My references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public away from a nuclear 9/11 is not a "belittling" remark. Ser Rogue tries to change the playing field by saying: "This charge is in itself spurious nonsense."
The fact of the matter is, a significant portion of a university professor's salary -- particularly those doing scientific research -- is "soft-money" obtained by proposing research projects that someone will fund. That "someone" in most instances -- particularly when the area is nuclear physics -- is the government. Dr. Jones has been beholden to the government for his entire career, such is the level of this "spurious nonsense."
Ser Rogue feebly paries with another dishonest unsubstantiated hypnotic suggestion:
This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones' work is spurious nonsense as well.
Does fifty-five (55) ring a bell? As in Dr. Jones re-defining tritium trace levels to be 55 times greater than they were prior to 9/11. Or how about his 1989 papers that prove that tritium is a by-product of fusion reaction, yet he had no good explanation for any of the tritium on 9/11/2001?
Here's a great gem! Dr. Jones make a big show of having taken his Geiger Counter to the dust samples and measured no radiation. Yet, Dr. Jones knows from his very own research that neutron radiation is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect; a Geiger Counter will not produce results from a Deuterium-Tritium detonation. Scientific slight of hand, no?
Ser Rogue has never been able to defend the logic error in Dr. Jones work that makes my assertion of him steering the movement away from a nuclear event a bit more substantial than "spurious nonsense." Does Dr. Jones no-nukes paper on Tritium ever mention neutron bombs or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)? No.
Ser Rogue also trips over an imaginary garden hose many hundreds (of thousands of) miles long packed with super-duper nano-thermite (NT) that, by rights, Dr. Jones should have laid at his feet to explain how it could possibly explain a single hot-spot. Of course, maybe it could be said that Dr. Jones always advocated NT in conjunction with other materials and recently even states: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)." When Dr. Jones saw NT being extrapolated into explaining 9/11 features that clearly it could not, he should have set the record straight with the science-challenged 9/11 yeomen. He did not. Quite the contrary, he encouraged it.
Ser Rogue tries to weasel out of his lie:
I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used "ad hominems" or "belittled Jones' PERSONALLY "- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones' work.
First of all, Ser Rogue's lie was that I "belittled" Dr. Jones. How can this be accomplished if I didn't call him names or deploy ad hominem? Oh, that's right! It's "the empty boasts... just made above" that I've proven aren't so empty.
Ser Rogue makes this refined accusation without substantiation:
I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.
Your hypnotic PR statement about what "has absolutely no foundation in facts"... well, it has no substantiation. I suggest you google the 1989 or so video with a younger Dr. Steven Jones making comments on behalf of the US govt regarding the merits of Pons and Fleischmann, which appeared to pour cold water on cold fusion for lots of researchers, when in truth with 20/20 hindsight, inspired areas where Dr. Jones continued to research.
Another dishonest technique by Ser Rogue:
I am speaking to his claiming that Jones' first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is "scientific slight of hand",that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply does not grasp the issues spoken to. Any "demerits" the useful idiots has spoken to is from his own fevered imagination.
Notice how Ser Rogue does not go into details about Dr. Jones' "scientific slight of hand," that I was able to mention again in this very posting. Ser Rogue doesn't address why any reader -- not just me -- would come to that conclusion. Instead he attacks me personally and "belittles" me. More evidence of operating dishonestly.
Here's another clever strawman:
I will also mention that Señor's quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.
Obviously, Ser Rogue didn't read the thread, because my first assumption was that Mr. RuffAdam was referring to me [but then he said he wasn't.] Who he was referring to, he has not revealed. Doesn't matter.
My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam's quotation was not to insinuate that Mr. RuffAdam thought that of Ser Rogue. No, no, no.
My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam's quotation was to juxtapose proven examples of Ser Rogue operating dishonestly with the penalties that it should inspire readers to apply, like "not trusting a single word from [Ser Rogue's] mouth... skip right over posts from [Ser Rogue]... engaging in debate [with Ser Rogue] is futile."
As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…
If only Ser Rogue were a man of his word when he makes such promises. More than just a several times, he was "seriously finished with [this] asshole." It has gotten so funny, I'll be inspired one of these days to produce a "best-of Ser Rogue's throwing in the towel and wringing his hands of me."
Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor: STOP.
Ser Rogue admits that it is he who "continues this flaming nonsense." Other than me calling him respectfully "Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord" that comes from his own coinage of "nookiedoo", Ser Rogue will be hard pressed to find instances where I flamed him. What will be found are instances where properly-applied science and analysis of the evidence burn Ser Rogue and where Ser Rogue's own flaming words burn him back.
It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product' –
This sounds like a threat.
Who is Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, to be commanding in all capital letters that I STOP bringing up this particular "product": "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)]?
it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.
No, it is not the exact technique. I'm substantiating "neu nookiedoo". It has properly applied science and analysis of the evidence behind it, and ties many more pieces of the puzzle together than the other conspiracy theories.
It is not in my hands to STOP, but Ser Rogue's. I told Ser Rogue what he had to do. STFU.
He is the one who continues to provide me with opportunities and openings to discuss neu nookiedoo, while bashing him with his own dishonest techniques.
Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.
Ser Rogue should review how neu nookiedoo was legitimately brought into the discussions, and that others created the opportunity. If Ser Rogue would have taken his own advice to STOP or my advice to STFU, it would have been a single lonely posting: a rabbit-hole entrance for lurker readers to explore for nuggets of truth.
As for what is truly being "jammed down our throats," we only need to tabulate Ser Rogue's posting count (like the latest his-3-to-my-1) and correlate that statistic with Ser Rogue's PR tour of hypnotic assertions filled with lies, ad hominem, and other dishonest operations to get neu nookiedoo out of consideration.
The [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.
x85 Señor El Once : sock-puppet and bringing in the dog and putting out the cat
Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
You wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:
Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. ... I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
Operating dishonestly? Hmmm? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category?
You recently wrote to Mr. Rogue regarding his "handling of Mr. Wright":
Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists.
How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue -- "being retired and having little to distract him, as well as having time to pursue these dialogs" -- wasn't the "lone voice", but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides?
It has not been definitively proven but strong speculation of sock-puppetry is on the table due to a family affinity of one partipant to the alias name of another participant.
On the one hand, it might be getting back at the govt modus operandus regarding the best way to control the opposition being to lead it. Turns that one on its head, as a 9/11 Truther (?) controls the argument he thinks the govt would make with his sock-puppet, and then knocks the govt's strawman down.
On the other hand, the suspected sock-puppet antics didn't meet my previous definitions of "dishonest multiple-alias usage", because the aliases were not tag-teaming and manufacturing false solidarity to one-side of a given topic. But they were doing the pincer type attacks that Mr. Rogue was fond of reminding us about.
On the third hand, all good theatrical productions require some form of conflict, otherwise they are just bland interchanges of "me, too" and "roger that." As a rhetorical tool, it serves a purpose. Here, it probably served its purpose.
However, my previous definitions regarding "dishonest alias usage" can be amended. When the sock-puppet could never be a full, complete, well-rounded online entity, because differences and beliefs had to be compartmentalized and manufactured [e.g., ala the MKUltra split in personalities] in order to fire up contention points for debate, then the stiltedness of the sock-puppet's views verging into "brain-dead unobjectivism" becomes just one troubling surface aspect. The sock-puppet's beliefs, not being genuine, means that no satisfactory resolution to a debate will ever be reached, no moment of "either you convinced me, or I convinced you."
The extent of insincere beliefs of a participant must necessarily be questioned for not just the sock-puppet, but also for the participant's other aliases.
But a more troubling contemplation relates to the Thomas Pynchon quote:
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.
If a sock-puppet can get the T&S discussion circling around "pencils piercing mosquito screen doors" and "NORAD response times," ... well... So much for serious questions into validating (or not) my one remaining 9/11 hobby-horse of "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear directed energy weapon].
The paranoid in me sees the online debates of Mr. Wright versus Mr. Rogue -- just two personality splits -- as 9/11 Truther legend-establishing. I found the Mr. Wright-split too "intractable" (today the word becomes "manufactured") easily a month or two before Mr. Rogue's entrance in January 2012, and even counseled Mr. Rogue and others to not engage Mr. Wright.
2012-02-17:
Ooooh! I like it! I never called you [Mr. Rogue] a "provocateur", but I like it. It is exactly what you are doing. [As if I didn't notice how you are trying to crank up a discussion with Mr. A. Wright, who arrived just after Mr. Albury Smith was shown the moderator's door and who already has a reputation here. Not a good sign.]
When you consider how you should handle me henceforth, recognize that you are under no obligation to handle me. It isn't your blog. It isn't your place. [Unless that is your assignment and your agenda.] Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: ignore me. In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther.
I have written my advice regarding Mr. A. Wright elsewhere. In essence, don't waste too many keystrokes on him.
My, how ironic those earlier words look in light of today's revelation.
Mr. RuffAdam wrote here:
If I had any arguments with what you [Mr. Rogue] have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts.
I didn't have any arguments with what Mr. Rogue was writing to "Mr. Wright" either, except for the fact that Mr. Rogue was engaging "him." Correction, as it turns out. Mr. Rogue was engaging "himself."
I've got many references to Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly in other ways, like this one from 2012-10-04 or this one from 2012-10-06.
But this sock-puppetry is in a different league of craftiness. The A-team of the Q-Group, perhaps? Certainly more resemblance to the "Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation' and PSYOPS THEATER" regularly mentioned by Mr. Rogue.
My apologies to you and the lurker-readers for the brain-f++k this twist in players turns out to be.
So much for my hopes of ever convincing Mr. Rogue that I'm not: "a tacky tar-baby, Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter, a chameleon, crackpot, and a real fuckin' asshole."
// "bringing in the dog and putting out the cat"
x86 Señor El Once : plain nuts with substantiation
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff, you write:
OK Senior this post was just plain nuts. You accuse HR1 of using sock puppets but provide no proof to support your accusation which renders the accusation meaningless.
I agree with your "plain nuts" assessment.
With regards to proof to support my accusation that "A.Wright" is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, I was purposely keeping it on the thin side, because there is no call for me to reveal personal information about Mr. Rogue.
As the back-story unfolds, Mr. Rogue was doing a fine job of characterizing me on his home COTO court:
2012-09-29: a tacky tar-baby that sticks to you once you engage it.
2012-10-10: Señor El Once aka The Duped Useful Idiot aka Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter…etc etc is a LIAR.
2012-10-19: a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation
2012-10-20: Señor is a chameleon, either the more expert and subtle agent, or simply the 'duped and useful idiot' he claims to be.
2012-10-21: It could be he is the covert agent.
2012-10-21: Whatever the answer is, agent or crackpot, one thing is certain, he’s a real fuckin’ asshole.
He chummed the waters with plenty of bait to lure me over there. As part of my entrance and introduction to my exit on October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm, I made the following observation:
Here’s a coincidence. To get the gift of a book delivered, the option chosen by the eager reader was to provide a mailing address, as opposed to ordering & paying on his own and then being re-imbursed through PayPal. Although not requested, the gift-receiver also gave a contact telephone number in the event issues in the delivery should arise. Recently when pretending to be an agent, a reverse look-up was performed on the lingering telephone number. No surprise that the physical address of the telephone number matched where the book was ordered to be sent. The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: “A.Wright”. Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.
In case that is too cryptic for you, the book in question is Dr. Wood's, and the gift-receiver was a thankful Mr. Rogue who since that time has been getting regular bloody noses from that very same book snapping shut on it in lieu of him mining the book for nuggets of truth: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In order to receive the book, he had to supply the shipping address, but gave the telephone number at his on volition in case delivery problems arose. [And it isn't as if I tricked him into giving me any personal information, because he passed on on another option that did not require me learning anything about him.]
It should be noted that I did not mention a first name or any gender distinctions. At the onset, Mr. Rogue connects some dots {with my editing} on October 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm:
So, yea my mom’s name is {... edit ...} Wright, having married a Wright, ...
He doesn't mention the middle initial that she uses, but if it were anything other than "A", I would have had nothing to tweak Mr. Rogue about, period. [Ironically, my own pen-name also reflects familial under-pinnings of a very similar nature, so I can say with certainty that such "unoriginality" and reliance on "the familiar" is quite common in online personas.]
And then all hell broke loose on three fronts: this thread, that COTO thread, and an old T&S DEW thread authored by me. Just the eifer in the fast pace of Mr. Rogue's distracting responses to build distance is of note. Oh that's right! I did note it, if you follow the link and can follow the interruptions to my righting that Mr. Rogue necessitated.
It is worthwhile to read the nested postings at the DEW article, despite its "plain nuts" organization. Why? Because within 12 hours of me posting my reply on COTO urging caution, that posting and a few from the COTO crew (including Mr. Rogue) were removed. The COTO postings were removed before their re-purposed verbiage saw the light of day under the DEW article, due to posting delays through Mr. McKee and despite their T&S datestamp. However, the T&S posting did take six attempts that involved shutting down browsers before it would take, in addition to waiting for Mr. McKee overnight.
The nature of the hell breaking loose is worthy of study.
Mr. Adam Ruff writes the challenge:
Next you accuse HR1 of operating dishonestly but provide no specifics as to what he said or did that was dishonest.
Obviously, my postings fit into the category of those you skip over [and I don't blame you.] "Beancounter" that I have been accused of being, I have about 11 months of on-line debate material that I can quickly reference to specific comments under various articles on T&S to prove instance after instance [but not all at once, mostly whenever Mr. Rogue was on the ropes] of "Mr. Rogue's operating dishonestly" in his debates against me. I spare this forum such tedium today, and it doesn't take much googling to find. I'm sure that Mr. McKee or Mr. Rogue will vouch for my abilities in this realm (if your own googling doesn't), in lieu of me distracting this thread with such busy-work.
You only provide links to posts but make no mention of what in them is dishonest. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what specifically you find to be dishonest? I cannot read minds nor do I want to spend what little time I have trying to figure out your logic.
I never asked you to read minds; sorry if I left that impression. The links took you to the culmination of a couple bouts with Mr. Rogue and explain what just went on there at that time. Aside from following the links, I expected that if curious, you would be able to scroll (up) for context to verify (or not) my assessment of those situations.
To spell out but one of the links, this October 7, 2012 posting of mine under "And then there was one..." is the culmination of a Rogue bout where he accused me of being on "a crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones." Again, you can read it on your own and scroll up within the thread to get more context. The crusade wasn't, neither were the attack or belittling of Dr. Jones; they were Mr. Rogue lying. Discussing the weaknesses in Dr. Jones work is and has been fair game for critique, which is where I've held myself pretty close to that line.
Let's take a brief detour in the sudden appearance of A.Wright and your reaction:
I notice you choose not to reply to the post above of (October 25, 2012 – 12:03 am) where I discuss your straw man tactics and how you attempted to discredit Barrie Zwicker by misquoting him. So do you plan to just pretend the post is not there or will there be a meaningful response forthcoming? I will not risk holding my breath for your response because something tells me I will be waiting quite a while.
Misquoting me is something that Mr. Rogue has regularly deployed as a dishonest tactic, as were copious amounts of straw man tactics. You do the math and figure out what sort of a response you could expect from a potential sock-puppet whose puppet-master is tripping on the ropes of his own games and damage control.
The significance of the three other quotes from me (02-17, 05-17, 9-24) were my assessment of A.Wright based on experiences in late 2011. I could sense that he wasn't genuine, so I stopped engaging him seriously except on occassion for sport, and I was advising others (especially Mr. Rogue) to stop feeding the troll.
At this juncture, neither have offered a simple:
"By jove, that is a fine coincidence worthy of our amusement that Mr. Rogue -- in a Freudian manner -- would regularly get it on with another straw man peddler "A.Wright" having overlapping initials and last name as Mr. Rogue's dear old mum. But coincidence is all it is, I'm afraid. I am not he, neither is he I. Sorry, old chap. Tally hoe."
Mr. Adam Ruff assesses:
So, in conclusion, from my perspective you Senior are the one acting improperly.
Maybe in light of the evidence and how its validity can affect the very carousel that you wish to start with "A.Wright", you'll reconsider this hasty judgment against me. I just saved you lots of time.
//
x87 Señor El Once : "like" or "don't like"
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
The loss of your readership will be mourned. Before you go, let's clear up a misunderstanding. You wrote:
I am not interested in your opinion of HR1 nor am I interested in your off topic screeds related to him.
The postings here were not about my opinions of Mr. Rogue. They were trying to solicit your opinion. After all, you wrote the words on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:
I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before.
On October 25, 2012 – 12:34 am you go on to slap Mr. Rogue on the back:
Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists. If I had any arguments with what you have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts. Keep up the good work, I and others are listening and occasionally, as time permits, contributing to these discussions.
My questions to you were:
How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue ... wasn’t the "lone voice", but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category [of operating dishonestly]?
At other online venues, they consider sock-puppets a banning-worthy offense, although they also tend to have a low thresh-hold for labeling things "sock-puppets", lumping into that any return to the forum under a new alias, particularly if the previous one was banned.
Don't let me put words into your mouth, and don't miscontrue this line of questioning to indicate that I want Mr. Rogue banned. I don't.
I want his words to be "distrusted until validated (or not)"... which is the same thing I want for my words, except that should my words be invalidated, I would like to know about it so that I could amend my thinking.
Mr. Rogue has tried and tried to invalidate my words and the neu nookiedoo hobby-horse that I ride. But owing to a pattern of operating dishonestly [which now includes his A.Wright sock-puppet] coupled with a "genius artist's" ego who won't be schooled, the discredit sought for me falls at his feet.
I just find it so remarkable that no matter what the topic is that there always seems to be at least one person set on disrupting it.
Well, if I am that person, it is a damn good thing that I make my postings so long but easy to skip over and ignore.
Also, it should be pointed out the discussion on the topic of this thread had pretty much already petered out. Mr. Rogue's October 25, 2012 – 8:33 pm posting already started a detour.
I posted here, because I knew you were still acive in the discussion -- as you awaited the response from the A.Wright sock puppet.
I get it, you don’t like him, no more needs to be said.
Evidently, you do not get it. It has little to do with "like" or "don't like". [I guess I am forced to admit that I "like" him, because out of necessity he forces me to make better arguments.]
It has to do with integrity and reliability of someone's words. Even before a sock-puppet gets pegged to Mr. Rogue, he has had his issues in the "operating honestly" department... more so against me (and taboo neu nookiedoo) than anyone else, where his postings resemble legend-establishing, even his battles with A.Wright and Dr. Fetzer.
When someone makes a convincing case based on sound science properly applied to all of the evidence, I'll the first to change my tune while also apologizing for having led others astray: integrity and reliability after a course correction.
Whereas Mr. Rogue regularly tries to turn the tables to question the validity of my words and 9/11 beliefs (neu nookiedoo), he has been less than convincing because his alternatives have more issues addressing all of the evidence than mine. Rather than acknowledging the issues, he ignores them and then ultimately repeats his views with nary a vector change. It isn't just that he trudges on, he does so while screaming invectives in post-after-post and promptly trips over a very long imaginary garden hose to make his fall complete.
I didn't ask for a telephone number; I didn't plan for a curious moment months later to run it through reverse-lookup. [Divine intervention, I suppose.] I think Mr. Rogue's reaction is much more revealing than "the coincidence" itself. And the much larger test of his integrity that brought a telephone number into my possession, he fails. Namely, his objective chapter-by-chapter review of Dr. Wood's textbook. He had three categories -- good, bad, and ugly -- with which to classify the nuggets. Bad and ugly, although buried, are easy, yet he don't go there. It is the "good" that Mr. Rogue struggles with acknowledging, and shoots his integrity to hell.
x88 ruffadam : Ignored and unread
2012-10-30
ruffadam
October 30, 2012 at 3:28 am
Ignored and unread Senior.
x89 Señor El Once : you ignored it not
2012-10-30
October 30, 2012 at 10:51 am
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Unread? I can believe. But I duly note here how you ignored it not. I trust in the future that you will demonstrate more integrity by being more efficient in your ignoring efforts.
//
x90 ruffadam : remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing
2012-11-17
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 do not want to hijack this thread however and so I will not do so here. Suffice it to say that I agree with both Mr. McKee and HR1 on some aspects of what they each had to say about Ventura and his embrace of Judy Wood. On the one hand I have to say I was VERY dissapointed that Jesse did this last episode and gave time to Wood to express her misinformation (possibly disinformation). I cannot deny that I have lost much of my respect for Ventura because of this incident and incidentally for his ill treatment of David Icke. No I do not endorse Icke’s reptillian theories. On the other hand I agree that we should not toss Ventura aside just because he did get caught up in some clever misinformation. We cannot do that while at the same time not doing our part to detail the issues with Wood’s theories.
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? If so simply request from Craig my e-mail address which I hereby authorize him to give you both. I have some debunks in my memory that are not in print anywhere to my knowledge which I think should be put out again. Anyway let me know if either of you are interested. I will do it myself as best I can if you are both busy but I know it will be much better if you both participate. Perhaps after this we can knock out a few other bogus theories too.
x91 Señor El Once : multiple interpretations of what "DEW weaponry"
{ 2nd attempt: 2012-11-18.}
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
My quip about "closed-minded thinking" was aimed at the 9/11TM & public in general [and maybe at others for their stubbornness with regards to "nuggets of truth"], not you specifically. My apologies if it gave unintended offense.
I have no immediate plans on listening to Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura on the subjects of Dr. Wood, DEW, nukes, and whatnot. I agree with the assessments made by others, that these two are showmen. They say and promote things for other reasons, like the shock value to draw audiences: to get eyeballs on the advertizing. I do not have a lot of faith in the depth of their scientific understanding. But please do not let my assessment take away from their important PR role of attracting a wider public audience and getting the public thinking about things outside-the-box.
You hit the nail on the head with:
The problem I have is there apparently are multiple interpretations of what "DEW weaponry" actually is and what the evidence for each of these hypotheses actually is and what we should be looking out for.
It isn't just DEW but also "nuclear weaponry" where multiple interpretations frame the phrase differently and introduce scope misunderstandings, and it is usually in a manner to make nuclear 9/11 seem ridiculous rather than plausible.
You gave a summary of the program with:
Jones brings up "mini nukes" and Ventura emphatically says "no" but insists that Woods' work entails "microwave" technology.
This illustrates my point. They are both partly right, but when they exclude or dismiss each other's points, they both become wrong, because it means they have not grasped the true wider boundaries of nuclear and direct energy weapon themes.
We have to divest ourselves of the notion of all DEW being laser-beams emitted by some apparatus, like how the active denial system works and missiles are zapped from the sky. Likewise, we have to divest ourselves from the notion that all nuclear weapons go boom with massive shock & heat waves and have the exact same radiation signatures for what is emitted and what lingers.
Look up ERW (enhanced radiation weapons) which includes neutron bomb.
A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon. They have X-ray mirrors and radiation case made of chromium or nickel that allow the neutrons to escape. The mirrors are what help steer the energy is useful directions. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.
To see the progression of weapons technology, look up (1) Davey Crocket (1960) and its small tactical size. (2) Big Ivan (1961), the largest nuclear detonation ever: it directed its energy upwards, and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation. (3) Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980's.
Dr. Wood's textbook does have disinformation in it, like how it does not consider nuclear themes very well. But it has a wealth of evidence and nuggets of truth that, in the game of 9/11 Tetris, can be ordered to fit the other theories' stacks with fewer gaps. After all, ERW is a type of DEW.
I also recommend studying Jeff Prager's work. His larger eMagazine have a few hundred pages and seem pretty slick: Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. I have not read these cover-to-cover and word-for-word to know whether or not it has disinformation. But I have read enough to mine nuggets of truth, particularly from his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], and they help solidify my beliefs in a nuclear 9/11.
Mr. RuffAdam has invited Mr. Rogue and you to collaborate on a "decisive debunk of DEW thoeries." He wrote:
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.
Make sure that Mr. RuffAdam isn't too quick to sweep away nuggets of truth buried in Dr. Wood's work that scream for re-purposing. Also, a forewarning is that crafty Dr. Wood does not offer many theories into definitive causes or methods; what she does is plant evidence in plain sight and hint of other mechanisms, the importance being to get people to think outside-the-box. In my estimation Dr. Wood gets it wrong by not adequately addressing the nuclear theme and by inserting disinformation (e.g., her hot-spot chapters.) I'll spare you having me list other deficient areas in Dr. Wood's work that I've discovered. I am glad that at least one of you (Mr. Rogue) has Dr. Wood's textbook; perhaps he will loan his copy out or pay-it-forward in partial fulfillment of conditions that will "get a monkey off his back."
One area where Dr. Wood gets it right is in talking about the disassociation of matter when describing the pulverization of the towers. I connect this with "neu nookiedoo." Given that multiple ERW are technically DEW devices, I will be most curious how a "decisive debunk of DEW thoeries" by the collaboration will be successful. I hope it doesn't play word games with overly big brooms to sweep too much into the dustbin.
//
x92 ruffadam : I almost always skip SEO’s
2013-03-06
ruffadam
March 6, 2013 at 7:22 am
Tamborine man – HR1 posts I read, yours I almost always skip along with SEO’s. HR1 is an MVP around here so please do not ever speak for the rest of us when you declare who is and is not welcome here. Your posts more often than not trail off the topic into ancient Voodoo mystical riddles or channeled messages from the alien entity Tarlack from Alpha Centari so please spare me the BS where you presume to speak for the membership of this blog. You do not.
x93 ruffadam : an agent is you SEO
2013-03-07
March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am
The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.
Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially “dissapeared” thus the title of her book “Where did the towers go?”
Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas. Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.
JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.
SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well 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.
If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is “missing”. She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can’t do that can she? You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!
If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.
x94 Señor El Once : Where's the chapter-by-chapter debunking?
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Proving yourself a liar, too, because you said you didn't read my postings and that they didn't merit responses. Whatever. I won't make hay on your backpeddling and will do you the favor of a serious response. You wrote:
The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.
Agreed. The foundation of all disinformation is a copious amount of truth. "Nuggets of Truth", I called them. If you don't take the effort to sift the disinformation from the nuggets of truth, then you are playing right into the hands of disinformation.
Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially "dissapeared" thus the title of her book "Where did the towers go?"
If you want to frame it that way, so be it.
Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas.
You overstate your case if you think this is "her entire foundation". Reeks to me as if you don't have her book, nor have you read it.
Be that as it may, I'll grant you your point, for indeed she does not qualify the amount of material left behind. And she has another grave error in pointing to the "spire" as an example of dustification when other view points of that expiring spire clearly show it falling over. She's made gross mistakes in her analysis that she never corrected going from the website to the book; she never addressed the valid criticism of her work (website) nor any of the valid ideas of others (e.g., the Anonymous Physicist).
Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.
Because I'm not defending 100% of Dr. Wood's work, I'll grant you the validity of this criticism as well.
But what you are failing to note is that she rightfully points to the energy requirements needed to produce that dust. Obviously gravity didn't do it, but not so obviously is that chemical explosives could ~not~ have done it either ~WHILE~ also addressing the observed outcomes of under-rubble hot-spots and a very short logistics period when bomb-sniffing dogs took several pre-9/11 holidays. Occam Razor says it wasn't conventional bombs, period.
JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.
Again, the above appears to be written by your lofty position of not having her book nor having read it. Her book actually makes few predictions or statements of cause-and-effect. If anything, she throws lots of ideas out but does not definitively connect them together under one grand theory.
If you had any scientific background, you would not be writing so ignorantly: "[The buildings] fell to the ground after they were blown up." What blew them up? How much would it take? How loud would that be? The fact of the matter is, the buildings were pulverized in such a spectacular manner that defied historic trends in conventional explosives and controlled demolition, such simplistic reasoning doesn't cut it.
For all of the faults in Dr. Wood's textbook and website that I will readily concede, she is still right on the money to call our attention to the manner in which the buildings were decimated. And Dr. Jones led us astray.
SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well...
Prove it. Where am I wrong?
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
... 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.
This is just plain ignorant, Mr. Ruff. If you want to debunk Dr. Wood, it has to be done chapter-by-chapter, if not page-by-page. Why? Because it is not all bad and the nuggets of truth have to be preserved. Because there is not a single (highly) public member of the 9/11 Truth Movement who doesn't have skeletons in their closet, who doesn't have purposeful disinformation mixed in with truth, who isn't knowingly peddling incomplete truths.
If you aren't willing to get your hands dirty and sift the truth from the error, then you are no adherent to truth; you're just another disinfo agent trying to steer us away from considering the true mechanisms of destruction.
What are you afraid of in Dr. Wood's book, Mr. Ruff? Afraid you might find something that is actually valid yet doesn't fit the paradigm of what the other 9/11 PR hacks are promoting? Afraid it will jar your understanding and take it into new realms?
If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is "missing". She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can't do that can she?
Now replace "Dr. Judy Wood" with "Dr. Steven Jones" in your paragraph above. Seems to me that he is "missing" such calculations as well.
You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!
Where's your chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where's Dr. Jones' chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where's the 9/11 Truth Movement's chapter-by-chapter debunking? Doesn't it seem strange to you that ignorant people such as yourself get on their soap-boxes and decry things as disinformation from hearsay alone and without the benefit of specifics?
I'll be happy to provide you specifics of where Dr. Wood got it wrong -- and there are lots -- but it will be at the expense of also acknowledging what is right and deserves some attention.
It isn't that I'm propping her up as being the whole story. I'm propping up her as providing important pieces to the story that you ignore... Hell, you haven't even read her book, so how objective are you really?
If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.
Mr. Ruff, first of all, I'm still betting money that Mr. Rogue was lying to us when he said he used it to line his bird cage. Keep that in mind as but one example of his character, someone willing to pass little lies as truth.
Secondly, her book is proving to be an excellent test of one's integrity and objectivity that Mr. Rogue has spectacularly failed, and you are failing as well. You are obviously afraid of the VALID evidence that will turn up.
If you don't have the smarts or courage to reach into the jaws of the disinformation source and snag the nuggets of truth, then you are no friend of truth. Nope, you become a pawn of the disinformation.
It'll never be about proving Dr. Wood's work 100% correct (or even 50%), because I don't even do that. It is about the collected evidence, which any objective review of her efforts ~has~ to readily acknowledge and address. I grab what is valid and move on.
Dr. Wood was correct that directed energy weapons were involved. Among her failings was giving short-shrift to the nuclear evidence (e.g., hot-spots, etc.) and any intelligent review of the nuclear means that could accomplish it.
A gross omission by Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones is consideration of neutron bombs and how they could be configured as tactical nuclear weapons that don't take out entire city blocks and don't pollute the detonation point for centuries to come with radiation.
Get with the program, Mr. Ruff. If you think I've been promoting Dr. Wood because you think I believe she doesn't have disinformation, you haven't been reading what I've been writing. You're just going off half-cocked and making things up, maybe because strawmen are easier to knock down than truth.
And as a final point, you better throw some grains of salt into your unwavering support of Mr. Rogue, because he doesn't merit it. The instances of him lying and cheating in this very thread are pretty obvious. The saying goes that you have to be faithful in the small things before you are worthy of being entrusted with the bigger things. Mr. Rogue fails that test, and your attitude has you about to make the same mistakes. Grow-up.
P.S. I'm so confident that Mr. Rogue was "lying about the small things" when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood's book to line his bird's cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to "get the monkey off of his back" that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective good, bad, and ugly review. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.
//
x95 ruffadam : decline your bait SEO
2013-03-07
March 7, 2013 at 11:29 pm
I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page. I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for “nuggets of truth” in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.
By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods “where did the towers go” meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD’s have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!
Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out “nuggets of truth” from her garbage pile. Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.
x96 Señor El Once : Most Vocal Participant
{Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
Dear Mr. Ruff,
You want to bestow the MVP title onto Mr. Rogue. That will only be true if MVP equals Most Vocal Participant. Mr. Rogue is proven to have no integrity and gets by through cheating and even lies when he has to. Just yesterday, he lied twice about what words were attributable to me versus him.
A more deserving recepient of the MVP award is Mr. OneSliceShort.
You wrote:
I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page.
I love your backhanded "declination of my bait" as the lead-in to nibbling on it.
You misjudge the assignment. You don't have to waste a single second debunking Dr. Wood page-by-page.
What is required of you is to have the cajones to acknowledge nuggets of truth, however few and far between they may be spaced, in Dr. Wood's work. Working towards this goal will get the 9/11 Truth Movement much farther along than any thrash-and-burn debunking effort.
In a moment you'll have you're first assignment, but first, here's a lovely quote from you:
I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for "nuggets of truth" in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.
I defy you to find a single high-profile PR wonk in the 9/11 Truth Movement whose "foundation ~isn't~ cracked and broken." Just because someone hasn't been exposed to you (or your satisfaction) as a "charletans" doesn't mean that they aren't. Dr. Jones is no exception.
Your brain-dead defense of Dr. Jones proves you haven't read what I wrote about him. Give it another try:
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
Tell me where I error.
Meanwhile, you write from your ignorance:
By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods "where did the towers go" meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD's have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!
Whereas controlled demolition using essentially chemical explosives could account for the dust clouds, it cannot account for:
- the damage to 1400 vehicles, some at a considerable distance.
- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/image/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg
- Multiple pieces bent
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg
- Horseshoe Beam
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg
Kindly have Dr. Jones explain the configuration of super-duper nano-thermite (e.g., where it was attached, how close was it to the depicted beams, etc.) that would result in the above images, compliments of Dr. Judy Wood's image collection. Don't get me wrong; Dr. Wood's analysis of these beams is whacked out. (I say that one of several neutron nuclear DEW devices achieved this.) The point is that the evidence is there, can't be ignored just because it sits inside of a "disinformation vehicle", and all theories-du-jour must address all pieces of evidence in order to be considered complete and valid.
Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out "nuggets of truth" from her garbage. pile.
And which garbage pile are you going to go digging in to get "nuggets of truth?" You're starting to sound "pretty ignorance and closed-minded" there, Mr. Ruff, you are.
Please enlighten me as to the perfect source or repository of 9/11 Wisdom & Understanding that, as but one example, addressed the lucky horseshoe beams linked above? [Busy work warning: that is a fool's errand, because control of the 9/11 message is so complete, there isn't a single, reliable source.] But because you believe, cough it up. Prove me wrong, hombre.
Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.
Shit, then I guess the proven instances in this very thread of cheating and lying ought to have you snatching back the MVP crown that you want to nail to Mr. Rogue's head.
It is easy for you to dismiss sources of (dis)information for x-number of instances of proven bull-shit. But that's not really how it should work (unless you want to admit to being duped and playing right into the hand of disinformation.) Nope, when the (dis)information source is proven tainted, the appropriate response is to flag the instances of such and to then have initial, healthy distrust of all further (dis)information from that source, but all the while given each nugget its due consideration and not throwing those babies out with the bathwater.
Try again.
Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue wrote:
I find it most curious, that it is suggested that I have some sort of "obligations" as per this piece of junk book by Judy Wood. No such obligation exists.
This is Mr. Rogue demonstrating what a cheat he is, not living up to his part of the bargain and deceitfully trying to change the terms of the agreement in a one-sided fashion midstream. No dice.
Pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were two options given but with the caveat that they happen after an objective "good, bad, and ugly" review.
At this point, Mr. Ruff, you lay your cards squarely down in the "ignoramous camp" that says "we don't need to read no stinkin' books and we don't need to crack no stinkin' covers in order to pass our holy judgment of the (de)merits of the entire work."
*Clap* *clap* *clap*
I didn't think it was possible for a worthy participant to expose himself as an ignorant red-neck hill-billy for your close-minded attitude, but evidently Mr. Rogue is your hero, too, and your role-model for action in this forum.
I was contemplating the option of relieving Mr. Rogue of his obligation were he to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along to you, but you out yourself as far less than open-minded or objective. Doesn't really matter; important nuggets of truth were cherry-picked from Dr. Wood's work and are a published in this very comment in the form of the links to the horseshoe images. Explain.
Oh, and take your time, Mr. Ruff. Late next week I'm leaving on vacation and may have limited access to the internet for over a week.
//
x97 ruffadam : I skipped right past SEO’s posts
2013-03-09
March 9, 2013 at 8:26 am
For the record I skipped right past SEO’s and TM’s most recent posts and will not be reading them at all. I will henceforth treat Judy Wood supporters, nuke supporters, video fakery supporters, and hollogram supporters the way I treat the Mormon missionaries that come to my door now and then. In other words I am not going to answer the door.
x98 Señor El Once : shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot
Bravo, Mr. RuffAdam! Bravo!
Way to go and shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot with that excellent exposition of Amerikana Ignorance and burying your head in the sand!
I don't blame Mr. Ruff for not doing any legwork to substantiate or debunk the hypothesis that I champion, which involve Dr. Wood and nukes, because that can be a time suck.
But to admit skipping right passed my postings, not reading them, and with a promise never to read them, why that takes the cake in setting new standards about what constitutes intelligent & rational debate. A "belief" in what caused the WTC destruction that is so iron-clad and foolproof, it can't stand having inconvenient evidence and analysis presented that would ruffle feathers.
"Ignorance is Strength."
If Mr. Ruff is inclined to give his MVP a hand or even a vote of moral support, he does him (or this forum) no favors.
//
x99 Adam_Ruff : exposing charlatans, fraudsters, liars, and provocateurs
2013-07-20
Adam_Ruff
July 20, 2013 at 11:59 am
Yeah I have to say that is really rich! Take this to the government, the government which did it and is actively attempting to cover it up? What a joke. Seriously did you even think before you wrote that?
By the way I called out Honegger and Deets long before this article was written and I don’t buy into their BS at all. So please don’t lump us here in with fledgling truthers who may still be listening to disinformationists and not realize what they are.
We here are in the business of exposing charlatans, fraudsters, liars, and provocateurs. We have done the best we can towards that goal. We have not “won” the entire battle yet, that is true, but what have you done towards victory? Who are you? What is your real name? What is your plan for ultimate victory and why haven’t you achieved it yet?
Bashing us for the actions/non-actions of others is out of line. Many of us here have done many many things towards truth and justice for 9/11 and other false flags and I will bet you we have individually each done more than you have. Let me know if I am wrong and when you find the courage to do so sign your real name to your comments huh?
x100 Señor El Once : Who are you? What is your real name?
Dear Mr. A. Ruff,
In "The Dark Knight Rises" movie, Batman gives some advice to the Police Officer (an orphan with middle name "Robin") that "the hero dons the mask not to protect himself but to protect those he cares about."
It is important that an author stand behind their words and be willing to defend those words, to admit error or uncertainty, and to change opinions, when new information necessitates such. This proves how genuine the person is. "Standing behind your words" can be accomplished in many ways, such as consistency in alias-usage forum-to-forum, a "home court" to consolidate words, or a revealing of identities at a time and choosing of the author (e.g., to a select audience.)
You charged Mr. Broken Record:
Who are you? What is your real name?
I find this line of attack distasteful and immaterial, despite having sympathy with the other points in your cranky posting.
Integrity ought to be exhibited in the comments that participants make. When it isn't, readers note it.
ECHELON and PRISM, and Google/Facebook/WordPress/YouTube's single-login and tying together of aliases with IP addresses with street addresses with individuals and credit histories, assures us that our "permanent digital record" has detailed reading for those with a badge and a need to know. No sense making it easier.
Meanwhile, given the vast distances over which the internet serves, it isn't as if knowing a real name will enable you to drive across town to punch someone in the nose for their disingenuous views. And on the flip-side, only those who are independently wealthy, retired, or otherwise out of the workforce (e.g., for physical reasons) [and have no spouses or relations in the workforce] can have some degree of freedom in voicing their views under their real name without blow-back from "Google Background Checks" on their next employment search.
//
x101 Señor El Once : little bit loose with the "troll" word
{2nd Attempt}
Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
This is not a defense of Mr. A.Wright, who appears to have been involved with torture. How else could he have known of a successful trial substitution for waterboarding? 2013-07-21:
@Hybridrogue1: I didn't realize you were passing on your title of resident crank... I'm honored. I'd better brush up on the old Hegelian Dialectics and start some interminable discourse with El Senor Once, the reading of which to interrogation subjects has been successfully trialled as a viable substitute for waterboarding.
Other parallelisms occur to me when I read your charges against Mr. A.Wright:
If A.Wright refuses to answer all questions and fails to respond to critics points then he is not following the rules of this or any discussion forum. He evades or ignores when he should by all rights be required to respond yet he is still given latitude to question and badger others. ... Any debate rules you care to look at require opponents to address the topic at hand AND respond to each others statements and rebuttals. Failure to do so means YOU LOSE the debate. Failure to respond effectively with a substantial counter argument means YOU LOSE the debate.
On another thread and another topic near and dear to my one-trick-pony hobby-horse, which goes by the name of "Neu Nookiedoo", you were guilty of the same offenses. You even made a big deal out of not reading and ignoring my comments instead of just ignoring them, particularly when they had you cornered with respect to ~not~ doing your due diligence on "the good, the bad, & the ugly" in the work of Dr. Judy Wood that would demonstrate an open-mind. The higher calling to which you subscribe your 9/11 Truth endeavors dictates that "the good" nuggets of truth be preserved, cherished, and re-purposed... even from disinfo sources.
My hobby-horse ain't yours, so we can let mention of that nuclear topic slide by without further adieu. What persists from that example?
A little bit loose with the "troll" word you have been. Be careful of what you wish for.
Triple-W was chided in the past for engaging Mr. A.Wright, particularly when the engagement so quickly devolved into off-topic flames. Be careful that you don't become entwined as one of the pincers in his "old Hegelian Dialectics" that derails this discussion.
WITH REGARDS TO THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION
Mr. B. Record on 2013-07-22 tries to plant the seeds of discouragement and futility in searching for the Truth of 9/11.
Well where have all the debates and discussions gotten ya so far? ... So everyone in the gov't is bad and there is no hope of taking the evidence to gov't officials so your solution is to just discuss/debate the evidence with other truthers and infiltrators ad nauseum? I'm sure the next answer will be that we need to raise awareness with people so that they will do something, right? And what are they supposed to do after they are made aware? Tell other people? How has that worked so far?
The purpose of "blah-blah-blah" in this forum and at any conference on the 9/11 topic is to raise awareness to a critical point where distributed and massive action can make a change.
As Mr. B. Record hints, the solution is not to take our gripe to the bad government. No, the solution is to re-make government... in order "to form a more perfect Union", given that the present one isn't anything other than an oligarchy.
As was so aptly quoted by Triple-W:
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~R. Buckminster Fuller
Because I don't want to sully this comments section with more instances of "viable substitutions for waterboarding" and because this comment is nested under a thread where the following is relevant and applicable, I'll append something written earlier but not posted.
++++++
Agreed, NSA and Echelon continue to grow our digital dossiers, and "[t]here is no making it easier than it already is" in terms of them knowing who we are, assuming that the wealth of data collected on everyone can be filtered down and have our names pop-up in their search results (top-1000) as "persons of interest" today, tomorrow, or whenever.
I'm not worried about "them", because they have to prioritize and I can't fathom how I'd make the cut. They also have some rules (albeit many are written on the fly) to guide their actions. But when & if that fateful moment arrives, the juggernaut will be so massive, so consuming, so pervassive, I won't be able to fight it. I'll be caught in a net like thousands of other minnows. It'll roll over me and squash me into nothingness like so many others.
Meanwhile, what I worry about are those who operate without rules; those on the fringed; those whose blinding patriotism -- not to the Constitution but to corrupt government institutions or military-esque brotherhoods -- misguides them; those who take matters into their own hands.
By accident or on purpose, their lack of morals and ethics might lead them like a Middle Schooler into doing unethical things on-line from a distance just to tweak with someone for fun, or to really mess with them. I'm talking ~not~ about hacking that could screw with email or deplete banking accounts (but they are to be considered); I am talking about the low-hanging fruit of the Google-lingering effects of tarnishing another individual's reputation on-line... Oh how easy it is to smear and libel another "on the internets" from the safety of a keyboard.
Mr. McKee [who knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman] can attest to how such a gambit was played out against my Bruce Wayne on "Screw Loose Change" without me participating there or even being aware of it until late... but not beyond the statute of limitations for taking the culprits to court for criminal libel. [Alas, victory in court does not equate to actual collection of judgment, let alone legal fees. And the efforts to get justice would have a blow-back tarnishing effect on "name" and "reputation" in the meantime.]
//
x102 Señor El Once : What are you deluded by?
Mr. RuffAdam, Mr. Syed, and the Triple-Dubya have given great (if snippy) responses to Mr. B. Record. (I offer my respect to RuffAdam and Mr. Syed for their activism.) It turns out that Mr. Paul Craig Roberts has also done the same from another angle.
Before I offer up Mr. Roberts views, allow me to address something that Mr. B. Record wrote:
So how did it work out when everyone took 9/11 truth to "the people of the world"? ... I just see all of this as delusion and zero direction.
And what are you deluded by? The under-current of your several postings has been "why bother with anything? 9/11 was in the past. Informing citizenry doesn't work. Nothing to do. Let's sit on our thumbs and let the political currents sweep us away and drown us. No sense paddling or swimming against the stream. All is hopeless. Nothing can be done." And in copping this attitude, you play right into the role that the powers that be (PTB) have for everyone: Do nothing, because nothing can be done. Watch your "Merika's Got Talent" and tune out to considering anything that you could do personally to change matters.
+++++
Here's some brief exerpts from Role Reversal: How the US Became the USSR by Paul Craig Roberts {with my comments in curly braces}:
In Washington politicians of both parties demand that Snowden be captured and executed. Politicians demand that Russia be punished for not violating international law, seizing Snowden, and turning him over to Washington to be tortured and executed, despite the fact that Washington has no extradition treaty with Russia.
{And despite the fact that Snowden hasn't had a trial by a jury of his peers, maybe because Jury Nullification is a very real danger for the PTB (powers that be). "Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict." In doing so, they set legal precedence that can be far reaching. Remember this for when you or those you know are called to jury duty.}
Snowden did what Americans are supposed to do–disclose government crimes against the Constitution and against citizens. Without a free press there is nothing but the government's lies. In order to protect its lies from exposure, Washington intends to exterminate all truth tellers.
The Obama Regime is the most oppressive regime ever in its prosecution of protected whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are protected by law, but the Obama Regime insists that whistleblowers are not really whistleblowers. Instead, the Obama Regime defines whistleblowers as spies, traitors, and foreign agents. Congress, the media, and the faux judiciary echo the executive branch propaganda that whistleblowers are a threat to America. {According to the PTB} It is not the government that is violating and raping the US Constitution that is a threat. {According to the PTB} It is the whistleblowers who inform us of the rape who are the threat.
What Americans have learned in the 21st century is that the US government lies about everything and breaks every law. ... Snowden harmed no one except the liars and traitors in the US government. Contrast Washington's animosity against Snowden with the pardon that Bush gave to Dick Cheney aide, Libby, who took the fall for his boss for blowing the cover, a felony, on a covert CIA operative, the spouse of a former government official who exposed the Bush/Cheney/neocon lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Whatever serves the tiny clique that rules america is legal; whatever exposes the criminals is illegal.
//
x103 Adam_Ruff : A.Wright is such a koolaid drinking troll
2013-07-29
Adam_Ruff
July 29, 2013 at 8:18 am
Dan,
I humbly suggest that Broken Record is correct when it comes to the strength of the Pentagon evidence and (s)he is correct about the weaknesses of the CD case. I recommend that you take a crash course in the Pentagon evidence because once you do give it the time and effort you have given to the case for CD you are going to experience a real revalation. You are going to KNOW why the Pentagon evidence is so conclusive and powerful proof of an inside job. The case for CD is very strong do not get me wrong and it is strong with or without the thermite paper and evidence. Video and witness evidence is strong enough to prove CD all by itself. Broken Record is correct however in that CD if proven to the public at large can still be blamed on selected patsies or fall guys. The problem is that proving CD does not prove who did it. The staged crime scene at the Pentagon however can ONLY be blamed on government insiders simply because no one else could stage a crime scene at the pentagon. The Pentagon evidence is therefore in a different category than the CD evidence and is much more dangerous to the real perps. Study CIT’s materials and study Pilots For 9/11 Truth materials related to the Pentagon in depth and you will have your revelation believe me.
As far as A.Wright goes I recommend you do not waste your time with such a koolaid drinking troll. He is only here to waste your time.
x104 Señor El Once : the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators
Mr. Ruff wrote above on July 29, 2013 – 8:18 am:
The case for CD [controlled demolition of the WTC] ... strong with or without the thermite paper and evidence. Video and witness evidence is strong enough to prove CD all by itself. Broken Record is correct however in that CD if proven to the public at large can still be blamed on selected patsies or fall guys. The problem is that proving CD does not prove who did it.
Proving CD could certainly narrow down the list of suspects significantly, particularly when ~all~ of the evidence is considered and when the thermite paper is cast into the proper light.
What is that proper light? Namely, that thermite -- if truly involved at all -- did not act alone for either pulverizing the towers or maintaining under-rubble hot-spots. Dr. Jones has admitted such, even while allowing Mr. Gage and the yeomen of the 9/11TM to extrapolate those thermitic findings to explain WTC anomalies that physics says it cannot and isn't comparatively Occam Razor.
I know you don't want to mount my Neu Nookiedoo one-trick pony, despite aligned evidence and despite the omissions & games of Dr. Jones in his "no nukes" efforts. Does Dr. Jones ever discuss in that "no nukes" paper possible configurations of neutron bombs that could match tritium measurements, correlated elements in the dust, 1st responder ailments, energy requirements of pulverization, ease of installation, etc.? Nope, making that a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicist to make. He malframes in that work by only considering big fission or big fusion devices, as well as by accepting 100% and misusing the govt commissioned study on tritium, a report that had valid but speculative and stilted goals.
Triple-Dubya and I have made too many carousel spins discussing in a Tetris way how the evidence blocks could be oriented for a CD using either "chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)" or "special configuration of neutron nuclear bombs". [And remember that the CD does ~not~ have to be of the same form for all buildings in the WTC complex.]
Obviously, I'm of the opinion that the gaps are fewer with neu nookiedoo. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that the evidence stacks up equally well either way. The cover-up activities of the government & a complicit media are what suggest strongly it was neu nookiedoo.
How so? Because if the CD was "chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)" [primarily], TPTB could still try to scapegoat a third-party (e.g., 19 stripper-loving, coke-snorting, cave-dwelling, Muslim-extemists) for the "relative" ease (compared to nukes) with which the "chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)" could be obtained or manufactured, albeit while stumbling over the facts of: (a) massive [& unreasonable] quantities that can't be acquired at just any WalMart; (b) extended access to secure facilities for CD installation; and (c)_ observable evidence showing massive overkill [e.g., pulverization, free-fall speeds] above and well beyond what was needed for the goals of destruction of two symbols of capitalism [the towers].
The neu nookiedoo hobby-horse, on the other hand, would require, say, only a dozen devices per tower, thus shorter facility access for CD installation, and by their very energetic nature gives the observable and unpreventable overkill effects that really mucks with those lame pan-cake & pile-driving excuses from NIST.
Aside from the United States, the list is rather short regarding who would have this unique configuration of neutron bombs: England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel come to mind, but there might be more (or less). The Dubya sabor-rattling with China over a downed spy-plane prior to 9/11 might suggest China, except that none -- not even the USA -- were even considered as suspects. TPTB through the media named Osama bin Laden before the dust had settled.
++++++
Mr. Noel has made several excellent postings, although underlying agreement between Mr. Noel and Mr. Ruff on the true substance of each leg that they respectively champion from the large, multi-faceted, shock-&-awe, neo-con con-job is sometimes missed in the disagreement over which aspect of the public-duping plan should have a priority in bring a sheeple to enlightenment. Of course, my Neu Nookiedoo hobby-horse says y'all both been trumped by the message -- whether directly or through surrogates -- "the guvmint of Merika dun nuked Merika". Worse, is the pawning of Merika into a frightened, liberty-surrendering TSA/DHS/FEMA-victim.
Mr. Noel wrote:
Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but the still more numerous watchdogs who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases — like ending the open-ended Afghan war — that 9/11 Truth would nullify.
The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB through their tax-doging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience, an excerpt:
The Litmus Test
It should go without saying that anyone who promotes the official story of 9/11; anyone who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or stupid.
Any presidential candidate, senator, congressman, fireman, pilot, engineer, architect… anyone who, knowing the facts, does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack.
Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, every violation of our basic rights we so docilely accept — TSA cavity searches, being forced to remove your shoes in order to board a flight, metal detectors and X-Ray scanners (even in hospitals), ID checks at every turn — they all came about because of 9/11. Everything that curtails, inhibits, or restricts your everyday life today is a direct or indirect result of 9/11. Think about it.
And every one of these violations of our personal freedoms is based on a lie.
Therefore, everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.
Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make "the guvmint of Merika" and all its institutions obsolete.
The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
//
x105 ruffadam : to level charges at others and make claims about them and then refuse to discuss it
2013-08-05
ruffadam August 5, 2013 at 4:17 am
Adam Syed,
I appreciate what you have done here and the time it took to do it. It is very important that we speak up about this kind of stuff (Ryan’s book) and express the issues with it. If none of us do speak up it gets cemented into the movement as credible and accepted. I find myself lacking the time and energy to say all these things that need to be said. Your review is therefore invaluable and important for all of us and I for one appreciate you taking the time to do it.
I will add to the discussion of Kevin Ryan by expressing what to me seems to be the biggest red flag of all about him. Namely that Ryan refuses to debate those he backhandedly attacks. To me this is the mark of a dishonest and cowardly person, to level charges at others and make claims about them and then refuse to discuss it in the open with them or with anyone. What real truther does not want to uncover the facts and evidence about 9/11, a fake one that’s who!
Look I am not going to mince words here. Ryan’s Pentagon position is a provable load of crap, easily refuted, and he is way too smart to not know that. Why would someone as smart as Ryan promote provable garbage and simultaneously attack the NOC evidence? Why? Because he is NOT a truther and his agenda is something else entirely. If his position had any merit whatsoever he would embrace debate just like he did with Popular Mechanics (by the way I was NOT impressed with that debate and he seemed to let golden opportunities to crush PM slip right by). If his attacks on CIT had any basis in fact he would confront them in public and expose them for what they really are in order to advance the truth and the cause. But he refuses to face CIT or any of us in the light of open debate instead hiding like a cockroach he lobs his garbage from behind an electronic Berlin Wall. Chandler and Cole do the same and so I have come to recognize this characteristic of refusing debate to be one of the strongest signs that the person is not a genuine truther.
Another issue with Ryan and his laughable Pentagon position is that he appears to think that his background in chemistry somehow makes him an expert on the Pentagon evidence. It doesn’t. He is no more of an expert on the issues we are dealing with at the Pentagon than a plumber or a cardiologist or a TV weather man. Where did ANYONE in the movement get the gall to even try to list people like Ryan and Legge and Chandler as “experts” on par with P4T and the CIT who actually conducted the investigation themselves? None of those men have any particular skills or experience that makes them authorities on the Pentagon. Why is their opinion important at all concerning the Pentagon? The answer is it isn’t! The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees.
In point of fact what is going on here is that some in the movement including DRG are trying to pigeon hole 9/11 truth by suggesting that PhD truthers are the only real truthers. In fact it was even suggested by DRG’s assistant that the CIT evidence needs to be peer reviewed! Really? Peer review is what is needed to validate the NOC evidence? What a giant load of crap and what a cowardly excuse to avoid the powerful NOC evidence, totally unacceptable and fraudulent line of reasoning. Ryan, Woodworth, and DRG should be ashamed of themselves for even going down that road in the first place.
This whole meme about peer review and publishing in a scientific journal is GARBAGE! I don’t need a peer review (especially from a chemist) to tell me that the NOC witnesses are authentic nor do I need a peer review to validate the implications of the NOC flight path. I can do it all on my own. To make it even more maddening is the fact that Ryan and others are pushing this meme about “expert” peer review and journal papers while NOT having the relevant expertise to conduct the reviews or write the papers. The P4T do have the relevant expertise and they endorse the NOC evidence whole heartedly. So the idea being pushed here by Ryan and DRG and others is that “experts” are the only ones who have anything to contribute to the truth movement and it is they alone who shall decide what is truth and what isn’t and they will come to a “consensus” among themselves and present that as representing the truth movement. Not only that but that they themselves are THE experts even when we are dealing with issues and evidence that has nothing to do with chemistry or physics. Hell we are supposed to accept them as THE experts over and above P4T on aviation questions! They aren’t and I don’t.
Ryan doesn’t represent me nor does the consensus panel represent the truth movement. Ryan is a chemist so according to his own rules of “peer review” and scientific journalism we should disregard his opinion about the pentagon as worthless since he does not possess the relevant scientific credentials to evaluate the aviation issues at play here nor does he have the relevant criminal investigation skills to properly evaluate the NOC witness testimony. By his own rules his opinion is worthless. By my own rules his opinion is worth as much as a plumber’s opinion when it comes to the Pentagon.
x106 Señor El Once : piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan
As long as everybody is piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan, I might as well contribute my feather-of-weight by starting with something Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:
The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees.
Regarding their work (e.g., Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Ryan) on the CD evidence, this ties in with the words of Mr. Daniel Noel with his "9/11 censorship" claims. You see, their framing of the discussion around super-duper nano-thermite was one of those so-called "limited hang-out's" out of which they got lots of mileage despite parking "further research" in a cul-de-sac. The high school chemistry and math extrapolated backwards from the evidence (e.g., pulverization energy, long duration under-rubble hot-spots, tritium, correlated elements in dust indicating nuclear involvement, 1st responder ailments, etc.) was always eventually going to expose the inapplicability and non-Occam Razorness of super-duper nano-thermite with any combination of [name your] chemical explosive CD mechanisms (as primary).
All along, they have known of the weaknesses of their postulated mechanisms, which is why they never produced papers with even "back-of-envelope calculations" of ball-park guestimates on chemical CD (including thermite) quantities. All along, they have known that they needed to be looking towards other sources for the energy and destruction. Dr. Judy Wood's "disinformation vehicles" comes closest from the other direction regarding at least "thinking out of the box" into other sources of destruction.
"9/11 censorship?" Yep, neither Mr. Ryan, Dr. Jones, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Legge, nor Mr. Cole have ever offered up a detailed "good, bad, and ugly" book review on Dr. Wood's "disinformation vehicles". Why, because certainly one can find some "bad and ugly?" Why was it mostly off-hand dismissals and hand-waves of "looney" aimed at low-hanging disinformation fruit (that I call "get-out-of-assassination cards" played by Dr. Wood) like Hutchison Effects and Hurricane Erin?
The reasons for their silence may have been (1) out of respect to keep the "limited hang-out" efforts of Dr. Wood in play while running down the clock on the public's attention span; and (2) to ~NEVER~ call attention to the good in Dr. Wood's work, because the good are valid anomalies that all 9/11 theories-du-jour must address to be complete, and their thermic aspirations couldn't.
They have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively "nuclear" connotations with regards to how the public would, should, or could react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal "nuclear" connotations with regards to what the military reaction would, should, or could be with respect to nuclear responses to those framed as the aggressors. The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- "9/11 censorship" --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to "nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first" would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did "nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs" with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how "the enemy was de-humanized" in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other autrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
Nuking of Iraq and Afganistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, "if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either," particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of "authority figures" it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent "hair-on-fire panic." And I believe it is why lots of 9/11 Censors who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably "personally insentivized" upon them as well in a "deal with the devil" sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
//
x107 ruffadam & hybridrogue1 : do not wish to engage with Senior El Once
2013-08-08
++++++++++ 2013-08-08 ruffadam
I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
++++++++++ 2013-08-10 hybridrogue1
"No radiation = no nuke."
Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it.
\\][//
+++++++++++ 2013-08-19 ruffadam
My last comment on Amazon told Gretavo that I would not be continuing the discussion on his forum but that he could come here and discuss it. I am not going to his forum he will have to come here. The reason for that is that Gretavo is dishonest and is using various disinformation and evasion techniques in his arguments and I would not put it past him at all to post something, let me respond, and then edit what he originally said in order to make me look bad or crazy. If he comes here he will have no such options for trickery. So the ball is in his court. FTR here is my comment to Gretavo aka RT on amazon in which I make this point clear:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P4ZYCITNJOZ3/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&asin=1489507833&cdForum=Fx201AN65PYHTJ8&cdPage=3&cdThread=Tx1U1LWHE144UL9&store=books#wasThisHelpful
RT,
Yeah it is "disruptive" and an "attack" to question Mr. Chandler and his Pentagon work. What a joke you are RT for even going down that road. To top it off you go right into an off topic rant about Jeff Hill and Chandlers association with him following your scolding of CIT and Judy Wood supporters for going off topic. Wow that is some hypocrisy there RT. At any rate my comments were not off topic to begin with since they focused on Ryan's book and specifics about the Pentagon position he espouses in the book. My other comments were directed towards Chandlers review of Ryans book. So stuff it RT you don't have a leg to stand on and neither does Chandler after calling us trolls and disinformation operatives and then having the gall to call us the disruptive ones. Hypocrisy all around it seems. The truth is neither of you guys can handle valid criticism. It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in Chandler's paper or Ryan's book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
I will not be continuing the conversation with you on your blog RT but you and Chandler and Ryan can come to Truth and Shadows and discuss the Kevin Ryan book review posted there if you wish. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/ Or you can talk about any of the other blog entries you wish. I don't expect to see any of you but the option is available and unless you flagrantly violate the rules of free speech with threats or nonsense like that you will not be censored in any way shape or form unlike the cess pit of censorship 911Blogger.
——————————————————————————————
So by posting this reply on his own blog which I said I was not going to Gretavo is again demonstrating dishonesty. He is attempting to paint me as the one running from debate when in reality it is him doing so.
x108 Señor El Once : could there be other instances of scope-limiting?
2013-08-08
Mr. Syed has found Mr. Ryan's premise on the Pentagon very wanting and offers lots of examples.
If the Pentagon is one instance of scope-limiting leading to false conclusions in Mr. Ryan's work, could there be others?
Lo and behold, there is! In his nano-thermite (NT) work done with Dr. Jones.
The problems in that NT work has already been alluded to in my previous posting, but Mr. Ryan's Pentagon-misdirections only underscores the importance of revisiting the misdirections in that NT work.
P.S. Mr. Rogue has not proved his hypnotic allegations of my "smearing" of Dr. Jones while at the same time avoiding my valid criticisms of Dr. Jones' and Mr. Ryan's work. Ergo, I've earned the right to have him STFU.
//
x109 HybridRogue1 & Adam Ruff : Hit & Run
2013-08-08
++++++++++ 2013-08-08 ruffadam
Ok it is clear to me that Ethan does not wish to have a rational debate taking on one issue at a time and instead prefers to have a free for all where multiple unrelated questions and issues are thrown together so as to confuse and tangle up the whole discussion. I am not going to participate in that sort of circus because it leads nowhere. We can say flyover witness and he will respond with what about Betty Ong. We will say look at the Lloyd england story and he will respond with what about the witnesses who say the plane hit and around and around we go never resolving a single point. I have been there done that too damn many times I know how it goes.
The other reason I am not going to deal with you Ethan is that you are apparently too lazy to look at the evidence under discussion, namely the CIT presentation. You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend watching it and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you, spending our time and effort to do that, when you should spend your time to do by simply watching the videos CIT produced. Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can't be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you. By the way to really get a handle on all the evidence from P4T as well it would require more than two hours so I guess that cuts you out huh?
Since you are not familiar with the evidence and apparently will not spend any time getting familiar with it I see no point whatsoever in any of us continuing to engage you on this topic. You literally don't know what we are talking about. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the pentagon evidence BEFORE you engage us and tell us all how wrong we are about it and Kevin Ryan.
As to your statement that: "I stand by the approach to this book, and you all seem to at least agree that Ryan put together some worthwhile info on some of the most likely perpetrators."
I repeat what I said above in response:
"This statement and line of reasoning is a red herring on your part because we have to accept that the truth should be tailored to the sensibilities of the very people who refuse to accept the truth, the "911 deniers" as you call them. That is illogical and wrong in every possible way. The truth is the truth no matter how many believe it and no matter how many don't believe it. The moment you start tampering with that you have gone off the rails. Kevin Ryan has gone off the rails by taking this approach and so have you by accepting it as a valid approach. Keep in mind that this is the 9/11 TRUTH movement not the 9/11 Public Relations movement. Real truthers should accept only as much of the official story as is proven to be true by the evidence and not one tiny bit more. The entire premise of "accepting as much of the official account as possible" is as bogus as a three dollar bill and therefore the foundation of Kevin's book is cracked and I question if it is worth the paper it is printed on. I have to wonder now about everything he says in the book and I have to do my own research to verify each item in the book because Ryan cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the pentagon so what else is he misleading us on?"
++++++++++ 2013-08-08 ruffadam
I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
++++++++++ 2013-08-10 hybridrogue1
"No radiation = no nuke."
Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it.
\\][//
+++++++++++ 2013-08-19 ruffadam
My last comment on Amazon told Gretavo that I would not be continuing the discussion on his forum but that he could come here and discuss it. I am not going to his forum he will have to come here. The reason for that is that Gretavo is dishonest and is using various disinformation and evasion techniques in his arguments and I would not put it past him at all to post something, let me respond, and then edit what he originally said in order to make me look bad or crazy. If he comes here he will have no such options for trickery. So the ball is in his court. FTR here is my comment to Gretavo aka RT on amazon in which I make this point clear:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P4ZYCITNJOZ3/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&asin=1489507833&cdForum=Fx201AN65PYHTJ8&cdPage=3&cdThread=Tx1U1LWHE144UL9&store=books#wasThisHelpful
RT,
Yeah it is "disruptive" and an "attack" to question Mr. Chandler and his Pentagon work. What a joke you are RT for even going down that road. To top it off you go right into an off topic rant about Jeff Hill and Chandlers association with him following your scolding of CIT and Judy Wood supporters for going off topic. Wow that is some hypocrisy there RT. At any rate my comments were not off topic to begin with since they focused on Ryan's book and specifics about the Pentagon position he espouses in the book. My other comments were directed towards Chandlers review of Ryans book. So stuff it RT you don't have a leg to stand on and neither does Chandler after calling us trolls and disinformation operatives and then having the gall to call us the disruptive ones. Hypocrisy all around it seems. The truth is neither of you guys can handle valid criticism. It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in Chandler's paper or Ryan's book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
I will not be continuing the conversation with you on your blog RT but you and Chandler and Ryan can come to Truth and Shadows and discuss the Kevin Ryan book review posted there if you wish. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/ Or you can talk about any of the other blog entries you wish. I don't expect to see any of you but the option is available and unless you flagrantly violate the rules of free speech with threats or nonsense like that you will not be censored in any way shape or form unlike the cess pit of censorship 911Blogger.
——————————————————————————————
So by posting this reply on his own blog which I said I was not going to Gretavo is again demonstrating dishonesty. He is attempting to paint me as the one running from debate when in reality it is him doing so.
+++++++++++ John Albanese via Adam Syed 2013-08-11
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1783/hzfo.jpg
There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
9/22 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.
+++++++++++ 2013-08-10 hybridrogue1
I think this comment is worth saving on this side of the fence for safe keeping
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
~ ruffadam
on August 9, 2013 at 1:12 am
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
\\][//
x110 HybridRogue : too much of a weasel to post here
{mcb: The following is written by Mr. HybridRogue, who I call triple-W, because he is too much of a weasel to post here and be challenged directly.}
2013-08-08
"To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being "like a foundry" down in that mess."~Rogue
"What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures? Let me guess. I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling"~Senor
Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions. The whole post is at the URL below on December 26, 2012 at 11:28 am for you to see for yourself.~Rogue
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO. While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute. Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first. And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?
He simply insists that it couldn't have been because of the 'hot spots', but that is another issue that does NOT answer the primary question, but leaps ahead to his argument about hot-spots.
The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light. This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.
Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.
But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars. A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive. Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.
And this is a discussion about the profile of the destruction of the WTC – the actual explosive event.
\\][//
x111 Señor El Once : lives up to the "weasel"
2013-08-12
2013-08-12 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
Triple-Dubya lives up to the "weasel" that I append to his initials. It starts out that he is too weasely to post on my thread, posting here instead 2013-08-08. He charges:
Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions.
Triple-W previous wrote:
To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being "like a foundry" down in that mess.
There are four main pieces of evidence the the weasel tries to brush aside by not addressing specifically: (1) the arches A & B, (2) the horseshoe C & D, (3) the twisted-up stuff E, and (4) the steel doobies F and G.
In order to create the horse-shoe D, the physical space needs to be available for one end of the beam to be bent to "kiss" the other end, after of course something heated its mid-section to be bent. That physical space would not have been available once the pile had come crashing down and was sitting smoldering.
Just as importantly, take a look at the multiple examples of what I call a "steel doobies". In G, it stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image (I'm told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The "steel doobie" is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble. In fact, steel doobie F wasn't under the rubble either.
So, one can't malframe the discussion, as attempted by Triple-W, that "a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them" deformed them into what they are. In fact, Triple-W has no explanation for how chemical explosives with or without thermite could make this doobie.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away.
Triple-W's game playing:
And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO.
Or maybe this proves Triple-W's MO in not addressing the point: arches, horseshoes, and steel doobies!
While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute.
No, they don't have the complete known profile of chemical demoltion. The decimation of those buildings was too quiet to be chemical demolition. The damage to vehicles on West Broadway in the parking lot (and not to flags, people, paper) could not have been achieved by hot-and-spicy burning thermitic dust from the towers.
Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first.
I addressed the point... again. Ho-hum. It is Triple-W who does the dodge. Been smokin' a doobie, but not a steel one.
And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?
Notice the hypnotic suggestion of Triple-W: "the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail." Again, it does not.
The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light.
The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure -- both inner core and outer wall assemblies -- would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.
This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.
This is Triple-W spinning like a top and lying. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like (1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield, (2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding where they would have placed the device plus the outer wall assemblies, (3) debris, and (4) the distance from the detonation.
The fact is, of the small EMP produced, much of could be contained. What wasn't, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris and cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot. (Remember, the damaged vehicles are evidence that Triple-W can't explain reasonably, and for sure doesn't match the profile of chemical explosives.)
The electronic devices were a significant distance from the towers and out of the range of the minimized EMP.
Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.
No, my come-back is "these were neutron bombs whose design and yield are different from little nukes of the run-of-the-mill fission or fusion variety." The neutron profiles are apparent.
But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars.
*BEEP* *BEEP* Nope, weasel. You do the misframing. I never said that the EMP would "scorch steel and blow up cars." What I said, and you failed to understand, was that EMP would induce electric currents in steel (and not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people). The currents would heat the steel, and if great enough, that heat would cause things like paint, seals, and plastic handles to burn. Get enough things on fire on a vehicle, and the gas tank could blow up.
However, more telling is EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. I could see that happening with EMP heating the door and expanding it within its door frame to the point of popping off.
A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive.
Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived -- contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
Triple-W doesn't have the government reports that measured systematically and promptly alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulated the results, and prove they were zero, so he can't claim the framing of radioactive levels as he does.
Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.
Ho-hum, Triple-W. The little bit of tritiated water was (1) 55 times greater than expected background levels, (2) wasn't measured everywhere -- not the hot-spots or even close, (3) wasn't measured in a timely or systematic fashion before dilution and dissipation.
If Triple-W does not want to rationally go down neutron bomb avenue, then he should have Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan explain:
What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures?
I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation.
//
x112 Señor El Once : No radiation = no nuke?
2013-08-12
2013-08-12 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
For the moment, I will set aside your trollish hit-and-run behavior and its claims that you will limit yourself to one posting that itself cranks another spin out of the "endless merry-go-round of Señor El Once." [You will not be held to your self-proclaimed limit, but you will be made fun of.]
You wrote:
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
First of all, you malframe the nuclear devices, Mr. Ruff. They were not "mini-nukes", because without further clarification (demonstrating your understanding of nuclear devices) these imply to the science-challenged readers "fission or fusion" devices that have much larger explosive yields and leave the kind of radiation signature that you're foisting up as a red herring.
The discussion is about neutron devices, which are a variant of fusion, expel the lions share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, can direct those neutrons and subsequently the blast and heat wave, and do ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly, such radiation from the neutron devices depletes quickly and would not be measured at all.
Secondly, you malframe the radiation argument by challenging me to find "valid documentation that ANY nuclear device that does NOT emit radiation post detonation."
No, no, no. You obviously did not read the article above or its predecessor, nor have you googled "neutron bombs" (or "Big Ivan").
The search isn't for a nuclear device that "does NOT emit radiation post detonation." No, no, no. The search is for a nuclear device that emits radiation in a targeted fashion and does not leave long-lasting, lingering levels of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.
For the duration of this paragraph, accept the premise of neutron devices and assume this was the PTB's plan. To be successful, they would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. (Issue "fake" badges that don't work for radiation.) They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the 1st responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Mr. Ruff, of course I can't prove "measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero" for the same reason you can't prove the opposite of "~NO~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero."
(1) If a crew of researchers was permitted to make prompt radiation measurements in a systematic fashion all around the WTC;
(2) If those measurements were tabulated into a report (with nothing omitted);
(3) If (nuclear) scientists provided analysis of those tabulated findings in that report (without scientific sleight of hand);
(4) That report was buried and never made public.
Ah yes, M-16 armed military security dropped down quickly around the WTC. If you popped out an errant Geiger Counter or camera, those devices were confiscated, and you were ordered in an unfriendly fashion to "leave and don't ever come back."
Ah yes, Mayor Bloomberg even tried to pass a law that made possession of Geiger Counters illegal in NYC.
Ah yes, the NIST report on the WTC-1 & 2 stopped its analysis at the initiation of the collapse. How long was it delayed?
Ah yes, the 9/11 Commission report didn't even mention WTC-7. How long was it delayed?
Ah yes, the EPA issued false proclamations into the "healthiness" of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction.
Ah yes, the FTC destroyed CDs and tapes recording the actual conversations of air traffic controllers.
Ah yes, the military brass changed their story several times regarding responsiveness of the air defenses.
Ah yes, the NYC Fire Investigators were upset by the destruction of evidence and that they weren't permitted to test for conventional explosives (or anything else, like the proof of the radiation that you seek.)
Ah yes, the NIST report of WTC-7 in its DRAFT form didn't mention the observable free-fall and in its FINAL form analyzed only the first 18 floors of its demise, broke that into 3 stages, admitted that stage 2 over 8 floors (100+ feet) was indistinguishable from gravitational accelaration, and then concluded with a straight-face that these three stages when averaged together were slower than free-fall. How long was it delayed?
Ah yes, the government commissioned a study to speculate on possible "civilian" sources for tritium that was sampled ~LATE~ (as in "not promptly") in the run-off from the WTC after much delution. The sampling was also not systematically performed in lots of locations, was not performed at any of the hot-spots, and was in fact HALTED because they were measuring miniscule quantities that were well below the EPA threshold on what is considered safe for humans ALTHOUGH in cases 55 times the expected trace background levels. They speculated into aircraft exit signs, sites from munitions stored at the WTC, and time pieces worn by victims to account for the elevated tritium levels, although very imperfectly.
Ah yes, the USGS did collect in a systematic fashion dust samples. As far as I know, these samples did not contain nano-thermite. No nuclear physicists from the government or any institution -- including Dr. Jones -- studied the correlation between elements in the dust. Jeff Prager did and noted they correlate as proof of nuclear fission. (Think "fission triggered fusion configured as a neutron bomb.")
Ah yes, Dr. Jones provides no analysis of the USGS dust sample data so therefore saw no correlations in the elements indicating nuclear hijinx. Dr. Jones accepted without question as being the totality of the tritium story at WTC the flawed government commissioned study & its speculation into potential tritiums and stilts this into his no nukes conclusions, but never once mentioned or considered neutron devices and the variety of ways they can be configured. Dr. Jones & Mr. Ryan speculate that thermite might be responsible for six energetic spikes from the hot, under-rubble fires, but does not speculate into what maintained the hot-spots between spikes.
Here is a recent quote from you, Mr. Ruff 2013-08-10, used here to pre-emptively shut up Triple-Dubya. Substitute "Dr. Jones" for "Chandler" and "Ryan":
It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in [Chandler's] paper or [Ryan's] book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
The point of all the "ah yes" items was to demonstrate examples of government pressure applied to agencies charged with writing reports and to get those reports stilted. Or to get them suppressed.
Again, I ask, where is the government report that systematically & promptly samples for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulates those measurements, and offers analysis that concludes "no radiation"? Give me the sample numbers taken closest to the hot-spots.
And in case you were wondering, tritium is not an output of conventional controlled demolition with or without nano-thermite; it is, however, an output of neutron bombs (and fusion devices).
And what about the damage to vehicles along West Broadway and in the caticorner car park? For the specific (e.g., metal) and targeted (e.g., line-of-sight) nature, they can't be attributed to hot-and-spicy clouds of burning thermite.
The Banker's Trust Building had facade damage from 9/11 and was repaired. Before occupancy, it was torn down. Why? Maybe because errant neutron radiation can lead to embrittlement of steel.
Over the weekend 2013-08-11, Adam Syed posted something from John Albanese, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite.)
There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
9/11 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.
Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument with a straight-face: "insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives)." Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: "no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added." In reality, energy had to have been added, but it wasn't in the form of loud, chemical, conventional explosives. It was a controlled demolition, but who is to say how loud tactical neutron bombs would be by comparison?
On the surface, your request to "show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero" seemed somewhat rational and even gets 2013-08-10 Triple-Dubya's panties into a wad "Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it?"
However, if dust samples can be collected in a systematic fashion (and reveal nuclear evidence) and if tritium measurements even in a haphazard fashion reveals elevated levels, then where is the prompt, systematic, complete and total collection of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation measurements? [Guess what? Any anomalous readings debunks the "gravity-driven pile driver" of the OCT, as well as conventional, chemical explosives with or without thermite. Ergo, shouldn't be a surprise that any such report -- if it existed -- would be quickly buried.]
The neutron nuclear DEW primise does not live or die without a report on radiation. And even if a report were coughed up supposedly providing tabulated data samples with consistently no radiation (particularly next to hot-spots), is the track record really there that it could be trusted? The sum total of all of the other evidence keeps neutron nuclear DEW devices in play as explaining 9/11 at the WTC.
Here's something you wrote to RT, I believe, on 2013-08-08. Change the focus to be neutron nuclear DEW research and apply it to yourself:
You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend [researching neutron nuclear DEW] and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you [...] Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can't be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you.
//
x113 Señor El Once : where is the report that documents "no radiation"
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
I'm not sure if you subscribed to the comments section under the article "9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2)" where you posted a hit-and-run comment, trying to avoid my carousel. Therefore, I call your attention to my 2013-08-12 response here.
Mr. Ruff, you said "no radiation = no nuke" and that I must "show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero" before you'll consider nuclear-anything as an option.
This is a little unfair. If the PTB knew they were going to use nukes, this is the one report above all others that would never see the light of day.
Moreover, it can easily be turned around with: "Where is the report that tabulates the timely & thorough measurements of radiation at the WTC -- all measurements at zero or background levels -- and conclusively says there was no radiation?" It ain't available. Dr. Jones never had a conniption fit about it being MIA.
At this late date if it were to pop up, would we trust it? Had it been published decades earlier (and maybe we missed it) and in light of all of the other stilted reports (examples in my 2013-08-12 response), would it merit being trusted? Would it stand up as being a model of scientific work, or would it be torn apart like so many other 9/11 "scientific reports"?
Mr. Ruff, you also neatly do a number in malframing things as "mini-nukes" that have their own connotations and radiation signatures that would be different from the proposed neutron devices. When radiation measurements are not done systematically, thoroughly, and above all promptly, -- when the clock is purposely run out --, such expected nuclear radiation from neutron devices would have quickly dissipated and not be there... but not quickly enough to prevent 1st responders from illnesses akin to Hiroshima.
Ergo, your charge to find a nuclear device that has no radiation is malframed. All have radiation signatures, the question is: which ones produce only low-level and short-lived radiation? Neutron devices.
//
x114 Señor El Once : Reading a Book
Ah yes, maybe parallels with Dr. Judy Wood are to be drawn regarding "the BOO-oook! Read the fookin' BOOK!"
Don't have "the fookin' BOO-ooook" [from Kevin Ryan]?!! Then get it and "read the fookin' BOOK", preferably before trying to put together fookin' BOO-oook reports about it.
I recently purchased the Kindle version of Kevin Ryan's "BOO-oook!" I am now "reading the fookin' BOO-oook," but ain't too far and expect it to be a slow-go, because I got a life. Using a Kindle while family camping just don't feel right. But it also don't feel right to have a dead-tree book on my shelves for years after cracking its cover.
So far, so good. No issues. His preface and intro are preaching to a choir boy.
I commend Mr. Adam Syed for having purchased and read the book before offering his review. I hope to be able to follow in his noble footsteps.
//
x115 Adam_Ruff : I am not getting his book
2013-08-13
Adam_Ruff August 13, 2013 at 6:11 pm
SEO,
You said: “So far, so good. No issues.” Well how about the whole premise of the book that says: “the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.”
How about that giant elephant in the room? You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW.
By the way I do not want to put any money in Ryan’s pocket which is one of the reasons I am not getting his book. If Ryan or anyone else thinks Adam Syed’s review is wrong then they are not speaking up about it that is for sure. Until I have reason to NOT trust Adam’s review I am basing my comments on it.
x116 Señor El Once : Got ignorance much?
Dearest Mr. Adam Ruff,
"Got ignorance much?" Because, man, you are exceptional at displaying it. Paraphrased:
"I am such a high and mighty Truther that I don't even have to crack a book, much less read it, in order to be able to pass my holy judgment and declare it unfit for consumption. And this concludes my book report sans having read the book."
To repeat your actual quote:
You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW.
Sure, I'm allowed to say "so far, so good" because in my reading (now somewhere in Chapter 2) I have literally not come across the context for the cherry-picked quote that has your panties in a wad:
the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to "accept as much of the official account as possible."
I'm not saying that I won't find any fault with Mr. Ryan's work (or that cherry-picked premise). I'm already a bit annoyed at the style of writing that resembles in some ways a fiction mystery writer, where he writes eloquent passages that foreshadow some nefarious connection that he'll make in detail in some later chapter. I'm unhappy with some of his innuendo like into Rumsfeld's two years at an investment company in the early 1960's before a tour in Congress or into Cheney's deferment years where he "had other priorities." I would have preferred to have substantiation right then and there, but this is all pre-mature nit-picking at this point; Mr. Ryan might pull it off. I am more annoyed with my ancient & faulty-scroll-button Kindle that makes it difficult to follow footnotes that I usually love to read.
At least I am open minded enough to give this a go.
You, Mr. Ruff? Won't read Mr. Ryan's book. Won't read Dr. Wood's book (to strip that disinformation vehicle of still valid and useful nuggets of truth.) Won't consider a nuclear 9/11 without an official government report that states "alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were way out of whack," the very same report that coincidently is missing-in-action for documenting the "alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were at or below expected trace background levels" to alledgely prove "no radiation."
Dr. Fetzer writes 2013-08-14 on that neu nookiedoo theme but also applicable to Mr. Ryan's (and Dr. Wood's) work:
Ruffadam is a great example of a core problem within 9/11 research: those who take strong stands and shoot off their mouths when they haven't done their home work and don't know what they are talking about.
Maybe if you put on lipstick and kiss Mr. Ryan's ass, he'll comp you a copy of his book so you don't have to worry about putting money into Mr. Ryan's pocket and instead would be taking it out of his pockets.
I'm such a nut, I've been known to purchase people copies of a controversial book so that -- TOGETHER -- we can get on the same literal page and discuss it point-by-point in a rational manner and perhaps come to be on the same figurative page. [Mr. Chandler, Mr. Shack, Mr. Jayhan, Mr. Cole, and dearest Mr. Rogue have failed this simple test of their integrity and objectivity.] You, Mr. Ruff, have already given ample evidence that you would fail it, too, so I'm not even extending the offer. "Pearls before swine" and all that jazz, ya know?
Nothing quite like shooting a hole into the foot of your 9/11 Truther reputation so handily, eh, Mr. Ruff?
"Read the fookin' BOO-oook, or STFU with your lame-ass fookin' book reports."
P.S. This response is no reflection -- positive or negative -- on Mr. Syed's book review. Maybe I'll find myself in Ethan's camp and validating Mr. Ryan's approach. One thing for sure, if Mr. Ryan's book unravels to be just another "disinformation vehicle", I'll be found stripping it of re-useable nuggets of truth (some of which have been found in my reading to date) and be glad of my objective efforts.
//
x117 Señor El Once : a tighter, more restrictive use of language
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Nice posting. Thanks for the quotes from Jeff Prager and the links to your work.
In the future (as in the past), I recommend a tighter, more restrictive use of language with detailed explanations. Otherwise, the public's perception & common (but weak) understanding of some word or phrase used by you could cause confusion. Or as I have seen, it opens the door for a straw-man attack by an opponent hinging on the fuzziness of those words or phrases.
An example is when you wrote:
There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes.
A possible improvement to this wording would be:
There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes configured as neutron bombs that direct the energy in a strategic manner and having differing radiation signatures.
//
x118 Señor El Once : the best way to challenge the official story
Dear Mr. Syed,
Thanks for the hint in where it is located. Does the printed book have preface material in roman numerals, because that would assist in me locating it? Kindle doesn't do page numbers in any shape or form that correlates to the paper document. Also, where Kindle opens a "book" upon first reading isn't always predictable (e.g., it wasn't the title page.)
Would you be so kind as to also indicate what chapter it was in and how close to a bolded subheading it may have been? Maybe the first sentence of the paragraph containing it?
Maybe Kindle skipped over it, or I read over it, or I ain't got to it yet.
This being said and assuming it was me who missed it, I'll take that cherry-picked quote -- "the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to accept as much of the official account as possible" -- and place it up on my "belief fence" that straddles "validated" and "invalidated" in the hopes that my further reading will nudge it to one side or the other.
In my present ignorant state (that slowly changes each opportunity I get to sit in "the throne room sanctuary" to sneak in reads), I will say that Mr. Ethan did have a point. Making too much hay out of this premise can be misleading.
By that, I mean that in discussing 9/11 with others, often, you've only got so many minutes to punch significant holes in the foundation of the belief in the official story before interests & opportunity fade. I have often couched my 9/11 discussions "assuming 19 hijackers got on the planes, assuming the planes even took off, assuming the planes flew the routes proposed, assuming this or that, here's a major anomaly..."
It really can be a useful strategy to "accept as much of the official account as possible" in order to target large low-hanging fruit elsewhere. Dispensing with that proves the first crack in the pile of lies; it opens the audience's mind to an instance of deceit that they previously may not have been aware of. If the discussion flow merits, you can later double-back and explain why the assumption was actually invalid.
The gist of this tactic is that by first finding common ground with the audience (or debate partner), you work from various angles to take out or unravel the rug beneath their feet, which can sometimes be more effective than systematically starting in a far corner and sequentially unraveling a row at a time in painstaking details and well outside their interests or scope of expertise. When you unravel what is directly beneath their feet (e.g., where they are coming from, their interests, their knowledge, their paradigm) and then unravel it everywhere they subsequently step (e.g., flow of the discussion), maybe some hope exists that their beliefs will trip, instill reflection, and lead to a change. [Alas, not my experience of late on FBI_book.]
You wrote:
[Kevin Ryan] doesn't really give much of an explanation other than for the sake of "simplicity." ... Take it to mean what you will.
I find Mr. Ryan a bit wordy in a crafty, teasing sense with lots of fluff, innuendo, and cliff-hanger foreshadowing, mostly because I'm part of the choir maybe not his primary audience (and I'm still not very far.) I know how intro material sometimes gets written (like after you've figured out where the rest of the chapters are going) and re-written (like after lots of suggestions by others) such that it can become a different beast from the rest of the work.
Obviously, if I've read over it and missed it, it didn't impress me in context to be foreshadowing a major flaw in his work... but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise; your analysis already taints my perceptions.
Because I'm still so early in the book, I can't really say where I've found instances of that initial "accept as much as possible of the official account" premise leading me astray. I'm still mulling "deep state", "Continuity of Governmnent" name dropping, various dangling of potential connections between major players, the edited history of Rumsfeld & Cheney, and other things that he teases me with in the early chapters to be validated either in later chapters or from exploring the sources of his footnotes.
//
x119 Señor El Once : consulted with his bird's brain
I can say as well as far as Judy Wood's book is concerned, that it is simply false advertising to claim that she addressed anything unique in her book that was not already on her website. One did not need her book to address her assertions. And one did not need to pretend to be giving a "book report" in order to criticize her "science".
I guess Mr. Rogue has consulted with his bird's brain in regurgitating this tripe, because he's already admitted not having read Dr. Judy Wood's "disinformation vehicle" to completion. He has produced nothing that indicates any form of a detailed analysis or review. His criticism has always relied on others (e.g., Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Legge) yet from well before the publication of her book and much of that skewed (e.g., Smash 'em up Derby: Disinformation vehicle versus Disinformation Vehicle). And he has violently defaced that 500-page full-color, hard-cover book for the benefit of his bird's poop leaving nothing that he can refer back to today in order to substantiate his assertions.
When accepting the free gift, he was told of the overlap with her website, but also of the differences which were many -- some good, some bad. No false advertising given, just faulty expectations & analysis on his part. And he even expressed gratitude at one point for the consolidation of destruction images and correlation to map positions in her hefty tome.
Yep, it is easy for me to call her book a "disinformation vehicle" while at the same time blatantly stealing her hubcaps and wheels, and chopping & stripping sundry valid & viable materials from within for re-use in another jalopy. Mr. Rogue's inability and unwillingness to do the same speaks -- like a rapper from a low-rider -- volumes about him.
The charges made here against the larger portion of the commentators here, that we lack integrity, or are in some way hypocritical for criticizing Mr Ryan for his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis is preposterous and based in self indulgent arrogance.
I don't know about the integrity of others, but I do know about Mr. Rogue's. Hypocritical for sure. If Mr. Ryan can be faulted for "his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis," does he have other work requiring a revisit with a more critical eye? Yes, can we say: "nano-thermite?" Co-authored with Dr. Jones (lots of issues with his work on NT not adding up & his no nukes conclusions not considering neutron devices) and Dr. Jenkins (the very one with whose outdated stilted work Mr. Rogue tries to debunk Dr. Wood's more recent work). If Mr. Rogue doesn't see a pattern, he isn't paying attention.
P.S. Kindle isn't in hand. Maybe later tonight after bedtime stories. Maybe on this weekend's camping trip.
Woes to us all that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation's bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped.
//
x120 HybridRogue1 : slurmiester maximus
2013-08-14
++++++++++ 2013-08-14
I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus.
\\][//
++++++++++ 2013-08-14
>"I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation."~By: Señor El Once on August 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm
. . . . .
More sludge from Maxifuckanus' cesspool. I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario. It is another blatant lie from this defaming scoundrel. That he will not accept such an explanation is not the same as my not having made one available.
Maxipad wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn't shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.
I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.
This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.
\\][//
++++++++++ 2013-08-15
>"Woes to us all that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation's bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped."~Slurmiester Maximus
>"Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived — contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety."~Maxasshole
On the contrary: "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device." Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.
Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.~Wiki
>"The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure — both inner core and outer wall assemblies — would shield the tactical nuclear detonation."~Maxifuck
Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.~ww
Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is "batshit crazy" I say Mr Eleven is 'crazy as a shithouse rat….I guess were in tune, "close enough for rock'n'roll"….
Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin' liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes….
\\][//
x121 Señor El Once : completely misinterpret the assignment
Mr. Adam Ruff (and others) have a tendancy to completely misinterpret the assignment of the sincere truth seeker in a movement that has been infiltrated and where nary a single publication can be trusted 100%. Honest mistakes will be present in all endeavors, and material will be omitted for a host of reasons ranging from the author's low confidence level in its viability (or their expertise on the subject) or its rabbit-hole nature requiring never-ending effort to document or being a distraction from other more obvious things. One could argue that purposeful mistakes and omissions are made, maybe at the behest of an agenda orthogonal to truth, but the bottom-line is that criticism should still focus on what is printed.
In such an environment, the assignment becomes to classify each published nugget as (1) true, (2) false, or (3) don't-know. Then one studies each classification pile to see what structure it builds or if the intended larger structure of the endeavor still stands when various pillars are knocked out.
No question, lots of "Disinformation Vehicles" are at hand. The perfect ride isn't available. And Mr. Ruff sounds like the petulant teenager: "I ain't touching that mint condition Porche 911 and driving it nowhere, because it has orange carpeting and an 8-track player, and doesn't have an MP3 jack, fuzzy-dice on the mirror, or an 'I (heart) NY' bumper-sticker."
The intelligent, objective, and resourceful truth seeker will be ever the cannibal, chopping & stripping those "Disinformation Vehicles" of truth in the creation of the jalopy that can go the distance.
I am not far enough into Mr. Ryan's book to label it disinformation, but I am far enough to have picked up facts here and there that are memorable. Kudos.
As far as Dr. Judy Wood's "Disinformation Vehicles" goes, it should be pointed out the crafty nature with which information is presented and then left dangling with no connection or supposition that ties it together into anything resembling "a cohesive theory." Because Mr. Ruff does not have and has never had Dr. Wood's book in his grubby little fingers -- much less read it or gawked at its collection & correlation of pictures --, a rational person must naturally raise an eyebrow to his boastful ability to "say with total confidence that her book really isn't worth the paper it is printed on."
How "extensively" could the over-confident Mr. Ruff actually have look into Dr. Wood's "DEW theory?"
More importantly from a chop-shop perspective in considering the true, inherent value of Dr. Wood's "Disinformation Vehicles" and its components, what should be preserved from a "DEW theory?" How about the meaning of the DEW acronym: directed energy weapon? Any shaped-charge consisting of chemical explosives (including nano-thermite) fits into this category. As do unique configurations of neutron nuclear devices that I have been championing. All in all, her "DEW theories" ain't far off.
Other components worthy of preservation are the images of the totality of the destruction; her chapters that debunk with cascading pool balls the official theories (of that day) of gravity collapses; her pointing out the media black-out of hurricane Erin and its anomalous movement; ...
Astute thinkers would do well to approach Mr. Ryan's "(dis)information vehicles" in an equally fair and objective manner, keeping a keen eye out for components worth salvaging, those pesky nuggets of truth.
Mr. Adam Ruff charges:
If Ryan or Wood have something to say to me or to us they can show up any time they want and confront us with their best evidence and arguments.
Hello?!!! Anybody home, Mr. Ruff? Their words are published in their books. That's what they have to say to you. Are you listening? Are you reading?
Maybe if Mr. Ruff read their works and could talk knowledgeably about what is (right and) wrong in them, maybe those authors would have cause to come here to defend themselves. Until he puts up with specifics, (in Mr. Ruff's words) his "criticism is just a lot of hot air."
At this premature stage in the reading & digestion of the works, Mr. Ruff comes across like a cheapskate trying to avoid purchasing the books in the hopes that the authors will come here and essentially re-post their whole books, a posting at a time.
In any event, sweeping & openly ignorant dismissals of their work without having read them... well... Mr. Adam Ruff's own words apply:
So [Mr. Ruff] can stuff his snide remarks where the sun doesn't shine. ... So really quit with the BS [Mr. Ruff, you] have every opportunity in the world to [read their works and] make your case... [You] won't do it!
//
x122 Adam_Ruff : I reject all of their work
SEO,
The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth. It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for "nuggets of truth" that may or may not be in their book. Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.
Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don't like them, they are itchy and carry disease.
You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees. Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust. I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.
You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.
x123 Señor El Once : throwing in a screw ball
2013-08-16
2013-08-15 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
{Also posted on 2013-08-16, where the discussion is happening.}
2012-12-05, 2013-03-12, and 2013-04-15 prove that Triple-W regurgitates and it doesn't get more tasty:
I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario.
Let's first refine that FACT. Thermate reactions with steel contain their own source of oxygen, namely from the steel, and leave iron as a by-product. Being a chemical REACTION, when one of the components needed for the reaction is exhausted, the reaction should stop. Likewise, measuring the amounts of by-product, one can work backwards with high school chemistry to estimate original quantities of components of the reaction.
Were this THEORY of nano-thermite's primary role (with any combination of other chemical explosives) valid, one would expect a huge blob of by-product (cooled off) iron at the location of every (dowsed) hot-spot. How big would those resultant iron blobs be for such a long chemical reaction, and were they found? I recall seeing only one such blob that they called "the meteorite", but its volume is no where near big enough to account for the unproven theory for one hot-spot, and there were many.
How much of each component (thermite & steel) is needed to sustain a hot-spot whose duration is several weeks long?
How much volume of said component does this represent? [Can be calculated from the burn-rate and duration time. Does hundreds of THOUSAND of miles of imaginary garden hose filled with thermite & any combination of other chemical explosives ring a bell?]
The answers to these are not trivial. Aside from not being Occam Razor, the blobs weren't in the pile in great abundance as would be suggested from such chemical reactions.
As an aside, small iron spheres were found in the dust of the buildings across the street from the towers. Under the assumption that thermitic reactions in the towers generated them before or as they fell, Dr. Harrit calculated backwards to estimate initial quantities of reactants. Also a massive number.
Continuing with the theory and throwing in a screw ball:
[My debate partner] wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn't shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.
I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.
So according to this premise: (A) is the chemical reaction of thermite with steel from which it obtains oxygen to burn and generate a hot-spot; and (B) is the combustion of building content and requires oxygen from air. B produces flames, smoke, and "smoldering embers" (still requiring air) but let's set that aside.
The scenario presented is that: [START] chemical reaction A happens for a time under the rubble without air. Before the limiting reactant (thermite or steel) in A at a hot-spot is consumed, movement within the pile allows air to creep below, such that the heat from A ignites B. B burns and consumes combustible content, moving the burn location. Before it fully consumes either the combustible content or oxygen from the available air, its heat finds another pocket of A that B is able to ignite and get to chemically react. [Go to START for another cycle.] Continue said cycle for many weeks.
This has several problems with respect to the actual evidence and 1st-responder efforts, starting off with the amount of water from fire hoses and rain that were dumped on the hot-spots and continuing with the amount of chemical flame retardant also pumped into them. [Refer to the introduction of the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan article on speculation into the source of several spikes in the release of gasses off of the pile.] The extent of B type fires under the rubble lasting or being re-ignited "from smoldering embers" would have been severely limited, owing to lack of air and to drowning water & the fire retardants; B type fires could not have gone the duration or held up its leg of the aforementioned burn cycle.
The extent of A type hot-spots is limited to the amount of thermite (or other chemcial explosives) in the pile, whereby the burn-rate of thermite dictates the quantities needed to go the duration. If the primary purpose of A was to bring down the structure & pulverize content, how likely is it that additional, mind-blowing overkill amounts would be unspent and left-over in the pile from their original purpose to account for this several week long after-effect? How much proof do we have of iron by-product blobs in the pile that correlate to the quantities of thermate reacting with steel to achieve long-lasting hot-spots?
Lots of people on both sides of the 9/11 divide have stated over and over again that most of the steel in the buildings has been accounted for from the rubble and clean-up efforts. [An example are the discussions with Dr. Jenkins trying to debunk the dustification of steel comments from Dr. Wood.] If the steel is accounted-for as steel (and if we have little evidence of iron by-product blobs), then the steel wasn't consumed and altered by a reaction with thermite. Therefore, high school chemistry tells us (in yet another way) that thermite was not present in sufficient quantities to account for the hot-spots.
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"~Dr. Steven Jones, September 2012
I had written:
[Triple-W] completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived — contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
Triple-W responds with more weasel games:
On the contrary: "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device." Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.
The application goals for standard, run-of-the-mill neutron bomb that most of the literature covers and was fear-mongered hyped in the media is completely different. It refers to a battlefield situation where a spherical radiating of neutrons (and blast & heat wave) has tactical advantages. Triple-W knows the application goals for a tactical neutron device is different, for it has been explained many times. He tries to skew things with his "radiate... outward in all directions" word-smithery from one cherry-picked quotation about a different application of neutron devices.
However, his question is valid: "Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What would you get if you combined the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
Triple-W quotes from Wiki without understanding the significance:
Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.
The significance of the bolded statement is that if your device is directing neutrons through, say, a pin-hole cap in the casing and is aimed upwards, the amount of building material that gets hit with ionizing radiation to become radioactive is vastly limited. Yes, you'd end up with some radioactive material, but a manageable cleanup operation and not the thorough spherical dowsing of anything and everything at ground zero and the expected radiation signature of a full-fledged fusion device.
I wrote:
The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure — both inner core and outer wall assemblies — would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.
Triple-W plays his games again:
Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.
Wrong! Whereas for much of the floor space for the picture in question (when the towers were nearing completion, "you can see right through the buildings." But there is an area where you cannot see right through the building: namely the buildings' core. It is rather pronounced, like a spine in an X-ray. So who is trying to spin the "absolute bullshit."
In addition, allow me to introduce some controversy from the Let's Roll Forum disinformation site. Whether or not we give credit to the hollow-towers theory, what is true is that some form of window coverings were installed, maybe precisely because of the picture in question and its see-through result. I've seen no other pictures than that one, yet there were lots of days (after sun up or before sun down) over 30 years when a clever photographer in a helicopter would have tried to recreate it. As far as I know, for most of the towers' lifetime, it was never again possible to see through the towers in the same way.
Now that Triple-W's somewhat rational arguments have been addressed and his premise debunked, let us turn briefly to his other excellent & convincing substantiating arguments. I am utterly speechless at their wit, eloquence, and reason. Touche'!
2013-08-14: More sludge from Maxifuckanus' cesspool ... defaming scoundrel... Maxipad... Maximum prevaricator...
2013-08-15: Slurmiester Maximus... Maxasshole... Maxifuck
2013-08-14:
This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.
Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is "batshit crazy" I say Mr Eleven is 'crazy as a shithouse rat... Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin' liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes...
2013-08-14: I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus
Meh.
//
x124 Señor El Once : a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented
Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
I would agree with Mr. Ruff if he were talking about a math or science book that had lots of other competing volumes available that didn't have "intentionally misleading or deceptive information."
But that is not what this discussion is about. Our sources of 9/11 information aren't as cut-and-dried and logically accurate as textbooks, and we don't have alternative textbooks to reference that can be considered closer to 100% accurate and that put the faulty ones to shame to be relegated to the $1 table of Barnes and Noble.
No. As much as our good citizenship upbringing would have us wanting to trust the government's publication efforts, a small army of intelligent internet researchers puts them to shame. Not to be outdone, the government has a documented history of meddling with media and infiltration, such that once trusted "alternative" websites -- like 9/11 blogger -- suffer, and we bemoan the censorship. Yet still, the 9/11 keyboard warriors hoist cries of "mole" for the efforts of researchers, leaders, and speakers when they go "off-" (or "on-") script about some niche topic.
To take the ignorant and boastful stance of "rejecting" the totality of someone's work based on the discovery of untruths or outright deceit WHEN a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented in the foundation of truthful evidence isn't just short-sited. I'd be inclined to call such actions "playing right into the hands of disinformation."
If honest & sincere 9/11 Truthers don't reach into the maw of disinformation sources to rescue and re-purpose the valid truthful nuggets, who will? The government? The PTB? The true perpetrators of 9/11? Seems to me they are ecstatic when ignorant slobs like Mr. Ruff brush the whole works into the fire so that there is no more rememberence among fellow citizens of anomalous nuggets lacking explanations, no, not from even in the few trusty truthy sources remaining.
The expression goes, "you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts."
The issue isn't about the inaccuracy of the opinions uttered in the sources that you label "disinformation." The issue is about collecting and preserving the facts that are independent of the opinions.
Such should be the case for both Mr. Ryan and Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones, Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkins, the NIST reports, the 9/11 Commission Reports, the USGS dust data, etc.)
Mr. Adam Ruff continues:
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth.
No one is recommending "overlooking intentional disinformation," assuming that intentional motive can be proven. In fact, if it can be so indentified, the intentional disinformation should be studied precisely to gleam their "agenda other than truth" so that proper weighting can be assigned to their other opinions or skew.
It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for "nuggets of truth" that may or may not be in their book.
No, it is not foolish, particularly not in the 9/11 environment where valid information can be torpedoed and sunk with nary a rescue publication that presents, let alone (properly) analyzes, those nuggets. A simple example is Dr. Wood highlighting the pictures with the horseshoe, the arches, and the steel doobies. What other 9/11 publication accuratly accounts for these?
Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.
Exactly. Verify it from another source. If that other source isn't available, what do you do? Your ignorant solution is to bury it anyway.
Moreover, I should point out that you conflate the presentation of evidence and facts with the analysis or interpretation thereof. Are you playing disinfo games that you refuse to see the difference? If you -- as a leader of sorts in the 9/11 Truth Movement (moreso than I) -- want to make it easy for the lazy truthers, you should lead and be investigating the material thoroughly first hand and then documenting "the good, the bad, and the ugly." But this, apparently, you can't be bothered to do. You're happy with the second-hand, lame assessments of others ... even after those assessors are found wanting and dishonest based on other endeavors. [Don't get me wrong, the overall assessment could remain valid. But given a proven dishonest agenda of an assessor, what might their previous assessment of a work be hiding in its dismissal?]
Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity.
What if your trusted source lacks the time, energy, or capacity to assess some new work? Do you ignore that new work?
What if your trusted source suddenly becomes untrusted? How do you circle back and make sure his agenda didn't con you in some other way? Dr. Jones is one such example. "For simplicity" let's assume the involvement of nano-thermite; the fact remains that it cannot be ascribed all of the anomalous features of the WTC destruction that he has purposely led the entire movement to believe; high school chemistry & math disproves it handily. His "no-nukes" dismissal relies on a skewed tritium report and didn't even mention neutron devices. September 2012, he admits "Something maintained those under-rubble hot-spots (not just NT)." And Dr. Jones led the charge against Dr. Wood, "looney beams from space." Where is his review (or that of any leader of the 9/11 truth movement) of Dr. Wood's book for the good, the bad, and the ugly? M.I.A. Dr. Wood got more right than she got wrong, period.
If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don't like them, they are itchy and carry disease.
If you lie down with dogs, you can enjoy their warmth on cold winter nights. The dogs accept you and might even defend you from attackers. Regular doggy baths can rid them of flees.
You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees.
Guess what? Because Dr. Jones has never corrected the record with regards to the true limits and capabilities of nano-thermite and skewed his no-nukes report, he enters into the category of "known liar."
As for the flees who have taken up residency in my crouch hair, his actual name is "neu nookiedoo", which is short for Neutron Nuclear DEW (directed energy weapon).
And you have not debunked it. You have not even addressed it. You have taken a stilted position that you don't have the gonads to defend -- "No radiation = no nuke" -- when it is served back at you for why it is stilted and unfair, while at the same time misinterprets and malframes... my poor, iddy-biddy little flee "neu nookiedoo". Where's your proof of "no radiation"? M.I.A. Maybe you should have a chat with the sick 1st responders.
Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust.
Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?
So why did you read them if you didn't trust the government sources? To gain information. You spotted both the truth and the stilted lies. You made hay out of both in your online battles, didn't you?
Oh, and please, please, pretty please list all of the sources on 9/11 that you trust implicitly (other than Dr. David Ray Griffin, cuz I like him too.) What are their works of outstanding integrity, quality, research, and complete truth?
I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.
Hey, dude, Mr. Ruff, man, if you weren't such a pompous dick, it would be worth EVERY penny for me to purchase those books and send them to you for review -- GRATIS! No charge! ... Just to get us on the same literal page and validate or debunk each point LEGITIMATELY. [And I have a proven track record of delivering on such promise.]
And because I am reading Mr. Ryan's book at the moment, I know that your ignorant, off-hand, dismissals-sans-review is giving Rumsfeld and Cheney (among others) a free-pass. You're too stubborn to read the book and validate the (valid) sorid history of these people that makes them viable candidates for Mr. Ryan's alternative conspiracy.
And don't get me wrong on the topic of Mr. Ryan. I have reason to ~not~ trust him, because of his nano-thermite work with Dr. Jones. Or more correctly stated, for the nano-thermite work he didn't do (e.g., calculations into quantities needed for pulverization or hot-spot durations, and mixtures with other things, that might make it a tad unreasonable.) On this venture, though, I don't have reasons (so far) to find fault.
You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.
You can walloo in all of the closed-minded ignorance you want, Mr. Ruff, but I will not be joining you. I prefer to read things for myself and make my own assessments (albeit often times influenced by reviews of others to see thing I might have missed.)
+++++++++ Here's me being lazy and pissing off Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue with a single mondo posting. Consider it a test of your reading ability. Consider it also a blessing, because why suffer from TWO postings from me, when ONE posting is so much easier to scroll over.
While we are on the subject of both Mr. Ryan and his book, I went back and found the quote-mined passage that got everyone's panties in a twist.
"For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes."
The entire context of this does not make this nefarious. Mr. Ryan writes that his book's purpose isn't to debunk aspects of the official conspiracy theory, because many other works are present (and referenced in his footnotes) that already do that handily. His purpose is to identify potential members of the alternative conspiracy (e.g., not the 19 patsy hijackers). To aid in this effort, he would look into (paraphrased) "the things that didn't happen but should have, as well as the things that did happen and shouldn't have", because these hint at the levels of power and authority that could effect such. Also, who benefitted ultimately from this?
The official conspiracy was four planes and the damage wrought. For the purposes of identifying potential members of the alternative conspiracy, it doesn't matter whether a plane hit the Pentagon or whether it flew over it. Either scenario still points out systematic failings that point to the same conspirators. For the purposes of the book in getting at the the alternative conspiracy group, you can simplify the task by accepting the official account and then doing the old questioning "what should have happened but didn't [e.g., to prevent aspects of 9/11], or what shouldn't have happened but did [e.g., to cover it up]?" The clout it takes to get numerous agencies to published flawed works is telling, as is getting the media to propagate it and suppress the tough questions.
Mr. Ryan mentions often in that introductory chapter the phrase the alternative conspiracy. Meaning the conspiracy other than the 19 patsies. Meaning it is a speculative effort, and other alternative conspiracies could be drawn up, but would most likely overlap or outright include everyone Mr. Ryan identifies, where for the sake of simplicity he limits himself to 19.
P.S. Another blessing I give you is that I'll be off-line at the beach and camping starting the moment this goes up and lasting ALL WEEKEND LONG. Means you have time to compose INTELLIGENT and not so ignorant responses on the fronts where you're confronted. Means no postings from me, and might also mean more time with my nose in my Kindle getting further along in Mr. Ryan's book. Have a good weekend, all!
//
x125 Adam_Ruff : better things to do with my time than read your book length crappol
2013-08-17
August 17, 2013 at 6:22 am
I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.
x126 Señor El Once : I poked at his ignorance
Book Report Progress on Kevin Ryan's latest
Before I share my good vibes from being partway through Kevin Ryan's book, it is with sadness that I highlight the actions of a respected 9/11 Truther in being less than truthful.
In an earlier posting, Mr. Adam Ruff was boastful about his ignorance:
Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research, my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. ... I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust.
I poked at his ignorance with:
Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?
The entirety of Mr. Ruff's response (below) is a statement of self-contradiction and admitted ignorance:
I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.
How is that Mr. Ruff had "better things to do with his time than read" my posting yet could boast from this self-admitted strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance that he finds my "arguments unconvincing?" Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn't need to read anything to remain unconvinced. Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn't need to read anything, period. He knows what's inside every book without even seeing its cover, such is the progress of his brand of ignorance.
Mr. Ruff, I do not believe it was Mr. Rogue's intention to foreshadow your subsequent actions with his uncredited quotation from Magus Maverik: "The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager."
Here's a brief detour just to keep readers in suspense about my assessment of Kevin Ryan's book (so far), it should be pointed out that (2013-08-09) Mr. Ruff laid down what he and Mr. Rogue thought was an impregnable gauntlet for neu nookiedoo with his statement: "no radiation = no nukes." However, Mr. Ruff has been exceptionally silent on my response that said essentially "prove that the left-hand side of the equality is valid" for 9/11. Where is the official report that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measures alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation at the WTC, tabulates the results, analyzes it properly, and publishes this for public consumption?
*Oh SNAP!* This "no radiation" publication must come from a source that Mr. Ruff cannot "trust because of their track record of (dis)honesty and (lack of) integrity," namely the US Government. Ergo, he has not wasted his precious time on it, has not read it, has not found it, and is therefore spouting off about "no radiation at the WTC" from third- or fourth-hand sources who haven't been vetted and he can't recall.
So, dear readers of this forum, when this same Mr. Ruff passes off his judgment concerning Mr. Kevin Ryan's new book from his strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance, ... well, enough said, eh?
Without further delay, MY ASSESSMENT (so far) THRU CHAPTER 5 OF MR. KEVIN RYAN'S BOOK.
This book is going to be a silent best-seller among those in the know and the powers-that-be. You see, every individual has an ego; everyone wants to be recognized for their deeds. The problem with (auto)biographies is that, if they were deep and truthful, they throw away the subject's fifth amendment rights about self-incrimination and would probably get themselves "suicided" before publication. Plus, the subjects have a lot of thanks and praise to bestow upon others for helping them achieve the heights of their noted fame.
So after a long tenure on the world's stage, what does great-grandpa do to impress upon his lineage of his truly unbelievable exploits "for freedom and democracy?" Why, gramps lets the likes of Kevin Ryan research as many sources as he can, mine them for nuggets of truth, amass them as data points, publish them creatively next to one another, and let readers create the trend lines in their minds into what a bad-ass, tricky, mother-fucker they really were.
The trend line is nothing short of "kick ass," and a manual for domestic (& foreign) terrorism that puts to shame the Germans of the 1930's and early 1940's. We've all heard about the real Gold Rule: "He who has the gold, makes all the rules." Mr. Ryan's book proves that if you have all of the watchdogs of politics sucking on your teet of cash or favors -- from Congress to Committees, to judges, to the press -- you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, and change the rules as you go along, and propagate works of complete fiction that literally writes the glorious history of the victors that the majority of the public still sheepishly believes. This is literally a stunning achievement akin to the use of tazers to get protesters into the "free-speech zones"!!! Yet without the likes of "fringe 9/11 truther" Kevin Ryan writing about it, few would know the depth of their exploits. Few would know how long these stars were toiling to pull off the con of all cons.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has spent all of its time saying "insiders did 9/11", but other than Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, the movement has refrained from detailed finger-pointing under the belief (a concession) that just listing the anomalies of what happened would be sufficient to motivate representatives to escalate it into a new, thorough, and accurate investigation, trials of those charged, and justice. Hasn't happened. So Kevin Ryan's book pushes the notion of who a bit further with example of those back-slapping college buddies, frat brothers, and secret society pledges who had finnigled their careers to be in a position of responsibility and authority where their purposeful actions (or conveniently timed in-actions) assisted the 9/11 (domestic) terrorists' acts and/or its cover-up.
Mr. Ryan's book is an example of what real power can accomplish. [Just saying this doesn't mean I agree with the goals or the means to the goals of the 9/11 endeavors.]
If Mr. Ryan's book is disinformation as Mr. Ruff speculates (without reading), well it is disinformation that theoretically (in a very "conspiracy theory" sense) would not be flattering to the careers and lives of those hoisted up by the juxaposition of data points from their own careers. It should wind them up in jail awaiting trial. But because his book demonstrates how thorough the infiltration, those named in Mr. Ryan's book with lots of substantiation have the influence to keep the wheels of justice from running them over.
Meanwhile, though, they remain proud of all of the secret, world-changing actions that they contributed to make (so the "conspiracy theory" goes) offspring for several generations proud. I expect Mr. Ryan's book to be a hot-selling Christmas stocking stuffer for the well heeled and connected, particularly those named, in giving hours of "bad-ass grandpa (or grandma)" reading pleasure for the entire extended (crime) family.
Those of us not in their family tree? Well, time-and-time again we get to have our noses rubbed in how the rules are made to govern us, but not those making the rules. Ethics and honor applies to us, but those of our "superiors" seemingly gloat that "the ends always justify the means."
I won't bore people with lots of interesting data points that I did not know before reading Mr. Ryan's book. One that comes to mind from these early chapters is that a particular securities trading firm had been in trouple for some of its 9/11 associated transactions (like put options against airlines, never redeemed but I may have this transaction confused with another.) Former FBI Director Louis Feech and former CIA Director George Tenent both managed to snag slots on its board of directors on that same firm after leaving their respective agencies. The world is small.
//
x127 Adam Ruff : grossly distorting
2013-08-28
2013-08-28 ruffadam
You are grossly distorting what I said in regards to your "nuggets of truth" argument. I ACTUALLY said that mistakes are understandable and can be forgiven. I also ACTUALLY said that I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work. I go on to explain that once they deliberately try to deceive you that it is unwise to trust ANYTHING they say from then on because they may be trying to deceive you again. That is what I actually said.
You have now grossly distorted what I said and attempted to assign an entirely new meaning to it (your own) and I find that to be dishonest to the extreme. I expect a retraction from you for this "mistake" and if none is forthcoming I am going to assume from now on that it wasn't a mistake at all but was in fact deliberate. At that point I will regard you as a disinformationist who should be ignored, much like Judy Wood.
x128 Señor El Once : rejects EVERYTHING from them
2013-08-27 {Requested be deleted.}
2013-08-27
{Mr. McKee, could you please remove my August 27, 2013 – 12:25 pm posting. I've corrected a shocking number of typo's and added some reference links. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks.}
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on 2013-08-26:
You are grossly distorting what I said in regards to your "nuggets of truth" argument.
I disagree. We shall see who is distorting what. [Here's Mr. Ruff's original 2013-08-15 statement of ignorance, and my 2013-08-16 response. Links provided because they are on another thread.]
Mr. Ruff goes on to spin:
I ACTUALLY said that mistakes are understandable and can be forgiven. I also ACTUALLY said that I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work.
In other words, once a given researcher has been proven to have a single instance (or area) of "DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION", then Mr. Ruff "rejects EVERYTHING from them"... even the VALID nuggets of truth that nobody has ever questioned or had issue with (or addressed). How stupid is that?
If this were an academic endeavor (like physics), maybe Mr. Ruff would be justified. But it is not. It just so happens to be in a realm that has the United States Government and its agencies ~ACTIVELY~ producing disinformation.
Moreover, Mr. Ruff purposely leaves two voids. The second void is an alternative analysis that explains a certain set of evidence, because obviously he may have felt that the analysis in question might be deliberate disinformation. More shocking, the first void is simply presenting a certain set of evidence so that it gets public consideration; Mr. Ruff rejects this and throws it out. [And if I error in this, Mr. Ruff should correct me by stepping through Dr. Wood's work image-by-image and list all of the other places/publications (1) where this evidence is presented and (2) properly analyzed.]
Mr. Ruff continues:
I go on to explain that once they deliberately try to deceive you that it is unwise to trust ANYTHING they say from then on because they may be trying to deceive you again. That is what I actually said.
I agree. To paraphrase Ronald Reagen, "(dis)trust but verify."
In other words, just because sincere seekers of truth have reason to distrust a particular researcher, this does not relieve the seeker of the obligation to independently review ~all~ information from that information source precisely to validate nuggets of truth and to expose the dross of disinformation.
When an information source is proven untrustworthy, it just means that nothing can be accepted at face value and requires validation. It does mean neither that studious efforts into that research should be halted nor that validated portions of that research should be rejected.
Mr. Ruff continues with his faux outrage:
You have now grossly distorted what I said and attempted to assign an entirely new meaning to it (your own) and I find that to be dishonest to the extreme.
No distortion was made except by Mr. Ruff in trying to save his ignorant ass, because he just clarified under no uncertain terms that he would reject everything including valid nuggets of truth from a particular researcher upon discovering deliberate disinformation.
Of course on this front, Mr. Ruff is a liar. How so?
(1) Has he discarded all reports and all information contained therein produced by agencies of the US Government, particularly when they have been proven to have disinformation? No.
(2) Dr. Jones has fed the world deliberate disinformation about (a) nano-thermite and its capabilities and (b) nuclear devices that could account for the tritium, yet Mr. Ruff has yet to denounce him, let alone reject everything from the man.
I expect a retraction from you for this "mistake" and if none is forthcoming I am going to assume from now on that it wasn't a mistake at all but was in fact deliberate.
Mr. Ruff, no retraction is requisite from me, because you are the one with the ignorant and unsupportable position. And you ain't very good about spinning your way out of it.
At that point I will regard you as a disinformationist who should be ignored, much like Judy Wood.
There you go again. I'm still waiting for you to stick your nose up the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook (and Mr. Ryan's). I want you to point out the specific instances of disinformation while also preserving the valid nuggets of truth.
As another indication of Mr. Ruff's level of dishonesty, he promised me awhile ago that he would ignore my postings. Meanwhile, ample evidence exists that he hasn't, including a lame-ass hit-and-run on 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW. I'm still waiting for him to prove the left-hand side of the challenging equality as being valid at the WTC on 9/11: "no radiation = no nukes." Show me the reports that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measure all forms of radiation at or below background levels.
And as long as he's gorded me into rising up to respond to his totally stupid rejection explanation, here's a nugget of truth brought more fully to my attention by Kevin Ryan's book that I (unlike he) am open-minded enough to continue reading.
Among the drills happening on 9/11 were Apollo Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Guardian.
From http://www.dod.mil/pubs/dswa/document.html
GLOBAL GUARDIAN
Annual command-level exercise sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The primary purpose of the exercise is to test and validate nuclear command and control and execution procedures.
From http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=apollo_guardian
Ken Merchant in fact told the 9/11 Commission that Apollo Guardian had been "running on September 11, 2001." HE is NORAD's joint exercise design manager, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon. Ken Merchant called Vigilant Guardian a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise.
It should be pointed out that the annual Global Guardian drill both pre- and post-9/11 has always been in October, yet in 2001 they re-scheduled it for September.
If 9/11 had no nuclear component, why was Global Guardian scheduled for the 9/11 drill dates?
It should be pointed out that Apollo Guardian was sponsored by Space Command. What would space command have to do with the exercises?
BRIEF DETOUR: A hallmark of 9/11 has been the conflating of individual events with one another when really they need to be separated. For instance, "we saw on the telly aircraft hitting the towers," therefore it is assumed that the Pentagon and the Shanksville hole were hit by aircraft.
With 20/20 hindsight into September Clues, one of its meme's was "no planes hit the towers because it was digital fakery." The disinformation effort had many purposes but was designed to fail. The failure was a success, because once the 9/11 Truth Movement had been through the wringer on the "No Planes Theory" (at the tower), they are in no more mood to consider the valid instances of "no plane in Shanksville hole" and "no plane hitting the Pentagon."
Many other examples of this exist, such as assuming that the destructive mechanisms that destroyed WTC-1 were identical to WTC-2, were identical to WTC-7, were identical to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6. They didn't have to be.
I've never disputed the involvement of nano-thermite (but I could be convinced it wasn't given that nano-thermite did not come up in the USGS dust samples and wasn't scraped off of beams and analyzed). What I disputed was nano-thermite's "primary role" in the destruction and being unable to account for pulverization, hot-spot duration, and anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
Dr. Wood's textbook has many nuggets of truth and -- surprise, surprise -- scant few actual operational theories that give a cohesive explanation for the observed destruction. [The lack of an objective & thorough review by any leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement should be a glaring flag.] Of the elements -- mostly from her website -- to which someone could point of Dr. Wood advocating a theory like "directed energy weapons", she could not power it or explain in a real-world operational sense how it would get its energy, while at the same time giving nuclear themes a disinfo treatment. Her detractors always want to couch her work as "beams from space."
With regards to the towers, I believe that neutron nuclear DEW achieved it. Given the hot-spots below WTC-7, it may have been the same.
However, the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Wing? Apollo Guardian, a US Space Command exercise? And the overplaying of the belittling and derogatory hand against the entirety of Dr. Wood's presented evidence and concepts as "beams from space"? Well, maybe beams from space were involved for those buildings. (I'm on the fence, but open to the suggestion.)
I mean, if I were going to try to pull off a massive destruction project at the WTC, I would use mixed methods for two reasons. (1) To validate various weapons, from nano-thermite to neutron nuclear DEW to space-based lasers (powered by Tesla or Hurricane Erin). (2) To be able to play the evidence of one off of the evidence of another to confuse the honest researcher and general public; to purposely distract and have the public make simplified extrapolating assumptions; to purposely throw off research into one root cause by conflating with the evidence from another.
In Summary: Mr. Ruff is mentally handicapped from providing the proper scope to the efforts of sincere 9/11 Truth seekers, because he is too eager to reject everything from (allegedly) discredited sources without first salvaging the valid nuggets of truth and assuring they have a reasonable alternative explanation. Plays right into the hands of disinformation purposes.
Ergo, who is the disinformationalist?
//
x129 Señor El Once : So works the hands of disinformation.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Meh.
Mr. Adam Ruff brought up Dr. Wood first, in a dubious manner, I might add. Like you, he has no testicles to extract the nuggets of truth from therein. Like you, he thinks he can play cheesy word games and not get marks of "F" for a lame sophomoric effort that employs over-generalizations that can and should be rammed uncomfortably back into his and your orifices.
Mr. Ruff: "I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work."
"Everything... in their work" that is rejected isn't limited to "the dubious and deceitful points," and is a very big brush that sweeps away both the bad and ugly as well as the good. "Everything... in their work" would include nuggets of truth, validated points, points that no one disputes, and items that no one else addresses.
So works the hands of disinformation.
Glad to see that you so readily and eagerly expose your masterbating hand in such endeavors as well. Over-generalizations regularly trip you up, as does high school chemistry, math, etc.
P.S. What's your posting count -- I mean, hypnotic sales pitch count -- on this thread and the last one? Yesterday, I stop counting but it was like 52/172 (30%) and 113/290 (38%). Today it grows like your Pinochio nose.
Ergo, "REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT" who has to weigh in with his "learned opinion" in overwhelming measures? Who is "a virus, a one poster plague, a fatigue on the spirit, a monotonous motormouth?... It is obvious YOU ARE!"
Your stellar *cough* debunking attempts at neu nookiedoo -- mostly with such witty ad hominem -- reflects those disinformation charges back onto you. Gracias, amigo!
//
x130 Adam Ruff : Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical.
2013-08-27
2013-08-27 Adam Ruff
SEO why don't you throw the full text of war and peace into every comment you make that way you can be sure no one will have the time or patience to read it. Christ on a cracker man you are seriously disturbed.
Anyway here is the relevant quote from my post which backs up what I said above please note what I ACTUALLY SAID since you linked to the comment yourself but obviously never read it in the first place:
"Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth."
As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical. My original criteria for rejecting someones work or not stand and nothing you have said changes the fact that my logic is sound. Giving a con artist a second chance to con you is just stupid. Your "look for the nuggets of truth" argument is stupid and I reject it completely. Furthermore I am no longer interested in reading anything you have to say. You have intentionally distorted what I said and therefore you are a disinformationist in my book. From here on out I reject everything you have to say and will ignore it all unless and until I choose not to.
I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.
x131 hybridrogue1 : perpetual twirlytwat
2013-08-27
+++++ 2013-08-27 hybridrogue1
Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-27
By: hybridrogue1 on August 27, 2013 at 8:02 pm
SEO
Mr. Adam Ruff brought up Dr. Wood first, in a dubious manner, I might add. Like you, he has no testicles to extract the nuggets of truth from therein. Like you, he thinks he can play cheesy word games and not get marks of "F" for a lame sophomoric effort that employs over-generalizations that can and should be rammed uncomfortably back into his and your orifices."
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
So now this arrogant son-of-a-bitch pretends he can grade the commentary of the participants of the forum at T&S.
And then this closing:
"Your stellar *cough* debunking attempts at neu nookiedoo — mostly with such witty ad hominem — reflects those disinformation charges back onto you. Gracious, amigo!"
Wherein he complains in an utterly hypocritical manner about "ad hominem" while every word he mews about others is indeed built of ad hominem.
But the pathetic part to all of this is that the rest of the participants on T&S don't give a flying shit about Señor El Nannyshit's raving postings and just breeze over them as if they do not exist. In fact I only scanned this one enough to glean the scrabble I wanted to use as examples here.
This delusional fuck had better grok that referring to me as "amigo" is the biggest lie in his whole load of bullshit.
The only point most take away from this crap is that he is a complete asshole.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-28
Señora claims I don't know anything about science, but he/she is the one that was taken in by Fetzer's 'bullshit physics', not me. Señora blows huge chunks because I said, "I don't need to do the math" – throwing the statement totally out of context, when I have explained that context over and again. I meant and mean; I don't need to do the calculations to his proposed problem, solving the wrong problem automatically provides a wrong answer.
And I have gone to great lengths to explain why he is asking the wrong questions…that they are in fact bogus questions based on misconception.
But all of this is past. I am not making these arguments to the Señora any longer. My argument now is that I don't have to make any further arguments, and that this disingenuous entity is in fact taunting me for no other reason than spiteful harassment. Señora is a nag and acts like he/she has a twat, that is why I doubt that there are testicles involved in it's thinking at all.
Nookeedoodoo: A Supposition built on Conjecture wrapped in Bullshit!
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-28
I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; 'JUST HAPPENS' to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T. Of course no coincident theorist worth their salt would make anything of such perfectly timed DISTRACTION techniques.
And of course pointing something this glaringly obvious out, will be interpreted as "ad homenim" by our pretend el Zorro. Whereas all of the long twisted rhetorical twine he spins to stretch across an abyss of the absurd as an excuse to call myself and Mr Ruff "Liars" should be taken as just an "innocent truther looking for nuggets" in the 9/11 Dumpster.
I hope that "dear mister" Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.
\\][//
x132 Señor El Once : proper recourse to suspected disinformation
Dear Mr. Ruff,
With your 2013-08-27 posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the third time in the row by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., "everthing" and "all"), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:
Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer.
There's that catchy phrase, "I reject all of their work" that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread "I reject everything from a particular researcher"... once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. "All" and "everything" leave no room for exceptions (e.g., those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain't nobody had no issues with).
It isn't a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can't.
But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:
(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.
Finding instances of disinformation -- particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace -- does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you've got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.
Remember the 20th hijacker, KSM? He was tortured so badly that he admitted to terrorists actions that he couldn't have possibly been involved with. If Mr. Rogue were rendered to Guantanamo for a thrilling weekend, he'd come back admitting bestial relations with his birds. The threats don't even have to be physically against us, but perhaps hinted at a loved one, and many of us (me) would flip-flop 180 degrees on a debate position.
The crafty ones under such pressure would bow to the disinfo demands but maintain their integrity by inserting clues:
"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic." ~Dr. Judy Wood
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just NT)." ~Dr. Steven Jones
The relevance of the above quotes is that (1) we need to study the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook and not get distracted (e.g., by Dr. Wood's explanations) from seeing what the evidence is telling us -- massive influx of energy; (2) we need to keep looking for that "something" that maintained those hot-spots.
Again a reflection on your poor grades in sophomore English, I love how you get burned a second time for an offense of the exact same nature. You write:
As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical.
Wait a minute! Rewind! Back-up!
How can you conclude that "[my] reasoning is unreasonable and [my] logic is illogical" when you admit in the preceding sentence that "[you are] not going to spend [your] time reading it"?
Really puts a fine point on who is being unreasonable and illogical when you have the ability to come to such conclusions about my statements without having read them. [Because you fall into sophomoric traps so easily, don't come back and try to say "actually I did read your work objectively and fairly and thus came to those conclusions" because I'll make hay out of you being a blowhard liar.]
This fits well into the theme of willful ignorance that you display. (Mockingly) "I reject the notion of looking for nuggets of truth, because there is no such thing. Either it is all true or everything is false; ain't no in between. And don't expect me to be pointing out sources of 9/11 information who meet my own ignorant criteria of being 100% truth, because... because... I'm too ignorant to know that there ain't such a thing."
Unlike the con-artists in the streets, who take their deck of cards with them and undoubtedly cleaned out Mr. Ruff many times over in his ignorant youth, the con-artists who ply their trade in agency reports, self-published books, mass media, and cyberspace, have to contend with fair and objective readers' ability to re-read passages, to verify with other sources, and to get a good handle on classifying each nugget of information as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
Mr. Ruff's habit of not reading things (and boasting about it) is akin to him giving the con-artist his money without the cards being dealt, much less flipped.
Mr. Ruff concludes:
I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.
Oh, please do, Mr. Ruff! Please do! Being a man of letters himself, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly agree with my speculation into your high school grades for sophomore English. And he'll be scratching his head over how you could REPEATEDLY create and fall into the same stupid, ignorant, reasoning pitfalls, particularly when they were pointed out to you.
"Distortion and outright lies?" Just saying it is, does not make it so. And as my postings prove, if such exist in this exchange, they come from boastful and ignorant you (and Mr. Rogue).
+++++++++
Seeing how Mr. Ruff admits he can't read long "War & Peace" masterpieces, I might as well use this opportunity to address Mr. Rogue. It makes it so much easier for the ignorant readers like Mr. Ruff to scroll right over.
Mr. Rogue sets news standards for fair, objective, rational, and logical debate with these four entries: [1] 2013-08-27 at 3:58 pm; [2] 2013-08-27 at 8:02 pm; [3] 2013-08-28 at 11:32 am; and [4] 2013-08-28 at 12:01 pm. Readers should note that only two of the four are here; #2 & #3 are on Mr. Rogue's COTO homecourt where he does not allow debate. Ain't a single piece of substance to back up his hypnotic assertions regarding the demerits of my comments.
After Mr. Ruff got his hat handed to him for his imprecise usage of language and for his disinformation games that aim to REJECT entire swaths of valid nuggets of truth, Mr. Rogue's limp-wristed and misogynistic defense (2013-08-27) can only muster in its entirety:
Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.
Gems demonstrating his charming wit:
- arrogant son-of-a-bitch
- Señor El Nannyshit's raving postings
- delusional fuck
- complete asshole
- Señora is a nag and acts like he/she has a twat
- el Zorro
- this disingenuous entity
- flushing of his septic tanks
Mr. Rogue charges 2013-08-28:
I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; 'JUST HAPPENS' to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T.
Yes, let us look at the timing. Mr. Ruff and you have ignorantly bull-dozed many times that "you don't need to read no stinkin' book in order to pass judgment and REJECT all information contained therein, regardless of valid nuggets of truth not being preserved in alternative publications." Just one thread over, Mr. Ruff was trying this technique on Kevin Ryan's book, and got called on it in a major reputation-impacting way. Idiot that he is, he recycles the same exact tripe here without correcting or even acknowledging its deficiencies. In fact, he tries to spin it to the moderator (Mr. McKee) as if I've lied and distorted his words. Coincidence?
If there be any coincidences with the review of Ms. Honegger's work and my comments, it would be an admonishment for readers to be fair and objective, open-minded and tolerant, and vigilant to recognize & preserve nuggets of truth despite instances of bullshit in the same work.
I hope that "dear mister" Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.
I can obligue your wishes. Including quotations from you and Mr. Ruff, this posting is only 1,505 words.
//
x133 ruffadam : not credible at all as a person seeking the truth
2013-08-29
ruffadam
August 29, 2013 at 2:27 am
A.Wright,
I agree with OSS’s statement about you completely. You are not credible at all as a person seeking the truth. I don’t buy your BS. When you have a legitimate point to argue about CIT or P4T (involving actual information not just your worthless opinion) I will look at it but until then I have no interest in you or what you have to say. So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
x134 Señor El Once : I expect the same
2013-08-29
Mr. Adam Ruff writes (2013-08-28) to Mr. A.Wright paraphrasing Mr. OSS:
So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow. (In paraphrasing Mr. OSS, I wonder why Mr. Ruff left off the adjectives "mature" and "responsive"? Coincidence?)
And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth (or disinfo) level, particularly if the disinformation ploy has been to insert these various nuggets only into a disinformation vehicle designed to fail so that they would die in its crash as well.
If this is too cryptic for Mr. Ruff, he made the unsubstantiated, hit-and-run contention (2013-08-08) that the WTC had no radiation, with which I and the illnesses of the sick first responders disagree. This contention he should prove with "a mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational, argument." As part of this, he should qualify to the radiation types specifically, their expected or designed duration, the nuclear devices in question, etc.
In this endeavor, Mr. Ruff should be careful that he doesn't hoist himself up by his own petards...
I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work.
... What if the "researcher" is an agency of the US Government? Other than the suppression of this report he seeks to make his case, have instances of their "deliberate disinformation" been found in other agency reports, making it worthy of rejection without reading?
[The report's suppression might have been easier to accomplish than outright lying to manipulate the measurment data in tables into the range "at or below trace background levels." Remember, to accomplish the same in the tritium papers, they had to re-define (without telling you) "trace background levels" to be 55 times greater than it was previously.]
Meanwhile, the unserious nature of Mr. A.Wright was known to the participants of this forum a couple of months before Mr. Rogue started flooding us in 2012. I probably have to use my fingers and some of my toes to count the number of times Mr. Rogue promised to throw the towel in at me [despite, or rather, because I do make "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments"], yet he has never thrown the towel at Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Mr. Ruff makes promises regarding whom he's not going to read or respond to, but I don't recall him making such about Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Coincidence?
Here's how Mr. A.Wright needs to be handled. Option 1 is to not rise to the bait.
Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation, because without him, you wouldn't get the opportunity to expound upon the depths of the truth of the 9/11 or world events for all of the future, newby, lurker readers and the database archeologists. When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.
It takes more organization, but Mr. Rogue can attest that it is effective and can drive an opponent off of the rails into the weeds and to ad hominem-ville, which then depicts them as "the insane, raving lunatic" despite their attempts to afix this label to you.
P.S. "Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie..." ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn't in or from the USA. I wager he's in Alice Springs.
// Only 659 words, and my one-trick pony -- neu nookiedoo -- only gets mentioned here in my signature.
x135 hybridrogue1 : Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
2013-08-29
+++++ 2013-08-29 hybridrogue1
"P.S. "Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie…" ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn't in or from the USA. I wager he's in Alice Springs."~Señor
I will respond to this by noting that Canada is in Amerika…as in the North Amerikan Union. That TV and it's Zombified viewers is a "typical Amerikan" phenomena, which is extant throughout the so-called "Western World". So where ever Mr Wright is, just like anyone else suffering the hypnotic trance of television he is indeed a typical Amerikan TVZombie, as the template is in fact Amerikan.
Perhaps Mr Ruff understands these facts better than his enraged critic who takes it upon himself to treat all here as neophytes in his kindergarten class:
7] "the first-responder ailments." – This point is addressed *in the very thread I am accused of ignoring this issue; Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:
"*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in "typical" indoor dusts."
~RJ Lee report
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it. [*MARCH 5, 2013 – 9:30 AM]
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-29 hybridrogue1
"I expect the same from Mr. Ruff"__"And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth.."~Señor
YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
Nookeedoodoo Taco:
A Supposition built on Conjecture spiced with Speculation and wrapped in Bullshit!
Now I am sure YOU "EXPECT" to turn this thread into a debate over whether my recipe for that taco is correct or not, thus fulfilling your mandate of derailing this whole conversation into an argument over your bullshit theory again.
No dice, that is all a done deal now.
All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-29 hybridrogue1 August 29, 2013 – 5:34 pm
So Let Us Speak to the Issue of Ad Hominem:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/the-gay-porn-of-hybridrogue1/
Of course what this anonymous entity calling itself 'Señor El Once' aka [DELETED] and who knows what else, was the source of many of my posts to his Nookiedoodoo thread – taken from his latest Defamation Jamboree on Truth and Shadows:
So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this:
. . . . .
FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM:
"And I am defaming you, Mr. fookin' no-nookin' a$$hole Rogue."
FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM:
"Let me put this in a form that your simple mind will understand: Fuck you, Mr. Rogue, and your bullshit chowder about defamation of Dr. Jones."
" I call him "simple-minded" with respect to nukes and write "fuck you, Mr. Rogue" (because I know him so well.)"
FEBRUARY 28, 2013 – 7:50 PM:
"..you write on COTO & here about "the true nature of things", then WTF? You're not just being a clueless idiot; you're being a purposeful a$$hole whose motives we'll need to question for why you are here… in overbearing quantities."
MARCH 3, 2013 – 8:28 PM:
"I called Mr. Rogue a liar, a cheat, and agent, and I stand by that assessment."
"Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate.."
"Liar, cheat, and Agent that Mr. Rogue is…"
"Were he not a liar, a cheat, and an agent, Mr. Rogue would have seen the light a long time ago."
"Agent Rogue, where's your little pincer buddy Mr. A Wright?"
MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM:
"I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent… each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is."
"it is more of a question of Agent Rogue failing an integrity test"
"Mr. Rogue continues playing the agent to suppress nuclear means-&-methods by spouting the lie.."
" just him demonstrating what a lying cheat he is."
"Lying, cheating agent Rogue wants to keep framing things as minuscule and "a trillionth" and to steer readers into believing it means "nothing" and is equivalent to "zero."
MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM:
"Agent Rogue does not disappoint us with a further example of his lying and cheating ways."
"But because he is an agent with an agenda to PREVENT knowledge of nuclear means-&-methods.."
"And of course, this is the song-and-dance that Dr. Jones enlightens us with to "prove" that fission or fusion nukes weren't used. This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to."
" here is a "fucking lie" from Agent Rogue;
[So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.]"
"Gloating Agent Rogue, as is true to his lying and cheating ways.."
"It ain't as cheatin', lyin' Agent Rogue frames it.."
"Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too."
"When an agent is paid to promote an agenda, he can never admit fault or error; he can never give an inch; he can never allow his target (e.g., me) the last word on the agenda topic; he has to dominate the forum; he will pull out every nasty trick in the book in order to hold the line given by the agenda…"
"Mr. Rogue isn't free to think for himself or to consider drawing different trend lines through the data points that are present. Agents never tire of going through the same merry-go-round points over-and-over, which Mr. Rogue has done not just with me, but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc."
"I stand by by assessment that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent, as well as being an asshole. I'm sorry. The luster of having an agent as a sounding board has wore off; Mr. Rogue belongs back on this COTO crew-cut home court."
MARCH 5, 2013 – 5:23 PM:
"Agent Rogue demonstrates that he is a convincing liar and cheat.."
" Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and an agent."
"Why is Agent Rogue defending Dr. Jones so viciously?"
MARCH 5, 2013 – 3:28 PM:
" Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent."
"Weasel, weasel, weasel! My, does Agent Rogue squirm!"
"And before I forget, here's another example of Agent Rogue's fucking "genius"
"Agent Rogue proves that he was lying about being a "genius" in any subject at any point in his life."
"proving what a lying fucking cheat Agent Rogue is!"
" Mr. Rogue, you are and have been T&S's govt infiltration, no doubt."
"[*Ear-to-ear grin with middle-fingers raised in an appreciative salute to Agent Rogue*]"
MARCH 5, 2013 – 7:05 PM:
" TEN-TO-ONE!!! Agent Rogue never shuts the fuck up!!!"
"Agent Rogue makes his living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work."
"Agent Rogue and his clackerless cowbell needs to be put out to pasture."
"Agent Rogue may technically have his own blog, but if he doesn't use it, he's a liar to even consider himself a blogger."
"P.S. Agent Rogue acts the innocent: "NSA 'Q Team' Agent… Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean." It was explained several times, thereby proving Agent Rogue lied about being a genius artist among countless other lies to steer this forum."
. . . . . . . .
"Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate.."~Anonymous Entity known as 'Señor'
The staggering hypocrisy of a complaint of "ad hominem" – after reading the ungodly list of ad hominem 'Señor spewed onto the forum at Truth and Shadows, is a tell for anyone with the slightest lucidity.
I do believe this anonymous entity should take on a new assignment and keep his filth off of COTO.
. . . . .
I posted this reply to the URL above, that led to an Anal Hurlant of defamation and slurs against my self. So I repeated some of what he had done on Truth and Shadows in the same manner.
. . . . .
HOWEVER; a few comments later I went back to the link for Maxifucks story on COTO and found this:
ERROR 404 – FILE NOT FOUND
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
. . . . .
So I assume the administrators deleted the vile thing.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-30 By: hybridrogue1 on August 30, 2013 at 10:35 pm
"Says the man without the intellect, fortitude, or integrity to read the entire textbook from Dr. Judy Wood, let alone compile any report (let alone a convincing one) on the good, the bad, and the ugly chapter-by-chapter."
~ Señor El Once on August 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm
. . . . . . . . .
So…how long has it been since I offered to return the book to raging angry Maxidoo? This is what it is all about, all of this ranting is still about THE BOOK. It has been close to a year since I first received the book. Almost a year and Max is still bleeding_that's as long as it takes most men to get over a divorce. That is why I take this guy for a twat.
\\][//
+++++ By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 12:27 am
To continue the discussion above. For it is not just this one point about the flash of a nuclear device. It also takes into account that one of the telltale signs of explosive demolition is the rows of explosions around the perimeter of a building. And the evidence for just such events is overwhelming; video, audio, and scores of witness testimonies. Unmistakable evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The published Testimonies of the First Responders is easily found in a search of the Internet. The breadth of this evidence is expansive and conclusive.
And yes there will be testimony as to the furnace-like conditions with molten metal described. But this must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof.
The first assumption that then follows is: Isn't it most reasonable to consider such explosive products as the most likely culprits in keeping the rubble burn going? To reject this as the most likely prospect is a nonsequitur as far as reason in forensics. The reasons to reject it would need be compelling. I have made a long case as to why I do not find the nuclear, the DEW, nor the blend of the two as a compelling argument.
\\][//
+++++ By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 1:13 am
To continue yet further:
The seismic evidence points to explosions in the basements. We have gone over this previously. There were explosions in the basements. There is nothing else that explains the seismic evidence.
So if a bomb went off, can the nuclear dew advocate claim it was a nuclear device? Not after all of the complex arguments describing the weapon as energizing a beam in a contained process. The proponent cannot have it both ways. Either they were bombs or they were beam weapons. If they were bombs all of the attendant arguments for the lack of substantive radiation fall flat.
And this point is augmented by all the other arguments made showing how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation are:
Why ineffective leach fields are the most likely source of most of these substances in metropolitan industrial centers. Which the city of New York most certainly is.
\\][//
+++++ By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Now, I want you Max, to understand something.
I want this thing between us to end.
I don't understand why it is you do not comprehend that you are just hurting your own reputation by continuing your attacks on me.
It is only two days now since the last lambasting fusillade you laid down on the Truth and Shadows forum. When are you going to stop?
If I continue putting together my thoughts on the destruction of the towers here – ON MY OWN THREAD – where few ever come anyway. I want you to understand that it is not 'arguing against you' even tho' I use your arguments as a counter. I want to develop my own presentation of how I think the towers were destroyed – in doing so I have to consider all opposing hypothesis.
I don't want my final work on this to be an 'attack' on anyone. I want to address the data, that is all. But you have made it such an ugly affair that I have been totally pissed off because of your personal vile defamation.
Drop it Max. Leave it be. You will only end up destroying yourself.
\\][//
x136 Señor El Once : Consistently missing substantiating links
El-Oh-El. Consistently missing just one tiny thing: substantiating links to the source locations so that context can be reviewed and your premises validated (or not). Afraid of the "or not", I see.
//
x137 Señor El Once : Do I ever feel special!
2013-09-01
2013-09-01 { expect it to not be published.}
2013-08-30 {This sat in the moderation queue. I asked Mr. McKee either (a) to publish my response or (b) to delete my Rogue's comment (2013-08-29) and my response. I prefer (b), because it is a distraction from Mr. McKee's article and Mr. Rogue has other places where he's re-posted the same.}
Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn't just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.
[1] 2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm
[2] 2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm
[3] 2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm
To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) dedicated to me, when I thought PROLOGUE was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an "Autodidact Polymath" who "worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention" (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm); who has ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology" (2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM); and who has been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years and 9-11 Psyop... is an issue that [he understands] quite well (2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM). One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: reference links.
I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:
Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation... When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.
Regarding his [third] retread posting (2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm and here) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I've used to describe Mr. Rogue -- cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent --, the cherry-picked quotations from me lack substantiating links.
Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his "doctorates equivalent studies in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation". Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those terrible things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the "or not."
The strawman premise and distraction that Mr. Rogue builds:
So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this: ...
The reason that I call it a "strawman premise and distraction" is that context proves that it is not me "dropping [a] phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar'". No, it is me "dropping down to Mr. Rogue's level" using language and words that he understands better and doing an excellent job of mocking him. What is worse for Mr. Rogue is that context also proves that I substantiate with Mr. Rogue's own exhibit how I come to such dastardly opinions: "cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent."
I don't know why Mr. Rogue keeps kicking that sleeping "agent" dog. Lacking proof other than my suspicions from his stubborn debates with me, it is not something that I've been holding to since even last November. "Cheat, liar, weasel" is another issue, and maybe him kicking the sleeping agent dog is just another example of that.
Meanwhile, Mr. OSS wrote:
Either have a mature, sourced, responsive conversation with people here or piss off.
Mr. Adam Ruff dropped "mature" and "responsive" from his paraphrasing (coincidence?):
So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
SEO wrote:
Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow.
Mr. Rogue comes unhinged with:
YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gotta walk the talk. So, yeah, "I EXPECT" and so do many others (including Mr. McKee.)
Seeing how Mr. Rogue brings it up, what does he expect? Rhetorical question, because Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) and PROLOGUE already demonstrate the standards of "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments" that Mr. Rogue -- "an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years" with a "doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation" -- EXPECTS from himself and others.
Mr. Rogue slams some hypnotic suggestion down (2013-08-29):
All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.
Ho-hum. I made 12 points. He claims that his Carnival d'Maxifuckanus has the counter-arguments to the twelve. In actuality, cheating Mr. Rogue won't let me post "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational counter-counter-arguments" to that blog or PROLOGUE; I know because I tried on 2013-03-19, but it was deleted. That's why you'll have to go "The Judy Wood Enigma" (2013-04-15) to see his counter-arguments get destroyed, point-by-point and ample examples highlighted of him cheating, lying, and being a weasel in his effort.
Yep, it demonstrates a lot about the character of Mr. Rogue that he would link to his one-sided Carnival d'Maxifuckanus instead of a two-sided "The Judy Wood Enigma".
With 243 comments to this thread at the time of writing, Mr. Rogue has 77 (31.7%) while I have only seven times less at 11 (4.5%). I am such a loser against Mr. Rogue.
Mr. Rogue, thank you for your participation. You are so cute when you come unhinged.
//
x138 ruffadam : respect is mutual
2013-09-03
+++++ 2013-09-03 ruffadam
Willy,
I too have only a lowly high school education and I too am a self educated person. I have found that many highly educated people are among the most misinformed. Something built into the formal education system seems to cause this phenomenon. As a result some highly educated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe. This makes them almost impossible to dialogue with because they often see themselves as superior in intelligence to lowly high school grads such as me.
In fact I had a "conversation" if you can call it that with RT aka Gretavo about 9/11 where my argument was clearly winning the day and instead of acknowledging that he was wrong about the issue he seized upon a misspelled word I wrote and used that as his excuse to avoid the crux of the argument. Highly disingenuous thing to do but he went to "college" you see and I did not so naturally I must be wrong and just look at the proof of that, a misspelled word!
Elizabeth Woodworth and DRG's consensus panel is in my opinion a clear demonstration of this idea that college educated truthers are somehow better truthers. Woodworth pushes the laughable meme that the CIT information is not credible BECAUSE it hasn't been peer reviewed! So essentially her excuse for disregarding, what is in my opinion, the most damning evidence of an inside job that exists today is that it hasn't been stamped "approved" by academics (the academics she and David choose). Academics that don't even know the difference between the NOC and SOC flight path or why the issue is so critically important by the way.
I don't care one bit about a person's academic background all that matters to me is what they say and what they do. Willy has proven himself in my book as a highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable truther who can and does make some of the best arguments there are to be made. I hold a PhD. in 9/11 studies from self education university and I can say with confidence that some people's degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on. Some of these "academics" are indoctrinated to such a degree that they are actually stunted intellectually. For instance many universities have been pushing the global warming (rebranded climate change) meme strongly to all their students. These students emerge from these universities convinced that global warming is real and is manmade. This is where self education is actually superior to the indoctrination that goes on at universities surrounding political issues such as "climate change". I can see that the sun has by far the most impact on temperature while these indoctrinated academics cannot. To them the trace gas CO2 is the culprit and the cycles of the sun have nothing to do with the issue. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
I for one appreciate Willy's contributions to this blog and see no reason whatsoever to stifle them.
+++++ 2013-09-03 hybridrogue1
I appreciate your kind words Adam, and you know the respect is mutual between us.
The history of what has happened to schooling in Amerika is clear, it is public knowledge; Iserbyt, Gatto, Sutton and others since have detailed how the Prussian model of 'Kindergarten' was forcefully transplanted into the US by the 'Anglophile Network' that Carroll Quigley reveals in TRAGEDY AND HOPE.
And by the 'Kindergarten Model', I do not merely mean the pre-school grade that is generally though of, I mean the template of mandatory regimentation and warehousing, the officially forced military discipline and conditioning and behavior modification – in essence, robot factories producing widgets as part of the larger machine.
This model covers the 'schooling life' from the time the 'student' is weened from mother's milk throughout all of the grades up and through 'university'. This is the template for this psychotic society. I call the highest "educated" academiacs.
The miracle seems to be that there is ANYONE who escapes brain damage in such a system. But there obviously are some portion of strong willed souls who instinctively rebel against such utter madness, or who discover how insane it all is somewhere along the way.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-09-03 ruffadam
OSS I want to repeat this particular part of what you said because it points out something more I did not say in my original post. You said:
""Peer review" is simply a way of saying that unless the evidence points to where "we", the self appointed judges want it to point, no dice."
I want to emphasize the "self appointed judges" remark because it hits the nail on the head as to what one of the biggest issue is with the consensus panel.
They are self appointed and therefore any pre existing bias that exists in the people selecting the panelists will manifest itself in their choices of who they select. Thus Woodworth who is biased toward academics and who is hostile to the NOC evidence selects others who are academics hostile to the NOC evidence such as Chandler and Cole etc. They in turn influence the panel away from the NOC evidence and toward bringing in more panelists that are in line with their views. It is a self sustaining cycle all predicated on their "academic credentials". Because only the uneducated Joe six pack truthers could possibly take issue with their superior brains you see. That is why people with FAR more knowledge about 9/11 and false flag terror are never even considered as panelists while relative newcommers are invited because they have a degree of some kind. That is reflective of Woodworths bias toward academics over others with more knowledge and experience.
You are correct when you point out how naive many people, especially academics, are about just how bad our system really is and how evil it is. You see because these academics are doing well in the current system having good jobs etc. from their perspective the system is working relatively well. So to them the idea that the entire system is corrupt and evil to the extreme is a bogus concept. Thus you will find the people who are doing well in the system as it is are the most resistant to the reality of what the system has become.
At any rate OSS I give your work a great deal more attention than I do anything from the consensus panel because quite frankly your research is more important than what a bunch of poorly informed academics can agree upon which is usually just a watered down shadow of the truth anyway. In the final analysis does it matter if these people agree on anything" Does it change the truth at all" NO! It is nothing more than an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
I will stick with Joe six pack truther and his common sense approach to research and I will stick with my gut feeling about who is legit and who isn't. In my book you OSS are the real deal.
x139 Señor El Once : obsolete words for high school graduates
{Disclaimer: Most links on obsolete words go here. Enjoy the re-deploy of today!}
?
Will wonders never cease?! Every wonder-wench and snoutfair who particpates here graduated from high school or the equivalent! From there, it is anyone's guess the rough and rugged road they took to further their education, be it academic pursuits at an institution or the school of hard knocks.
I don't want to jirble over the complaints of organized education by the spermologers here, because the dreadful curglaff of education is that we always have to be learning and can't be beef-witted about it. A shock-and-awe for me in these days and times is the resistentialism of higher education exhibited by unreasonable debt, which quickly applies slave shackles to all who attempt it (in the USA) despite employment prospects not far above a soda-squirt.
High school math is important in this regard. Today's minimum wage is $7.25/hour ($15k/year), but an inflation adjusted 1968 mininum wage of $1.60 would be $10.96/hour (or $22k/year) [and some argue that it would be $21.16/hr ($44k/year) if it had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, and if the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained.] What should really put the snoutfair of wage earners into a pussyvan is recognizing annual incomes LESS THAN $44k/year is less than 1968's equivalent decency standard of minimum wage. The outrage should bubble up the income ladder and piss more people off.
Joe-Six-Pack high school graduates act like California widows and display their own brand of snobbery against formal education that rings a bit like groaking. The issue with academics in our for-profit educational system is that they know which slide of the bread gets buttered and by whom in terms of research funding. It becomes very easy to leverage silence across the board, and to manipulate, smear, control, etc. those with the vaginas to speak up. 9/11 is no exception.
[S]ome highly educated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe.~Adam Ruff (2013-09-03)
And many highly uneducated individuals are terribly misinformed and in addition are stubborn about sticking to the misinformation they believe (Amen, Brother!), just because someone with a PhD in a focused area "blinded them with science" [or a purposeful misconstrue] they didn't have the background to workthrough or peer-review on their own. They punt to the academic honors and lunt away blunts to the tyromancy studio, like queerplungers hoping academic smarts will be bestowed on them for their curglaff into deep areas.
Zafty Mr. Ruff (2013-09-03), when talking his misinformation about CO2, should first educate himself about greenhouse gases. Contrary to what news pundits and politicians tells him, the experts and academics are much more unified in their climate change views. Because he obviously hasn't studied it and has no research track record, he shouldn't expect to be picked for "peer review". Whether the sun is changing and whether human actions exasperate it, climate change is real.
Mr. Ruff (2013-09-03):
They are self appointed and therefore any pre existing bias that exists in the people selecting the panelists will manifest itself in their choices of who they select.
Take it upon yourself to self-appoint yourself as a peer reviewer, which is within your right as a 9/11 Truther. Maybe you'll be able to englishable works that were purposely meant to obfuscate by bookwrights, if you don't ignorantly "reject everything contained therein".
However, if my reading of Mr. Kevin Ryan reveals to be with squirrel, many other factors relating to genetics and which (private) school you attended go into making opportunities for the self-appointed.
Mr. Ruff can "stick with Joe six pack truther and his common sense approach to research and ... will stick with [his] gut feeling about who is legit and who isn't."
Me? I'll stick with just the truth even in small nuggets, because Joe-six-pack truthers also have a price and become wonder-wench California widows with just a few mortgage payments.
Another zafty queerplunger and wannabe bookwright groaked (2013-09-04) about leach fields leaking back tritium to the WTC (a total fabrication) and then attempts to jirble authority into the spermological tritium report that didn't have the twat to scientifically, systematically, and completely measure in a timely fashion all of the tritium. So whatever "infinitesimally tiny amounts of tritium" that the tritium report offers as englishable is incomplete and (using Mr. Ruff's criteria) ought to be rejected for its purposeful instances of deceit. Can't be trusted, so why does this snoutfair?
I don't know why the soda-squirt of a bookwright (2013-09-03) took offense for being compared to Luntz. Reliance on a faulty tritium report and relentless skewing it (as opposed to rejecting it) is a pretty good Luntz-ish example.
Another beef-witted Luntz-ish example (2013-09-03) from this spermologer is his obvious tyromancy into divining balderdash. The curglaff is two-fold: (1) when my response didn't appear, Mr. McKee was told off-list of my preference [and a different decision might have saved that lunter exposing his pussyvan]; (2) I stand behind and can substantiate my negative assessments that deploy the L-word, the C-word, and the W-word. Here's a good substantiating exhibit of such: 2013-09-04.
Words from a wonder-wench:
Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.~Betty White
Tyromancy told me that the "ruff" and "rogue" beef-witted snoutfairs have been tag-teaming for quite some time, ineffectually and not helped by their pussyvan.
//
x140 Adam Ruff : a real truther we should all try to emulate
OSS,
I have been reading these posts of yours as they have gone up and have been carefully considering the points you have made throughout the entire vetting process. I am now totally comfortable in saying that Barbara Honegger is intentionally putting out disinformation and actively trying to obfuscate what happened at the pentagon. I now place her in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther. In fact I consider her to be an exposed operative who is actively trying to confuse and divide the truth movement.
Your work is invaluable OSS and I really appreciate it. I only wish I had the time and patience to do more of the same kind of work you have done with Honegger. Well done I tip my hat to you OSS. You are an example of a real truther we should all try to emulate.
x141 Señor El Once : The dirt on that
2013-09-13
2013-09-13
2013-09-13
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote [2013-09-12]:
I now place [Barbara Honegger] in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther.
I admit to not having studied Barbara Honegger's videos or Mr. OSS's analysis in detail [due to other things in my life requiring focus], so such an assessment may be valid. However, this does not alleviate anyone of the task of preserving the nuggets of truth from those works that merit such.
Case in point, the "don't land here" semaphore flags were waved with Mr. Ruff's gratuitious (negative) reference to Dr. Wood; with a whole year of Rogue-ian acrobatic circus to avoid taking Dr. Wood's work out of contention legitimately chapter-by-chapter [with my blessing and help]; and with a recent clumsy COTO clown-act [2013-09-11 at 3:10 pm] with the frame:
[SEO] cannot even provide a clear example of what is substantively unique to the [Dr. Wood] Book in comparison to what is provided on the [Dr. Wood] website of the author of the book. It is [SEO's] responsibility to prove the case that the book is unique, rather than mine to make an argument of nonexistence; onus probandi.
The research required for my response (unpublished) helped me discover something very crafty in that framing that I will get to in a moment. A snippet extracted from my response tackles the skewed charge of "lack of uniqueness" in the book prior to the gentleman's agreement to review it:
- [2012-02-16] "Dr. Wood's website has not been thoroughly debunked. ... In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done."
- [2012-02-17] "Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. "
- [2012-06-08] "If you have read her book and her website, you would know that there is significant overlap between the two, although the website has more errors, is more disorganized, and can't be considered Dr. Wood's final word."
The crafty thing from that framing -- "prove the case that the book is unique" -- is that it turns the focus onto the book exclusively and acts as if the debunking of the evidence on her incomplete, error-prone, disorganized, and several years old website were a foregone conclusion. It is not. And this was made clear to me when I attempted some of the busy work necessitated by the "proof."
THE DIRT !!!
Dr. Wood's book covers the dirt differently and truncated. More importantly, the incomplete web effort on the dirt is a glaring piece of evidence for neutron nuclear DEW.
Briefly: Neutron nuclear devices have a different radiation signature than other nukes: namely primarily the ejected highly-energetic neutron radiation that in turn energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit (and that the blast & heat wave don't annilate). The directed energy weapon (DEW) variants of this aim the majority of the neutrons in a manner (e.g., upwards in a cone-shaped charge) that throws most of them away and reduces "collateral damage" to life forms that might otherwise be hit by a spherical emission of neutrons (e.g., the framing of battlefield neutron weapons). This configuration also reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels. Multiple neutron DEW devices would be needed for each tower with slight overkill numbers to account for the high probabilities of inter-device fracticide that can lead to device failure or nuclear fizzle (e.g., not reaching designed nuclear yields).
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3885.jpg
Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3897.jpg
Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3926.jpg
Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5303.jpg
Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3914.jpg
Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/3901.jpg
Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5644.jpg
Figure 102. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5650.jpg
Figure 103(a). This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/010927_5644cb.jpg
Figure 102(a). The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/peopleNortheast.jpg
Figure 103(b). The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn't come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/overhead_hiresC_WFC1_Lawn.jpg
Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5508.jpg
Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5509.jpg
Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image304.jpg
Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the "pile" in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?
Note the references to "still fuming from the wet dirt" and "still hosing down the 'pile' in March 2002", which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.
I also call readers' attentions to figure 93 above, aptly titled "clean wrinkled beams" and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been "burned" off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vacinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
I call readers' attention to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slighly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
Mr. Ruff still ought to file the FOIA for the suppressed government report that may or may not prove his "No Radiation" assertion, but let this dirt be one of many glaring signs (a) about why the report is still suppressed and (b) what information it might contain.
=====
All of of this I wouldn't have discovered if I wouldn't have gone back into the maw of the Wood-sian disinformation sources to rescue nuggets of truth worth saving.
If they can fly a plane low over the Pentagon from one direction, plant evidence it came from another, and through the MIC media outlets get the world to believe it hit the Pentagon, then they ought to be able to afford a few dozen neutron nuclear DEW devices as part of the missing $2.3 trillion in DOD spending.
Ergo, the moral of this story is that sincere 9/11 truth seekers should be mindful of the errant, but as of yet unsaved, nuggets of truth in newly labeled "disinformation" sources, such as Ms. Honegger's work. Do not be too swift in REJECTING ALL OF THEIR WORK in one fell swoop.
P.S. I related it to the discussion. I didn't mention Dr. Wood first. I don't champion her theories 100%, mostly because -- as this dirt work shows -- she stops abruptly short of appropriate nuclear conclusions. The anonymous physicists used to decry Dr. Wood as being a disinfo agent for gathering together of all the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camping them under "kookie" umbrellas (ala Hutchison, Tesla energy from space, etc.)
// [Diagonal posting that tries to emulate real truther, Mr. OSS.]
x142 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.
x143 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.]
//
x144 hybridrogue1 : spent many months in reasoned debate
2014-04-07
"not 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.
\\][//
x145 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.
//
x146 ruffadam : I vote for it having been thrown under a bus
2014-04-12
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.
x147 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?}
//
x148 Señor El Once : low-life pap smear
Dear Mr. Owen Meister,
My apologies for the confusion and for not providing the link, held back at the time because too many links puts comments into the moderation queue.
Contrary to Mr. Rogue's charge, you are not delusional about what Mr. Rogue called you. You aren't my sock puppet either. Mr. Rogue attacks me with such charges to defray the intimate athlete's hand/foot connection [and a family connection] that Mr. A.Wright and Mr. Rogue seem to have. Did you notice how tag-teamer Mr. Ruff called for Mr. A.Wright to appear; Mr. A.Wright danced his jig; and the only carousel cranker to engage him -- as usual -- was Mr. Rogue? Legend establishing.
Mr. Rogue wrote on April 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm on his blog:
What amazes and sickens me is that even now, after all of this time, Maxifuckanus is still spreading this bullshit. He even partners up with a low life papsmear like Owenmeister, who has not made a single comment of substance on the current thread at Truth and Shadows.
Thus, Mr. Rogue is technically correct that on this thread he has not called anyone a "low-life pap smear." The deficit is rectified on his blog, though. Such a juvenile effort through and through. Mr. Rogue needs to get past his jejune asinine and grow up in his web presence.
P.S. Herewith I proclaim to participating on T&S with only one alias. I am not Owen Meister. And my views on the Protocols of Zion have been previously posted here. Interesting, but not by hobby-horse.
//
x149 Señor El Once : not an invited member of Mr. Rogue's readership
2014-04-14
{The comments to the discussion were closed before this could be posted.}
Mr. Rogue writes:
One more thing Mr Once, you are not an invited member of my readership on the HR1blog. Your commentary is not welcome there either.
Such a sad state of affairs that is! I am so heartbroken.
Readers should note that exclusion of participation is what Mr. Rogue calls "reasoned debate." Were T&S his blog, Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff have both stated a preference for banning me. Mr. Rogue April 8, 2014 at 8:36 pm on his blog:
If I were McKee, I would kick Señor's ass [off] the blog right now.
"If you can't beat it, ban it."
More el-oh-el funny is that Mr. Rogue sucks on my "unwelcome commentary" all too often, in poorly quoted, poorly formatted, poorly attributed, poorly source-linked, cherry-picked statements that he spins to a dubious agenda. The theme of me is just one pogo-horse on his demented carousel.
I stand behind my assessment of his blog being a juvenile effort through and through: jejune and asinine. If he's not willing to edit, then he should prune. The repeated theme throughout is: poorly quoted, poorly formatted, poorly attributed, poorly source-linked, cherry-picked statements, hard to read & follow. Very little original thought is put into it to connect things on his "show-case postings", except the gutter misogynistic spice with which Mr. Rogue likes to dine.
Mr. Rogue is welcome to make his blog private. Semi-private may also be an option, whereby passwords only to select readers allows just them to see certain content. Shouldn't be too hard to distribute passwords to the "8 other amazing people" who follow it.
It is my blog, and as I say above in a previous post, I can say whatever I choose there. You have the right to read that blog, but the onus is yours when you choose to copy and paste from my blog and spread it elsewhere.
... Within the limits of libel laws and other legal strictures, such as those pertaining to national security.
Mr. Rogue should tell Google not to spread his blog elsewhere.
Mr. Rogue says he is not Mr. A.Wright. But Mr. Rogue is about the only one who engages Mr. A.Wright. With me, Mr. Rogue has thrown in the towel a good half a dozen times and then gone back on his word. ["Ennis, you sonofawhoreson bitch! I wish I knew how to quit you."~Brokeback Mountain] Mr. Rogue has never thrown in the towel with Mr. A.Wright, who is more deserving of being ignored.
//
x150 hybridrogue1 : process of identification Seenyor
2014-05-10
hybridrogue1
2014-05-10
As Mr Adam Ruff and I are both publicly known as who we are, and the fact that the anonymous entity makes public defamation of both of us, myself in great particulars; that the time has arrived for the entity to be identified as to who he actually is.
Shall we proceed to go forward with this process of identification Seenyor?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-06
No no no, the motherfucker Maxitwerp jumped back into the same thread that Mr McKee asked for an end to the argument – with another 2,000 word load of bullshit.
And it begins with his beancounter mumbo jumbo, spazzes out into defaming both Mr Ruff and I and does his Nookiedoodoo hoochie dance.
The obsessed fanatic should be canned from T&S for good.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-06
So Mr McKee,
Have you changed your mind about the admonishment for no more of this argument between Señor and I on this thread?
If your admonishment still stands, Señor has rebuked your authority by posting yet another load of defaming bullshit, this time including slashes aimed at Mr Ruff as well as myself.
I would like a clear and final determination on this matter.
I was discussing the remarks of Mr Whitesands, and asking for a clarification on something he had said. I was not confronting Mr Señor in anyway, nor continuing the argument. But as in all instances here Señor will take the slightest excuse to jump back in with his slashing character assassination attempts.
What is it to be Mr McKee?
\\][//
x151 ruffadam : debunked garbage
2014-06-03
ruffadam
June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am
DEW's destroying the towers is debunked garbage. Funny (NOT) how these supposed truther bloggers just pop up from time to time and try to throw their debunked theories into the mix here in order to give the opposition an advantage. They can simply point to the DEW garbage and say "see how all these truthers are engaging in wild speculation based on whacky theories."
Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus. So to the corporate media whores out there who think they can equate the entire truth movement with these bogus red herring theories you had better think again. Some of us know that these theories and the ones who promote them are working for the same people who pulled off 9/11. We know they are attempting to undermine the real truth movement and their efforts are more and more transparent every day.
The fact is the truth movement has already won the information war and all the other side is doing now is trying to fight a delaying action to hold off their total defeat, capture and arrest, trial, and eventual punishment for treason. That includes the corporate media by the way who are guilty up to their eyeballs in covering up mass murder and treason. Your days are numbered. As to the so called truthers who continually attempt to derail us with nonsense like DEWs or Nukes your days are numbered as well. Your attempts to derail us are not working anymore and your Sunstein tactics don't work anymore. I reject you completely and totally and recognize you for what you are and for what you are doing and so do MANY others. You are DONE!
The three WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 were blown up with explosives. The pentagon crime scene was staged and the observed plane flew over the pentagon and away. The media and government are guilty of covering up these facts which makes them all traitors and guilty of treason. The truth has not been contained by ALL of their efforts and it is breaking out into the wider world and their time is running out. WE KNOW!
ruffadam
June 5, 2014 at 9:00 am
Personally,
I skip right over any post from Senior el once and save myself a lot of time and stress. I have no obligation whatsoever to read anything he/she/it posts nor do I care at this point to address anything he/she/it says no matter how false or defamatory it may be. He/she/it can start calling me a child molester Nazi with aids as far as I give a crap at this point. I literally do not care AT ALL and will not read any response from he/she/it.
x152 Señor El Once : The expression "over-acting" ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue.
Out of 72 comments at time of writing:
- Emmanuel Goldstein has 3 (4%)
- RuffAdam has 3 (4%)
- SEO has 5 (6.9%)
- Mr. Rogue has 36 (50%)
Emmanuel Goldstein made 3 comments that generated 7 comments from Mr. Rogue. SEO made 4 comments that generated 12 comments from Mr. Rogue [just on T&S]. The expression "over-acting" ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue from his Hollywood daze.
Mr. Rogue's hyperventilation here is but an act to distract the forum from a rational discussion of nuclear DEW or fourth generation nuclear devices, which is the natural extension from Dr. Wood's efforts and fills in the gaps.
Mr. AlWhitesands said it best:
Willy, maybe you should've read that ferkin book.
The only reason why the book came into the picture was that Mr. Rogue could not be bothered to parse the source website for the good, the bad, the ugly. This applied to Dr. Wood's website as well as September Clues and other discussion venues. Blow-hard Mr. Rogue was all about making boastful statements without substantiation.
Mr. Rogue claims that I badgered him for months about getting the book. In reality, I badgered him for months to get informed first-hand about the content (book or website) and to mine nuggets of truth. I badgered him to be fair, objective, and open-minded.
Getting the book into Mr. Rogue's hands was a good-faith gesture to get Mr. Rogue over his stumbling blocks and into a valid review.
Talk about screwing the pooch called "Mr. Rogue's Objectivity!"
Mr. Rogue wasn't expected to agree with every sentence in the book, or its conclusions (if they could be found).
Expected was that Mr. Rogue would contemplate rationally the material and isolate the specific areas of error, down to the page number and figure caption if required. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would re-use analysis of others to help bolster his case. Expected was that Mr. Rogue with assistance from me and the forum would take down legitimately any nonsense found therein. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would acknowledge what wasn't nonsense for re-purposing in more appropriate theories.
Mr. Rogue says that he was tricked or conned into it. If any trick was played on Mr. Rogue, it was in the facts (a) that Dr. Wood's work might have inapplicable concepts but very little nonsense, (b) that Mr. Rogue would have to acknowledge large numbers of truth nuggets that only inconveniently fit into other mainstream 9/11 theories, and (c) that the DEW/Nuke/Wood debunking resources are primarly internet echo-chambers that neither individually nor collectively achieve a definitive debunking goal.
Thus Mr. Rogue was going to have a difficult time. Happens all the time in science and engineering when a stated hypothesis is disproven by the research and testing. But Mr. Rogue didn't approach the task with a hypothesis. Mr. Rogue approached it with an agenda and pre-ordained conclusions, which the (a)-(c) facts confounded.
If any deceit was involved, it was entirely on Mr. Rogue's side [and gets exhibited regularly today trying dig himself out.] He lied to himself regarding his ability to read and analyze the book. He vastly over-estimated the number of debunking resources available from which he could plagarize his comprehensive debunking review. On this front, both he and Mr. RuffAdam continue to lie today with statements like:
- [RA] DEW's destroying the towers is debunked garbage.
- [RA] Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus.
- [HR] [T]here is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Wood's loopy ideas...
- [HR] Her 'DEW' proposition is a scientific fraud...
How can I be so sure this is a lie? Mr. RuffAdam wrote on November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am:
... 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... 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 ... 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... 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.
Obviously, if such comprehensive DEW debunking were available in November of 2012, there would have been no need for Mr. Ruff to assemble his task-force for such an assignment. If Mr. Ruff would have completed his decisive debunk of DEW theories between November 2012 and now (June 2014), why, he would have have provided the link.
Because Mr. RuffAdam admits that he doesn't read my comments, it is fitting that his own words be used to skewer him [June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am]:
Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus.
This is not true. What is true is that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers are just like Mr. RuffAdam and Mr. Rogue, two science-challenged, proud, high school graduates who defer to opinions of leaders within the 9/11 Truth Movement, particularly those with PhDs. The vast majority form their opinions from 2nd- or 3rd-hand sources, not from their own assessments of original sources.
And those 2nd- and 3rd-hand sources that report on original sources? They are plagued with improper framing, improper scaling, improper analysis, and being incomplete.
[Video Fakery] On the first pass of my tour through video fakery, I accepted the video analysis at face value. What eventually soured me were the lame and deceitful explanations filling the void once imagery was taken off the table. There was little sharing and collaboration to see how a nugget from one meme might support or undermine something in another meme. With this sour taste in my mouth, my second pass was able to detect more of the deceit in the original video analysis and many of its conclusions, like "no real planes at the WTC."
To be sure, video fakery (leading to NPT) has unraveled to be a disinformation honey-pot.
What disturbs me is that valid instances of video fakery on 9/11 exist (e.g., four versions of a helicopter shot), a persistent nugget of truth that debunkers of video fakery are all too eager to sweep from the table. If valid instances exist, what other instances are there? More importantly, to what purpose? To and/or from what is it drawing our attention?
[DEW] Most who try to debunk directed energy weapons do not have a good grasp on it, which is evident by their framing. Quick they are to say "beams from space" and then "WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 destruction started from within the building, not from the tippy-top down, therefore no DEW." Thus, potentially valid cases of "beams from space" in other buildings are ignored. More importantly, "beams from space" is not the only form that DEW devices can take. In fact, most of the fourth generation nuclear devices loosely fit into the category of DEW devices.
[Mini Nuke] Most who try to debunk nuclear devices do not have a good grasp on nuclear-anything. As such, they miss the skew and omissions from those with PhD's who are assumed to have a good grasp on it when their 9/11 TM reports steer thinking away from it. The unqualified expression "mini nuke" is actually sufficient to debunk the 9/11 nuke debunkers, because qualifications of fission, fusion, and neutron have vastly different yields and side-effects. Fourth generation nukes change further the configuration and the types of expected yields.
"Cognitive dissonance" refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. It produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in attitudes, belief, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
We're familiar with the cognitive dissonance examples from the general public where anomalous 9/11 evidence is ignored rather than change a belief about the involvement and actions of the government. However, the pains of cognitive dissonance are also visible inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, like when a truther has invested lots of effort into studying, convincing themselves, and convincing others about method A being used. They apparently don't adapt very well to the premise that the evidence can support multiple methods, that more of the evidence supports method B, and that many deficiencies exist with method A being the ultimate explanation.
Nano-thermite (method A) does not explain all of the evidence. It can't even address the duration of the hot-spots. And the PhD who popularized nano-thermite despite its limitation is the same PhD who waved everyone off of contemplating nuclear devices (method B) in a paper that accepted unchallenged stilted reports, didn't even mention neutron devices or their derivatives, and made no attempt to see if third or fourth generation nuclear devices could achieve what was observed.
If Mr. Goldstein is still around, I would appreciate an objective review of the document about fourth generation nuclear devices with regards to it bridging the gaps from Dr. Wood's DEW into something real-world nuclear DEW.
//
P.S. I apologize for the editing oversight that left Mr. Rogue's \\][// sign-off instead of mine on one of my comments.
x153 Señor El Once : certain people refuse to debate here or anywhere
2014-06-21
Mr. Ruff wrote on June 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm:
My litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon evidence and how well the persons arguments stand up here on Truth and Shadows.
The fact that certain people referred to by some as truthers refuse to debate us here or anywhere for that matter on the pentagon issue is a testament to the power and importance of Truth and Shadows. Craig you should be proud of what you have created here, it is an anvil and hammer where real truthers are forged and where fake ones are destroyed.
x154 Señor El Once : The "challenged" aren't going to come.
Meaningful comments on the Pentagon topic have petered out. The "challenged" aren't going to come.
*Sigh.* With Mr. OSS's stellar work off-list and targeted URL bullets, the Pentagon debate was wrapped up four or more times over in as many or more other T&S threads. Somewhat *yawn* to see the two or three A.Wright carousel spins in this very thread necessitating a dizzying dive into "SOC/NOC" witness nuances, before GOTO links are applied to handle the heavy-lifting. *Snore.* But now a new crank to the merry-go-round with a "challenge to cowards." *Snooze.*
Mr. Adam Ruff brags about skipping my comments unread. More power to him! He and a few others should not read any further. Get a head start on ignoring me right now! Certainly don't bother writing a jejune response, because it'll only engage me and allow me to make more nookiedoo-ish comments!
Simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!
Mr. Ruff wrote on June 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm:
My litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon evidence and how well the persons arguments stand up here on Truth and Shadows.
Guess I passed that litmus test of my "real trutherism." No issue there. No debate.
But there are at least a couple of fundamental insights being missed, because truth isn't afraid of circling back around to get its due acknowledgment.
First insight: imagery manipulation. The discussion above proves an instance where it did happen with regards to 9/11. It isn't an isolated case. Yet the eifer that many had to dismiss the entirety of September Clues (and its premise of imagery manipulation) without proper rescue of valid nuggets of truth stands testament that participants in this forum could stand more practicing what they preach and being open-minded. What other imagery manipulation nuggets should be re-visited, and what distracting purpose did they serve? What would they have been masking?
Second insight: The culprits successfully attacked the very symbol, if not center, of US military power even after ample advanced notice (e.g., two attacks at the center of financial power) and radar tracking. The attack at the Pentagon was very precise in terms of what it destroyed (ONI investigative efforts into the missing $2.3 trillion) and killed (ONI investigators into the same) and the high-tech, thoroughly-practiced, redundant defenses that the attack circumvented.
Worse, the culprits made everyone believe that a real plane crashed into the Pentagon (while at the same time propping up disinfo about no planes at the WTC), even though they have yet to convincingly substantiate it with video evidence (that they themselves were Johnny-on-the-spot to confiscate), with the bulk of witness testimony, or with even sufficient serial numbered airplane parts from the crash site and untainted flight data recorders.
What does this say about the abilities of the culprits?
It is a bit of the same game that the culprits would propagandize the pulverizing WTC destruction -- a massive energy sink -- as a gravity-driven pile-driver acting at physics-defying gravitional acceleration. However, that doesn't have to be the extent of the games.
Genuine truth seekers need to validate their assumptions with regards to controlled demolition, particularly when such assumptions rule out exotic means. [Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices are real-world and match much of what Dr. Wood's work drives at, although she doesn't come out and say it.]
If the WTC bomb-sniffing dogs took their holidays starting September 6 (Thursday before 9/11), the resulting window of time by all accounts of demolition experts would have been too short for the implementation of the observed overkill controlled demolition using chemical-based explosives and incendiaries, radio detonation, etc. Assuming such to be the primary mechanism of destruction begins to fall apart even before the evidence (e.g., comparatively low decibel readings, low seismic measurements, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, the tritium circus, the blatant errors and omissions by 9/11TM's resident nuclear physicist, etc.) shoots holes in it.
P.S. Mr. Rogue has >46% of the total 396 comments to this thread, which makes it STFU-time in anybody's book and reason number one why he should ignore this comment.
Mr. Rogue above all others should simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!
//
x155 Señor El Once : couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel
2014-06-26 at 12:54 pm
{mcb: This was published but then later was put back into moderation.}
Awe, shucks. Mr. Rogue couldn't follow well meaning advice to ignore me. No. He couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel:
What the fuck does the disinformation about Nookiedoodoo have to do with the Pentagon?
Without substantiation that fourth generation nuclear devices ("neutron nuclear DEW") are "disinformation" makes such statements but mere hypnotic assertions having no basis in reality.
Removing that "disinformation" word from the question, the answer was in the two insights that Mr. Rogue ignored. The abilities of the culprits are underestimated and arbitrarily cut off in the cul de sac of nano-thermite, when they shouldn't be. Anything top-secret leaking into media that we could conceivable imagine as 9/11 weapons are not excluded. It is the "in for a penny, in for a pound" metaphor. Why limit themselves to chemical-based methods easily tested?
Mr. Rogue so beautifully writes the very justification for ignoring me in his very question:
Why the fuck does this asshole mention me and then suggest I ignore his bullshit technique of wanking every thread that comes along with both his attacks on myself and Mr Ruff as well as promotion of his agitprop about DEW and Nuclear?
... Because Mr. Rogue doesn't debate nuclear means in good faith, and as demonstrated above, comes unhinged way too easily. Nothing from the above quoted paragraph is worthy of addressing except as being pointed out as Mr. Rogue's own wanking effort. Mr. Rogue has shot his wad (>46 of the 398 comments) both in this thread but in any type of rational, civilized debate with me, where he has been discredited at the onset by being unable to objectively review on his own much of the supporting documentation. It just ain't possible to the wanker. So he should be the bigger man and ignore my comments.
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on June 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm:
A genuine truth seeker would either debate the issues in good faith in the open or admit he was wrong and change his stance accordingly...
Indeed, this has been my desire, my ambition, my consistency... when researching "Neu Nookiedoo" and fourth generation nuclear devices in use on 9/11 at the WTC for some of what was observed. [To apply the brakes to the repeated "mutually-exclusive" straw-man, please note the weasel-words "some of what was observed", which leaves the door open for many destructive mechanisms -- from super-super nano-thermite, to lasers from space, to neutron nuclear 4th generation devices, to kitchen sinks -- to have been involved.]
But judging from the above statement, pompous Mr. Ruff has acted in the past a bit hypocritically on this hobby-horse nuclear subject of mine, making assertions that he can't even prove (e.g., "no radiation"), thereby leading him to erroneous conclusions (e.g., "no radiation = no nukes".)
The no-nuke work of Mr. Rogue has been shredded: first by his reliance on reports that can't be trusted in either the data collection or its analysis; by his unwillingness to acknowledge errors and omissions in the same; by his habit of trumping up tidbits from such skewed reports (e.g., "miniscule tritium") that itself isn't to be trusted; by introducing his own bullshit (e.g., "tritium leaching back to the WTC from landfills and thus already tainting what could be considered background levels"); by his inability to objectively review disinformation sources for nuggets of truth that remain valid and necessitate rescue; and lastly by his inability to debate in good faith (e.g., Mr. Rogue loves his flame-wars more than he loves getting at the truth.)
Mr. Ruff wrote:
The fact that certain people referred to by some as truthers refuse to debate us here or anywhere for that matter ... is a testament to the power and importance of Truth and Shadows.
I know that some of the participants have been avoiding nuclear discussions because nuclear physics is outside their area of interest or expertise. Understandable, but the extent of knowledge that must be acquired to ascertain the viability of these 4th generation devices on 9/11 [and matching the blatantly skewed analysis of the data] isn't that great: a hurdle easily overcome with a brief detour into nuclear weapons.
If a participant isn't going to pony up the effort, they should let this comment pass without reply.
Reserving judgment on the specific errors in Mr. Rogue's preparation, the reasons are many why Mr. Rogue should pass by this comment, too. Leading the list,
(1) Mr. Rogue has been proven untrustworthy and unhinged -- surprise, surprise -- primarily in discussions with me on my hobby-horse, Nookiedoo. Ain't nothing more "good faith" about it. I predict that Mr. Rogue will add a half dozen cranks to his Carnival thread before bedtime, which will prove me right.
(2) Mr. Rogue has already made >46% of the 398 comments to this thread. [*Yawn*. STFU-time.]
Mr. Rogue writes:
Never one to actually partake in the discussion in any meaningful way this blowhard entity is always willing to pop up for a commercial interruption for Nookiedoodoo, and another swipe at me.
This isn't true. I'm just more astute at recognizing faux romps through thoroughly discussed realms as being mere props for Mr. Rogue to get "street-cred in smacking down a government troll" using material of Mr. OSS.
Mr. Rogue writes:
I suggest the obvious answer is that the Señor entity is part of the Sunstein infiltration movement.
Gee. The phrase "part of the Sunstein infiltration movement" would have been exactly what I think regarding the totality of Mr. Rogue's efforts here on T&S, on COTO, and on his own lame-ass blog to "shutdown with vengance" any rational discussion on Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
And this just lit the fire for more commentary on his favorite thread on HR1blog.
Better there than here.
Repeating from above, I predicted that Mr. Rogue will add a half dozen cranks to his Carnival thread before bedtime, which will prove me right.
As an aside, Mr. Rogue won't prove me "A.Wright", his latest misguided belief. Why? I have a writer's ego. I preserve and take credit for my words and for all my online aliases. If Mr. A.Wright were my sock-puppet, (a) my blog probably would have copped to it years ago; (b) I'd be engaging Mr. A.Wright at most every opportunity for the purposes of generating wordy arguments worthy of preservation. I haven't seriously engaged Mr. A.Wright since prior to Mr. Rogue's T&S entrance (January 2012), deeming such exchanges futile and redundant.
As long as we're comparing Mr. A.Wright to me, Mr. A.Wright has never once been given the white flag of "surrender" (or "ignore") by Mr. Rogue, although Mr. A.Wright did get a couple of "Wright should go fuck himself" [June 22, 2014 at 3:34 pm and June 23, 2014 at 2:19 pm.] Despite cranking spins over previously-delt-with turf, Mr. Rogue tirelessly keeps pace. Despite 2.5 years of engagement, Mr. A.Wright doesn't have a Rogue-ian thread dedicated to him, with unhinged comments aimed at him like I do... Nyah, nyah, nyah!
This exposes a couple of discordant aspects to the Rogue/Wright circus. If Mr. Rogue's commentary [tiny sample: ~46% of the total commentary in this thread] were all the "jizzle" and more, the writer's ego -- the artist's ego -- in Mr. Rogue would have re-purposed and re-published those tireless A.Wright shillackings on his blog -- "real honest-to-goodness 9/11 Truther activism street cred in taking down a stilted government troll" -- if for no other reasons than having a reference GOTO URL to put the brakes on subsequent looping carnival rides and having a forum for unchained, unhinged, Rogue-ian, flame-baiting diaria.
[In the immortal words of John Belushi...] "But NO-OOOOooooouuuuu!"
Mr. Rogue lets his valued wisdom to great measure be pissed away on forums that he doesn't control, his memorable words not rescued and faithfully re-published on his blog as a testament to his existance and treasured wealth of knowledge. For shame, for shame, and such a massive pity and undervaluing of one's efforts in the digital realm... for posterity and future generations to judge.
At the risk of redundancy, the reasons are many why Mr. Rogue should pass by this comment. Much to do the padawan still has.
Mr. Rogue should ignore me and let this detour stop here.
//
x156 ruffadam : let me up my total
2014-08-06
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Here let me up my total comments in order to tip the balance of power in my favor! Clearly if I post more than HR1 I become the most powerful right? I am the new leader!
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm
You have just made my case for me SEO. Thank you. May I lastly point out that your lame attempt to paint your comments as being on topic are laughable. You have virtually nothing to say that is on topic ever. You are intentionally disrupting threads.
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm
They will find me to be a rabid defender of free speech if they somehow succeed in getting such laws on the books here in America. The more the system tries to control us and steer us in the direction they want the more people like me resist and rebel. I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen. As princess Lea said in Star Wars "the more you tighten your grip the more systems will slip through your fingers". I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! Arrest activists now and throw them into camps or hell just have summary executions in the streets. Nothing will speed up the demise of the NWO more than that. Bring it on!
ruffadam
August 7, 2014 at 1:02 am
Oh please TM, asking you to stay on topic is not censorship in any way shape or form and that you would suggest that Craig is flirting with 911blogger style censorship is outrageous and also for me very insightful as to your true motives. As far as I can tell you have been allowed to say what you want and I know for a fact I have been allowed to say what I want so where is the specter of censorship here at T+S? No what you are bothered by is that with my free speech here I called you out for preaching to us, which you most certainly did do. I also pointed out that it was completely off topic, which it most certainly was. Now Craig asked you to stay on topic, which you most certainly should do, and you play the victim of censorship card! So, much like the Israeli's play the victim card, you do so, when in reality you, like the Israeli's, are the one that is doing wrong. Bravo!
How about you just stay on topic and quit being a troll trying to disrupt the discussion?
ruffadam
August 7, 2014 at 1:25 am
Perhaps so. Maybe it will be a "Terminator" type scenario or my version of that being more like "The Road Warrior". It may just turn out like the Bundy ranch standoff though where Americans and people of all nations rise up in incredible numbers and say NO MORE! Maybe just maybe we will get together and bounce these sociopaths out of all leadership positions altogether. Perhaps the worst of them will be put on trial and hanged for crimes against humanity. I have a few I would nominate for that starting with Netanyahu and Obama and then moving on to the Bush family, Darth Cheney, Donald Scumsfeld, Condasleezy Rice, the Clintons, and how about also in the first batch of trials we throw in Brzezinski, Kissinger, and a selection of Rockefellers?
ruffadam
AUGUST 16, 2014 AT 7:32 PM
"HR1 says "Apparently personal concerns trump all other considerations for some."
I agree 100% with this in fact I would like to point out at this time the fact that "personal concerns" were the ONLY thing talked about by two particular individuals, Gaza and Craigs article were completely ignored throughout the entire thread. That stinks of agitprop to me and now these comments popping up meant to make us all believe SEO is some kind of Icon that is very popular but here he/she/it is unfairly censored. This is highly suspect to me. A simple google search for SEO would produce plenty of results so why come in here specifically to drop these not so subtle hints that SEO is being oppressed and censored here? It is agitprop and it is BS. Anyone could have found his/her/its postings elsewhere so why come in here to make those comments? Agitprop.
SEO was posting totally off topic comments and has been doing so for a long time, very disruptive, very disingenuous. I am thoroughly convinced that SEO is genuine agitprop. He/she/its comments are engineered (carefully crafted) to produce anger, confusion, and dissension. I noticed it particularly with responses to my comments where SEO's comments are specifically designed to make me angry (I recognized it as crafted provocation so it didn't work). This comment in particular caught my attention and convinced me that SEO is genuine agitprop:
August 6th 430PM SEO writes in response to my saying I was not interested in his/her/its vendetta against HR1 or myself:
"Is that so? Where's the beef? You've even made repeated promises the last couple of years (a) that you don't read my comments and (b) that you ignore my comments. Was this because you're too clueless to make a decent argument to counter rationally my position? Me thinks so. You've been a hypocritical blowhard from the onset. Where's your big fat IGNORE and not rising to the occasion?"
Now from a psychological standpoint what SEO is doing with this comment is actually very revealing. Can you see what is going on in just that short paragraph? It is actually a powerful psychological attack crafted just for me. (BTW: I take it as a compliment that I get the attention of provocateurs and that they expend some of their time on me.)
SEO may work alone or is actually a group of provocateurs with dozens or more sock puppet persona's but in either case the evidence is plentiful that this entity is NOT here to discuss Craigs articles. Scan back over this thread and see for yourself where SEO made an (on topic) post prior to this date and time. I bet you can't locate one and that should speak volumes to everyone. In scanning through past threads you will see the same pattern emerge with only a token post or two vaguely on topic followed by a plethora of off topic "psychological warfare" (in my opinion) posts.
I would ask anyone reading this to actually look back at this and other threads and see the method of provocation in action. You will learn how this "infowar" for lack of a better term is actually being fought."
_______________________________________________________________
hybridrogue1
AUGUST 16, 2014 AT 9:37 PM
I concur with Mr Ruff's analysis. As such, perhaps the comments section can be opened to a "post topical" discussion on our take on what just occurred here on Truth and Shadows. Again, under the stated rules of engagement set by our host.
I think it is apparent that Truth and Shadows is a prime candidate for targeting by what we call "Sunsteinian Agitprop". This is certainly not a new idea here, and the "paranoia" of the probability of surveillance and intervention here is not without some rational bases.
Personally, I would rather that Craig gives an official go-ahead before we proceed to such discussion.
\\][//
___________________________________________________________________
So the question arises, will the covert operator calling itself Max Bridges be stupid enough to show up under the auspices; 'the stated rules of engagement' - and give further blundering proofs of his nefarious agenda?
. . . .
Are you that fucking stupid Bridges? You think your standard fast-talking bullshit is going to work for you anymore? Or do you have the brains to just fade away?
Well obviously your paycheck from Central Casting is in jeopardy there. You might ask for a pow wow with the Big Kahuna, see if the big boys running the show have some plan for pulling you out of the hot water. Maybe a downgrade is in order, aye? Maybe reassignment to cooler waters in a new environment?
This is your problem hot shot. I would wish you 'good luck', but I'd rather see you fry, because you are a lying prick.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-08-17
"Don't cry for me in Argentina you are supposed to be anonymous…"
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-08-18
At any rate, I do not see how Agent Bridges thinks he can break into the regular scheduled program on Truth and Shadows with a commercial break for one of his attack ads against myself or Mr Ruff.
And if Bridges is receiving PAC funding for his efforts, some transparency should be required. Perhaps tax receipts and tax refund documents to prove his independence from nefarious organizations.
And when your finished doing that take out the dog to go kill the cat.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-08-18
Señor El Once — AUGUST 18, 2014 AT 1:23 PM
"Dear Mr. McKee, Blablablablabla…."
_________________________________________________
So here he is again squealing like a stuck pig … hahahahaha.
Back from Argentina with a vengeance I see. But thanks for the PR dumbfuck.
\\][//
ruffadam – AUGUST 20, 2014 AT 6:24 AM, says:
"SEO,
It is nice of you to re-frame for us what we could expect from a real agitprop agent. I will stick with my own definition though. My definition fits you to a tee."~Adam Ruff
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/israel-losing-media-war-op-ed-says-dismantle-gaza-relocate-non-belligerent-arabs/#comment-25892
And this "re-frame" that Adam refers to is the covert entity's beancounter's accounting that attempts to frame me yet again. Delivered in the same grotesque ultra-verbose Newspeak. Bridges has no sense of brevity.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-08-20
ruffadam – AUGUST 20, 2014 AT 9:18 PM says:
"The one fact that discredits virtually everything you just said is that in each and every case it is in fact you who starts the trouble not HR1 or myself. There was no mention of you at all on this thread until you came in and started derailing it. Sure you choose to come to the defense of Tamborine Man who was himself attempting to derail this discussion. You saw us telling TM to stay on topic as your perfect opportunity to come in here and increase the disruption. You are the aggressor SEO and the time stamps on the posts prove it.
Now as to your other blather about HR1 and I working together against you I can assure you that you have earned my critiques through your own actions and if HR1 were not here at all I would still make them. Because HR1 and I happen to agree on quite a few things I can understand your mistake of thinking we coordinate all this. We don't need to coordinate anything really SEO because your pattern of abuse and your MO are obvious to both of us. I agree with HR1 most of the time for one simple reason SEO, because he is right most of the time and I know he is right from my own research. You on the other hand are often wrong and therefore I often disagree with you.
In truth SEO I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur" who is attacking this blog and some of it's members intentionally and for nefarious reasons. Looking at your most recent post for example I find numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that you are an "agent" of disruption and disinformation.
Some other time perhaps I will go through one of your posts step by step and explain in detail what is happening with them. Suffice it to say for now that I will not be responding to your "Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff" remark in any sort of timely fashion, if at all, simply because I don't bite on such obvious bait. At this point SEO you may want to have your handlers assign someone else from the Q-Group to me because your routine is played out and not working."
_____________________________________
Indeed, Mr Ruff has said it quite well, the proof of who the trouble maker is can be seen by the time/date stamps. The disinformant Bridges always starts the shit.
\\][//
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 3:29 pm
You know SEO your comment is completely off topic as well. Your criticism of HR1 is off topic simply because his comments you criticize are in fact on topic! You don't like him or me or our comments and that is fine and well but keep it to yourself because it is OFF TOPIC! I am not interested in your obsessive vendetta against HR1 or myself. I want to talk about the topic Craig posted and most of us were talking about it and having a good discussion until TM came in and pooped all over it. Now you come in and spread the poop even more and try to play like you are some kind of good guy? You are not a good guy you are intentionally disrupting the discussion. Stick your vendetta where the sun doesn't shine, I don't care what your opinion of HR1 or myself is. I get it and so does everyone else, you don't like HR1 or me, you do not need to say it again, we will not forget.
Your posts do not address the topic. Let me say that again, you do not address the topic. Your very few on topic comments are very brief and superficial and are designed to segue into your personal rants about how much you hate HR1 or myself. If you cannot discuss the topic then you should not be here, simple as that. DAMN I wish there was an IGNORE button.
x157 Señor El Once : tie-in's to the topic
Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
You know SEO your comment is completely off topic as well.
Not really. It had tie-in's to Mr. Syed's and Mr. TM's comments. It wasn't top-level (e.g., new off-topic point), but was nested under and in response to what already was in the forum.
Your criticism of HR1 is off topic simply because his comments you criticize are in fact on topic!
His first comment to Mr. TM was on topic, but ~not~ his attitude, ~not~ his language, and ~not~ the follow-up exchanges. He would have done well to STFU. Please be more observant. Classic example of a disinfo troll purposely spoiling the comments section.
You bemoaned in a August 4, 2014 at 9:47 am comment:
I take personal offense each and every time this is done and I find T+S to be a constant target for Sunstein's minions... I find this derailing activity to be disgusting and insulting and damaging to the issues under consideration here... I just find it hard to believe that all the derailing that is done here is simply accidental. In fact I do not believe it is accidental at all.
The case has already been presented regarding Mr. TM's actions possibly fitting this mold. But unobservant Mr. Ruff craftily overlooks the Bic-lighter actions of his little buddy, Mr. Rogue, in igniting the flames. Oh, no, in Mr. Ruff's book, Mr. Rogue is totally awesome MVP, can do no wrong, and doesn't fit the Cinderella slippers of a Sunstein minion. No. Can't be. Mr. Rogue would never deliberately torpedo a discussion.
Yet he has. Every discussion that Mr. McKee has ever closed had Mr. Rogue as an active, flame-throwing participant.
I have come to the conclusion that some people are just mentally ill and cannot stop and never will stop.
Indeed. Count the comments in this thread. Subscribe to Mr. Rogue's blog. Be more observant.
When I do come back here I will approach this problem in an entirely new way. For now I am tired of the BS and I am cutting my losses and my stress and taking a break.
So much for cutting losses, stress, and taking a break. Hypocrite.
Back to Mr. Ruff's last posting:
You don't like [Mr. Rogue] or me or our comments and that is fine and well but keep it to yourself because it is OFF TOPIC!
More failures in observation, Mr. Ruff. Please point out where I expressed a dislike of either of you two in my comment. What I dislike are your hypocritical statements and diversionary over-reactions. And I'll call you out on it every time I see it, because I value truth and honesty above all else.
I am not interested in your obsessive vendetta against HR1 or myself.
Is that so? Where's the beef? You've even made repeated promises the last couple of years (a) that you don't read my comments and (b) that you ignore my comments. Was this because you're too clueless to make a decent argument to counter rationally my position? Me thinks so. You've been a hypocritical blowhard from the onset. Where's your big fat IGNORE and not rising to the occassion?
I want to talk about the topic Craig posted and most of us were talking about it and having a good discussion until TM came in and pooped all over it.
And you two diversionary WWF tag-teamers have to go and step in it and track it all over the place well before I make my posting. Show some restraint, my good man.
Now you come in and spread the poop even more and try to play like you are some kind of good guy?
Yep, I'm the good guy. As for the poop spreading, your comment come before mine. Check the soles of your shoes before smelling mine.
I don't care what your opinion of HR1 or myself is.
Prove it. Ignore me.
I get it and so does everyone else, you don't like HR1 or me, you do not need to say it again, we will not forget.
As has been pointed out again and again, you ~don't~ get it. I've made favorable comments about certain things you've written. When I've objected, I've made it known.
What I don't like is your hypocrisy, Mr. Ruff.
What I ~get~ from your hyprocrisy, Mr. Ruff, is that your comments need to be aimed at yourself. Practice what you preach.
FTR, I follow the discussions. I take in the information. I contemplate. I don't need to chime in with back-slapping "me-too-isms" and "I agree" on every single thread within every single forum. I probably know as much or more about the holocaust and Nazi practices than Mr. Syed, although from a different perspective. [I'm fluent in German and have lived there as an adult.]
And when the topic is on the fringes of either my knowledge or my interests, I don't feel compelled to muscle my way in and slap down my opinions. You'll know when I disagree.
Show some fortitude, Mr. Ruff, and IGNORE this.
As for ego-centric, sociopathic Mr. Rogue? Notice the framing: "Oh, woes me?!! I badger everyone and when someone objects, I'm the target! I'm the victim being defamed. It's all about me. Me. Me. Me. Look at my posting count!"
Used to be that outside my nookiedoo hobby horse topic, I disagreed with less than 10% of what Mr. Rogue posted (not necessary wrote). Thanks to his disagreeable "squealing and oinking" [not my words], that margin of disagreement has doubled or tripled.
//
x158 Señor El Once : holocaust narrative
Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
[W]hy is it a crime to dispute the holocaust narrative in Germany...? Think about that for a moment Germany is threatening you with violence (arrest and imprisonment) if you express an opinion in opposition to their narrative.
The victors imposed this as such into the re-written German constitution as well as the German public's "Geist". They shamed the people with the hyped, exaggerated, and even falsified elements of the holocaust propaganda. They've had their noses rubbed in for several generations now, so that they won't forget. Hollywood makes it so they won't forget... the story that the victors want told.
And when inconsistencies in the holocaust narrative are pointed out, this gets labeled "holocaust denying" instead of what it is: "questioning holocaust exaggerations."
The Germans were so fundamentally broken down in spirit, power, and infrastructure (with occupying armies right up until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989), fixing the exaggerations to the atrocities was out of scope particularly in light of the many bad things ~all~ observed at one point or another in that era. Kind of like, "in for a penny, in for a pound."
Guilty of X, for sure. Guilty of X+Y? If you, the victor, say so. Punishment and mental torment for X is already all consuming. Sure, add some real or fiction Y to it. Doesn't change anything to the level of our shame.
With 20/20 hindsight [helped by the JFK, RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11], we can see who benefits by tacking on fiction Y to the crimes and why those in power wouldn't want it questioned. Exposed as fiction undermines the case for the state of Israel after WWII.
//
x159 ruffadam : intentionally disrupting threads
2014-08-06
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Here let me up my total comments in order to tip the balance of power in my favor! Clearly if I post more than HR1 I become the most powerful right? I am the new leader!
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 4:55 pm
You have just made my case for me SEO. Thank you. May I lastly point out that your lame attempt to paint your comments as being on topic are laughable. You have virtually nothing to say that is on topic ever. You are intentionally disrupting threads.
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Your comments above and this one are OFF TOPIC!
ruffadam
August 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm
They will find me to be a rabid defender of free speech if they somehow succeed in getting such laws on the books here in America. The more the system tries to control us and steer us in the direction they want the more people like me resist and rebel. I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen. As princess Lea said in Star Wars "the more you tighten your grip the more systems will slip through your fingers". I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! Arrest activists now and throw them into camps or hell just have summary executions in the streets. Nothing will speed up the demise of the NWO more than that. Bring it on!
ruffadam
August 7, 2014 at 1:02 am
Oh please TM, asking you to stay on topic is not censorship in any way shape or form and that you would suggest that Craig is flirting with 911blogger style censorship is outrageous and also for me very insightful as to your true motives. As far as I can tell you have been allowed to say what you want and I know for a fact I have been allowed to say what I want so where is the specter of censorship here at T+S? No what you are bothered by is that with my free speech here I called you out for preaching to us, which you most certainly did do. I also pointed out that it was completely off topic, which it most certainly was. Now Craig asked you to stay on topic, which you most certainly should do, and you play the victim of censorship card! So, much like the Israeli's play the victim card, you do so, when in reality you, like the Israeli's, are the one that is doing wrong. Bravo!
How about you just stay on topic and quit being a troll trying to disrupt the discussion?
ruffadam
August 7, 2014 at 1:25 am
Perhaps so. Maybe it will be a "Terminator" type scenario or my version of that being more like "The Road Warrior". It may just turn out like the Bundy ranch standoff though where Americans and people of all nations rise up in incredible numbers and say NO MORE! Maybe just maybe we will get together and bounce these sociopaths out of all leadership positions altogether. Perhaps the worst of them will be put on trial and hanged for crimes against humanity. I have a few I would nominate for that starting with Netanyahu and Obama and then moving on to the Bush family, Darth Cheney, Donald Scumsfeld, Condasleezy Rice, the Clintons, and how about also in the first batch of trials we throw in Brzezinski, Kissinger, and a selection of Rockefellers?
ruffadam
2014-08-08 at 9:54 pm
Where are Tamborine man and Senor El Once's posts dealing with the topic? Have they nothing to say about the topic? They seem to have a lot to say about other members of this blog and about unrelated issues such as religion but very little to say about the article itself or about Gaza. Kind of odd don't you think?
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 1:57 am
I have been upping my post count lately because I am trying to supplant you HR1. Everyone knows that it is the quantity of the posts that matters not the quality! If I had to beat the quality of your posts I would not stand much of a chance to supplant you but since all I have to do is beat you on quantity I am going to give it a real try. When I pass you do I get a prize or something?
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 1:59 am
By way of deception we make war.
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 2:03 am
The tools once used to manipulate the masses (namely the corporate media) are failing. The fact of the matter is the corporate whore media is largely controlled by Zionist supremacists. It is a great thing for the world that their control of all media is in free fall.
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 2:11 am
Too bad neither SEO's comments or yours are on topic huh? Perhaps that is what you really admire is SEO's ability to derail threads? Perhaps you are attempting to emulate him/her/it?
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 2:31 am
I will say it plainly that SEO is intentionally disrupting threads and is extremely hostile but in a passive aggressive way to hide behind a very thin facade of civility. You on the other hand HR1 are very up front with your thoughts and arguments and in my opinion much more honorable for doing so. I much prefer to be told to my face that I am wrong than to have an obsessive compulsive stalker skulking around waiting to stab me in the back and hide it behind a thin facade of false civility. Your posts are usually on topic and on target while his/her/its posts are little more than lip service to the topic and a manifesto length passive aggressive tirade against you or sometimes me.
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 2:43 am
Your post was a sermon, a religious sermon, there is no doubt about it. I was the one who called you out about it being preaching. It was preaching and it was religious in nature and nothing you said above changes that not even your repeated insistence that it wasn't religious. You remind me of the cops at Waco who kept saying over the loud speaker that the Davidians should come out and they would not be harmed while Flir video images captured the feds shooting them as they tried to escape the burning building. Give it a rest man it was a sermon, a preachy sermon that had nothing to do with the topic. No matter how many times you claim it was not religious IT WAS.
ruffadam
2014-08-09 at 2:45 am
Why is it that you cannot comment on the topic?
ruffadam
2014-08-11 at 7:43 am
I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to put words in my mouth by suggesting that I advocate "forceful" resistance to the evils of the world. I do not advocate such and never have, I advocate self defense and I advocate non violent non cooperation with "evil" period. Please mention me by name next time when you are talking about me, it makes it so much clearer for the readers.
I also wonder why it is Tamborine man that you are completely unable to speak to the topic of this thread? All you seem to be able to post about are your concepts of spirituality which would be better suited to a religious discussion forum. You are preaching here and it is unwelcome because it distracts from the discussion of the topic. I personally find what you say to be mostly incoherent ramblings and I would not turn to you as any sort of authority on spiritual matters.
If we wanted to discuss life after death, reincarnation, the soul living on forever, and other religious topics we would go to a forum for those topics and discuss it there.
If David Icke came onto this forum I am sure he would be capable of speaking to the topic and would do it in a very coherent way while still getting his decidedly spiritual perspective across quite well. That would be welcomed, I am sure, by all here and we would all probably learn something from him. You on the other hand are NOT discussing the topic AT ALL. You are simply launching into incoherent sermons about your views of cosmic Karma and eternal life which I for one am not interested in. For spiritual lessons I turn to teachers worthy of my time and attention. I go to them, they do not come to me.
Why don't you start a blog about these spiritual topics if you want to discuss them so much? This blog is meant for discussing in this case Craig McKee's article entitled: (Dismantle Gaza and relocate ‘non-belligerent Arabs': Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.)
Why is it you can't discuss that topic Tamborine man? Why are you having so much difficulty talking about that?
x160 Señor El Once : topic to the fourth level discussion
2014-08-11 at 2:15 pm
Technically, Mr. Adam Ruff's 2014-08-09 at 2:11 am was published ~before~ my 2014-08-08 at 5:48 pm comment, because an accidental third URL sent my comment into the moderation queue over the weekend.
Contrary to Mr. Ruff's wishful and ignornant predictions, my actual comment was on topic to the fourth level discussion about links.
Curious, my unpublished comment [2014-08-08 at 5:48 pm] accurately predicted how Mr. Rogue's 2014-08-08 at 7:18 am chumming of the waters would lead to a topic distraction that came into fruition on 2014-08-09 at 1:30 am.
As if a baton were handed off between agents, Mr. Ruff writes on 2014-08-06 at 4:09 pm :
Here let me up my total comments in order to tip the balance of power in my favor! Clearly if I post more than HR1 I become the most powerful right? I am the new leader!
And on 2014-08-09 at 1:57 am:
I have been upping my post count lately because I am trying to supplant you HR1. Everyone knows that it is the quantity of the posts that matters not the quality!
At the time of writing, there are 101 comments: Mr. Ruff had 30, Mr. Rogue 39, and I had 5 (not including the unpublished comment).
Mr. Ruff boldly writes on 2014-08-09 at 2:11 am
Too bad neither SEO's comments or yours are on topic huh? Perhaps that is what you really admire is SEO's ability to derail threads? Perhaps you are attempting to emulate him/her/it?
And then chums the waters again immediately (2014-08-09 at 2:31 am) with:
I will say it plainly that SEO is intentionally disrupting threads...
Mr. Ruff evidently is never going to live down be called a "hypocrite," because he offers so much fodder to the label. It doesn't take much Ctrl+F (on-page searches) with a given participant's alias to quickly see badgering disruption to the threads by the baton-passing conspirators.
Here is a bit of an oxy-moron by a proud high school graduate:
[SEO] is extremely hostile but in a passive aggressive way to hide behind a very thin facade of civility.
Yes, indeed, I use a thin facade of civility to package arguments that destroy my debate opponents' points, arguments, and cases, thus in that sense only could possibly deemed "extremely hostile" to their blatant and willful errors.
Stroking something, Mr. Ruff writes:
... [Mr. Rogue,] Your posts are usually on topic and on target...
The credits leading to Mr. Ruff's high school diploma did not include any classes that could give him an appreciation of statistical analysis, let alone the chops to carry something like that out, even on the small subset of comments here. What significant percentage of Mr. Rogue's postings are nothing more than a copy-and-pasting cheat of somebody else's words to obtain "reflected brilliance"? [I give Mr. Rogue kudos for developing the habit, after much badgering, of crediting his sources better. Still has room for improvement.] So when Mr. Ruff kisses Mr. Rogue's hiney with:
You on the other hand HR1 are very up front with your thoughts and arguments and in my opinion much more honorable for doing so.
How much of the above impression comes from Mr. Rogue's actual words or from words borrowed from others?
In one of his bait-setting traps, Mr. Ruff writes at 2014-08-08 at 9:54 pm:
Where are Tamborine man and Senor El Once's posts dealing with the topic?
When Mr. Ruff demonstrates his abilities for "irrational argument" and makes good on his promises to "ignore and not read comments" from me, that's when we get ignorant statements like above. Already addressed on 2014-08-06 at 4:30 pm:
... I don't need to chime in with back-slapping "me-too-isms" and "I agree" on every single thread within every single forum... [W]hen the topic is on the fringes of either my knowledge or my interests, I don't feel compelled to muscle my way in and slap down my opinions. You'll know when I disagree. ... What I dislike are your hypocritical statements and diversionary over-reactions.
Mr. Ruff's doesn't disappoint us with his hypocrisy 2014-08-08 at 9:54 pm:
... seem to have a lot to say about other members of this blog and about unrelated issues such as religion but very little to say about the article itself or about Gaza. Kind of odd don't you think?
Mr. Ruff wrote 2014-08-09 at 1:59 am
By way of deception we make war.
I see.
Mr. Ruff wrote on 2014-08-09 at 2:11 am:
Perhaps that is what you [Mr. Tamborine Man] really admire is SEO's ability to derail threads? Perhaps you are attempting to emulate him/her/it?
Let's go with "~it~" for its ability to make Mr. Ruff look ridiculous for even suggesting it.
Maybe the admiration is Mr. Ruff for willy... Mr. Ruff tries to emulate him both in actually derailing and then in dropping hypnotic suggestion that someone else derailed it!
Through Mr. Ruff's increased spamming of this forum to 30%, Mr. Rogue gets his spam reduced from 44.6% down to 39%. The two of them alone now command 69% of the comments, nearly four times the combined but failing efforts of Mr. Tamborine Man (at 13%) and SEO (at 6%). We humbly acknowledge the supremacy of Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue to derail the thread.
The theme of baiting the forum gets a third ping, also from Mr. Ruff but much earlier 2014-08-06 at 10:34 pm:
... I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen. ... I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! ... Bring it on!
Had about as much to do with Gaza as Mr. TM's spirituality postings.
And were Mr. Ruff to justify his statements further, the counter from Mr. TM would be that Mr. Ruff's wishful rebellious thinking is but one way to confront (and assist) evil, but a different tactic would be found in understanding Mr. TM's themes.
Here's the analogy. When playing the game of Monopoly, the participant who is the banker almost always cheats, temptation being so great. This might inspire participants like Mr. Ruff to violently overturn the game board and send pieces to the far-flung corners of the room, some possibly never to be found.
Mr. TM, on the other hand, makes participants cognizant of the fact that they are just playing a game that has no power over their real, spiritual selves. This gives real power in being able to stand up and walk away from it.
//
x161 Señor El Once : hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics
Mr. Ruff wrote to Mr. TM on 2014-08-11 at 7:43 am:
I would appreciate it if you would not attempt to put words in my mouth by suggesting that I advocate "forceful" resistance to the evils of the world. I do not advocate such and never have, I advocate self defense and I advocate non violent non cooperation with "evil" period.
Hmmm. Yet within this very thread on 2014-08-06 at 10:34 pm, the very same Mr. Ruff wrote:
... I honestly hope they try to pass such laws here and I hope they crack down very hard with flagrant police state tactics. I hope they do it because by doing it they create the rebellion that desperately needs to happen... I say bring on martial law now today! Put storm troopers in the streets and have them smash skulls with billy clubs! Arrest activists now and throw them into camps or hell just have summary executions in the streets... Bring it on!
So the record shows that Mr. Ruff does not "advocate 'forceful' resistance to the evils of the world." Instead, he seems to be advocating for liberty-limiting laws, "flagrant police state tactics", "martial law now today," and "storm troopers in the streets smashing skills with billy clubs." Which team is Mr. Ruff playing for?
Mr. Ruff seems to be cheering the arrival of NWO, because he seems to think that once its deprivations are upon us, then will rise up the resistance to overthrow it. [Or the NWO will be implemented.]
Mr. Ruff seems to think that having the storm trooper's boots upon our throats will only then inspire us to speak up and resist.
Indeed. This is quite different than resistance. It is playing into the hands of NWO. Bad strategy.
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like... if, during periods of mass arrests, ... people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
~Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Mr. Ruff's efforts to supplant Mr. Rogue as the most prolific contributor is still 9 comments shy of matching Mr. Rogue and fulfilling his 2014-08-07 at 4:09 pm boasts of upping his "total comments to tip the balance of power in [his] favor." The two of them nonetheless command 69% of the discussion.
Rather ironic then that Mr. Ruff would accuse me with my pitiful five comments: "SEO is intentionally disrupting threads." Thread to thread, I simply don't have the numbers... Or Mr. Ruff's drive (2014-08-09 at 1:57 am):
I have been upping my post count lately because I am trying to supplant you HR1. Everyone knows that it is the quantity of the posts that matters not the quality!
Gives new meaning to Mr. Ruff's comment from 2014-08-09 at 1:59 am:
By way of deception we make war.
//
x162 ruffadam : discredit me with my own words
2014-08-11
ruffadam
August 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm
SEO you are an obsessive compulsive stalker and your post has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC!
Furthermore your pseudo analysis skills have once again failed you in your attempts to discredit me with my own words. I find it comical almost that you do not seem to understand simple points. For example when I said "bring on the NWO" you do not seem to grasp the point I was making that the worse they get the faster the resistance grows as a natural consequence. In other words they are naturally creating their own demise. That point in no way advocates violence but you just do not "get it" apparently. I think your misunderstanding stems from your obsessive compulsion to attack HR1 and myself. As to my point about upping my post count let me explain that was sarcasm aimed at you that you obviously missed. Your constant OCD driven counting of HR1 posts was getting so old and tired that I thought I would sarcastically highlight how stupid it was.
Now I have opened the door for even more of your off topic ranting and raving for which I apologize to the forum in advance. I just think it is shameful that you absolutely refuse to discuss the topic at hand and instead focus all of your obsessive attention on attacking HR1 and myself. You are a stalker in every bad and scary sense of the term. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC for a change why don't you?
ruffadam
August 12, 2014 at 1:51 am
Even the quotes of mine, which you took totally out of context by the way, do NOT advocate violence in any way shape or form. I was simply theorizing about how the coming police state and resulting revolution might play itself out. You seem to be strangely unable to understand context or inference in my and HR1's comments. In any case it does not matter to me one bit if you think I contradict myself or not I am confident that most readers understand my meaning.
I really am tired of you continually going off topic Tamborine Man, it is disrespectful to Craig and to us all. I sense in you the same obsessive compulsion to keep doing this though that I find in SEO. I have resigned myself to the fact that neither you or SEO are going to stop actively trying to disrupt threads. I have also resigned myself to the fact that you are both OCD to the point that you will literally NEVER stop doing it. So by all means spam the shit out of this forum with more of your off topic garbage and I will decide for myself if I want to tolerate it or not. Right now the ONLY reason I tolerate it is because I enjoy reading Craig's excellent articles and some of the superb commentary about them.
x163 Señor El Once : discussion behavior
Some confusion exists about proper discussion behavior, whereby some have been going ape-shit over what they consider to be off-topic and derailing, somewhat purposely ignorant of the facts (a) that it takes at least two to tango and (b) that their ape-shit reactions were far more derailing than the individual off-topic comments were if simply left alone.
Discussions in online forums are like ping-pong tournaments. When a ball is served over the net, one can hit the ball back or let it go. If the served ball were headed out of bounds, letting it go is the wisest course of action. Sure, although the last one hitting the ball has the last word, readers serious about the subject subconsciously award points for those that remain in bounds.
Whether or not a served ball would have been out of bounds, if you return the serve, the opportunity is created for a valley and for the ball to be hit right back again. And again. And again.
It doesn't matter whether or not your returns are "smashing" and energetically punctuated with curses about "lame serves, wimpy hits, top-spin, back-spin, side-spin," etc. because this enables the back-and-forth volley to continue, possibly much deeper into topics "undesired".
Letting the ball go is how you stop the volley, at the cost of losing the last word. Leaving the ping-pong table (e.g., thread, discussion topic) for another is how you stop it. Leaving the tournament (e.g., T&S forum) altogether is how you stop it for yourself permanently.
Participants should note that they get to choose the tables that they want to play at. They are under no obligation to play concurrent games with any and all who lob a ball across the net.
Furthermore, it should be noted that energetic volleys starting from level 2+ do not necessarily derail discussions, even if they are off-topic. Why? Because when played by fair and objective players, theoretically a new level 1 comment can bring the overall forum's discussion back on-topic.
"Keep in mind that when someone goes off topic and seems to be provoking a thread-derailing argument, they succeed much more readily when everyone jumps in and argues with them."~Craig McKee 2014-08-13
What derails the entire forum are these three elements together:
(1) The topic is out-of-bounds.
(2) One or more participants continue the discussion but with a level 1 comment, being too lazy, too devious, or both to locate an appropriate level n (where n>1) comment to reply to, which would "contain" the off-topic back-and-forth and not give it the last words in the forum.
(3) Ape-shit over-reactions and unsportsmanlike conduct.
To a certain degree, #1 and #2 could be tolerated. #3 is what puts it over the top. Although some try to frame this #3 as "frank and honest," when used in a knee-jerk fashion and repeatedly, it turns into a purposeful tactic designed to torpedo the forum and deserves to be called out.
Here's a good example from Mr. Ruff on August 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm:
SEO you are an obsessive compulsive stalker and your post has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC!
It wasn't just an over-reaction. The first half of that hypnotic assertion is a lie.
How so? What other forums have I "stalked" Mr. Ruff onto? Has Mr. Ruff ever received an email from me? What comments have I ever left on a forum that he controls? Does Mr. Ruff even have a blog for comments to be made on? Is Mr. Ruff on Facebook? Paraphrasing Jed Klampet, "California is a place I don't want to be," and Mr. Ruff won't find me there "stalking" him. [Brings up why Mr. Ruff didn't say "obsessive compulsive CYBER stalker". One could consider the omission of the adjective "cyber" to be a low-down, dirty cheat that have the facts further undermine his reputation here.]
Yep, I'm a religious fanatic; fanatical about Truth with a capital "T". Dishonesty pushes my buttons and will result in me lobbing the ping-pong discussion ball back to point it out.
It should be noticed that Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff have been having a field day on:
http://conspiracypsychology.com
Looks like they found a new home! Kudos and please keep it up!
Although Mr. Rogue has repeatedly INVITED me and all lurker readers to follow him there and tag-team in the fun via the many links posted, I have not "stalked" over there to give him or Mr. Ruff the raspberries. [I've got a life.] Yet another way the "OCD stalking" malframing gets destroyed. [And were I to venture into the discussions of that disinfo website, it wouldn't be to attack either Mr. Rogue or Mr. Ruff, but to aid and support their efforts in exposing the dishonesty of its owners-on-the-disinfo-attack.]
Here's a test for those prone to ape-shit over-reactions:
F-F-F-FOURTH GENERATION NOOKIEDOO!!!
Instructions: Don't smash anything back across the net. Just let this go. Don't reply. STFU.
I'm serious. I don't really want to discuss NOOKIEDOO, but I know how NOOKIEDOO pushes buttons. Ignore it and this entire comment, and you'll pass the test.
Let this ball go by. Don't volley it back so I can lob another one back. Don't reply. STFU.
That's the test.
P.S. This comment was started on Monday. It wasn't finished. Real-life got in the way. I'm not obligated. And I might not have finished it, were it not for Mr. Rogue asking so nicely for it.
Let the record show how I let their ping-pong balls fall to the floor. They got the last word. Woo-hoo! And they'll get the last word after this. Woo-hoo some more!
But so addicted to T&S are they, they've been desperately trying to stoke conversations since. Mr. Ruff's pictures of protest at the "The November Man" premiere were marginally on-topic. Mr. Rogue's essay on "Believe" isn't just off-topic; it's as if he's trying to get Mr. Tamborine Man to come out and play with more spirituality postings. [NOT something that I advocate.] Mr. Rogue regularly uses T&S as if he were its RSS feed and as if T&S were an appropriate repository for everything he might have penned for other purposes elsewhere. Has hypocritical Mr. Ruff called Mr. Roge on any of his off-topic comments? Nope. It's why the "hypocritical" adjective applies as a valid fact and isn't ad hominem. [Pointed out so Mr. Ruff will improve his demeanor.]
What comment from me would be complete without the stats? At 134 total comments so far, Mr. Rogue (55) and Mr. Ruff (39) together make up 70% of the contribution to this forum, as Mr. Ruff falls further behind Mr. Rogue.
P.P.S. This embodies a second test of the participants. It is posted as a level 1 comment, to see how quickly and by whom another level 1 comment comes to "get the last word", and what the nature of that comment will be. Will it be original and on-topic? Will it be original and off-topic? Will it be a copy-and-paste whack-job of someone else's words marginally related to the topic?
// "double slasher leaping out with a screech like a banshee"~Mr. Rogue
x164 ruffadam : stinks of agitprop to me
2014-08-16
ruffadam
August 16, 2014 at 7:32 pm
HR1 says "Apparently personal concerns trump all other considerations for some."
I agree 100% with this in fact I would like to point out at this time the fact that "personal concerns" were the ONLY thing talked about by two particular individuals, Gaza and Craigs article were completely ignored throughout the entire thread. That stinks of agitprop to me and now these comments popping up meant to make us all believe SEO is some kind of Icon that is very popular but here he/she/it is unfairly censored. This is highly suspect to me. A simple google search for SEO would produce plenty of results so why come in here specifically to drop these not so subtle hints that SEO is being oppressed and censored here? It is agitprop and it is BS. Anyone could have found his/her/its postings elsewhere so why come in here to make those comments? Agitprop.
SEO was posting totally off topic comments and has been doing so for a long time, very disruptive, very disingenuous. I am thoroughly convinced that SEO is genuine agitprop. He/she/its comments are engineered (carefully crafted) to produce anger, confusion, and dissension. I noticed it particularly with responses to my comments where SEO's comments are specifically designed to make me angry (I recognized it as crafted provocation so it didn't work). This comment in particular caught my attention and convinced me that SEO is genuine agitprop:
August 6th 430PM SEO writes in response to my saying I was not interested in his/her/its vendetta against HR1 or myself:
"Is that so? Where's the beef? You've even made repeated promises the last couple of years (a) that you don't read my comments and (b) that you ignore my comments. Was this because you're too clueless to make a decent argument to counter rationally my position? Me thinks so. You've been a hypocritical blowhard from the onset. Where's your big fat IGNORE and not rising to the occasion?"
Now from a psychological standpoint what SEO is doing with this comment is actually very revealing. Can you see what is going on in just that short paragraph? It is actually a powerful psychological attack crafted just for me. (BTW: I take it as a compliment that I get the attention of provocateurs and that they expend some of their time on me.)
SEO may work alone or is actually a group of provocateurs with dozens or more sock puppet persona's but in either case the evidence is plentiful that this entity is NOT here to discuss Craigs articles. Scan back over this thread and see for yourself where SEO made an (on topic) post prior to this date and time. I bet you can't locate one and that should speak volumes to everyone. In scanning through past threads you will see the same pattern emerge with only a token post or two vaguely on topic followed by a plethora of off topic "psychological warfare" (in my opinion) posts.
I would ask anyone reading this to actually look back at this and other threads and see the method of provocation in action. You will learn how this "infowar" for lack of a better term is actually being fought.
hybridrogue1
August 16, 2014 at 9:37 pm
I concur with Mr Ruff's analysis. As such, perhaps the comments section can be opened to a "post topical" discussion on our take on what just occurred here on Truth and Shadows. Again, under the stated rules of engagement set by our host.
I think it is apparent that Truth and Shadows is a prime candidate for targeting by what we call "Sunsteinian Agitprop". This is certainly not a new idea here, and the "paranoia" of the probability of surveillance and intervention here is not without some rational bases.
Personally, I would rather that Craig gives an official go-ahead before we proceed to such discussion.
\\][//
ruffadam
August 20, 2014 at 6:24 am
SEO,
It is nice of you to re-frame for us what we could expect from a real agitprop agent. I will stick with my own definition though. My definition fits you to a tee.
1. You constantly try to derail good discussion by bringing up discredited theories such as mini-nukes and Judy Woods DEW.
2. You use any excuse to introduce bogus material or to create conflict on the blog because in either case the discussion itself gets lost.
3. You use passive aggressive attacks masked only by a very thin facade of politeness along with other disinformation techniques such as Alice in Wonderland logic in order to derail the topical discussions.
4. You post intentionally confusing or conflicting information which require significant time commitments to unravel and debunk.
5. You offer only token lip service to the topic but post long diatribes attacking others.
6. You try to make us rehash past debunks of your theories over and over by claiming falsely that your theories have never been addressed or debunked.
The bottom line is that your MO is to waste our time and derail productive discussions. In my opinion you are agitprop SEO.
hybridrogue1
August 20, 2014 at 11:45 am
‘Agitprop': the rupture of language and cognition in social engineering.
\\][//
x165 Señor El Once : Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Thank you so much for your comment that allows me to respond and for being on the vanguard of this dastardly detour into alleged "agitprop" characteristics. Clearly you and Mr. Rogue are conspiring off-list in this endeavor, so he can teach you the vocabulary.
It is rather funny that you are writing anything at all addressed to me about something I wrote, because you have repeatedly claimed to ignore my comments, to skip right over them, and to not read them. I always attributed this blatant demonstration of your (low) level of open-mindedness and objectivity as the reason why you get so many things WRONG when acting as Mr. Rogue's Gilligan.
Case in point, you write:
You [SEO] constantly try to derail good discussion by bringing up discredited theories such as mini-nukes and Judy Woods DEW.
Haven't been brought up by me in this forum in any serious way that could be construed as me wanting to discuss them. Go check your T&S emails for the comment that Mr. McKee removed. I didn't bring them up in the last forum either. Ergo, the adverb "constantly" does not apply. This over-generalization alone -- something taught in high school to avoid -- is sufficient to trash the validity of your first complaint. But I'll continue trashing it more...
As for the verb "derail", lovely how you ignore your Skipper's hand in all of those "derailments." Isn't Mr. Rogue's blog just a wonderful thing?
As for "discredited theories" that you dangle in front of me as bait to get me fouled out? Must be Mr. Rogue's strategy but one that he couldn't implement himself. The theories aren't mine, aren't what I champion, and aren't affected by your hypnotic suggestion. Clearly, you understand neither the base theories nor the applicable elements of each that are merged into my deviant premise.
Thus we see your #1 item -- supposedly your strongest argument -- into my alleged MO fall into the dustbin.
As for #2-#5? Ho-hum. Why didn't you provide links to substantiate your words?
I won't belabor this, because I've addressed your concerns and your dubious nature months ago in a special message "sick of SEO claiming we have not done so" (2014-04-13). Make sure you read the whole message, particularly those referencing your statements from November 17, 2012.
You think you know where I err in my bat-shit crazy deviant premises? Take it off-list. Make a comment to the blog entry linked above.
Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff.
//
x166 ruffadam : I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur"
2014-08-20
ruffadam
August 20, 2014 at 9:18 pm
The one fact that discredits virtually everything you just said is that in each and every case it is in fact you who starts the trouble not HR1 or myself. There was no mention of you at all on this thread until you came in and started derailing it. Sure you choose to come to the defense of Tamborine Man who was himself attempting to derail this discussion. You saw us telling TM to stay on topic as your perfect opportunity to come in here and increase the disruption. You are the aggressor SEO and the time stamps on the posts prove it.
Now as to your other blather about HR1 and I working together against you I can assure you that you have earned my critiques through your own actions and if HR1 were not here at all I would still make them. Because HR1 and I happen to agree on quite a few things I can understand your mistake of thinking we coordinate all this. We don't need to coordinate anything really SEO because your pattern of abuse and your MO are obvious to both of us. I agree with HR1 most of the time for one simple reason SEO, because he is right most of the time and I know he is right from my own research. You on the other hand are often wrong and therefore I often disagree with you.
In truth SEO I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur" who is attacking this blog and some of it's members intentionally and for nefarious reasons. Looking at your most recent post for example I find numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that you are an "agent" of disruption and disinformation.
Some other time perhaps I will go through one of your posts step by step and explain in detail what is happening with them. Suffice it to say for now that I will not be responding to your "Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff" remark in any sort of timely fashion, if at all, simply because I don't bite on such obvious bait. At this point SEO you may want to have your handlers assign someone else from the Q-Group to me because your routine is played out and not working.
ruffadam
August 21, 2014 at 5:51 am
Wow SEO that is some fast tap dancing you did there in that comment. I have no idea what the hell most of it meant but it was lengthy I will give you that. Curious why YOU have not choosen to ignore our comments since you seem to want to scold us for not ignoring yours? I will go even one better why not ignore our comments and actually post something relevant to the topic?
x167 Señor El Once : pushed the buttons of my religious fanaticism
Some participants have just pushed the buttons of my religious fanaticism regarding truth by writing things that are ~not~, with the first indication being no substantiating links.
So that readers understand the stats, two comments of mine made respectively to two different topics already-in-progress netted two replies from Mr. Ruff, five replies from Mr. Rogue on-list, and five back-stabbings off-list on his blog. Woo-hoo!
Let's give Kudos where they are warranted, such as Mr. Ruff's one-for-one restraint. Bravo!
Two-to-seven, though! Clearly, I am losing and will continue to lose, because those seven will only eck out one, lowly, measely reply from of me, this very message that you read.
For my loyal fans requesting it, let's begin more "fast-talking jabberwacky", more "fast tap dancing", and more "simply incomprehensible bullshit". Woo-hoo!
Without further delay, here's the first gem credited to Mr. Ruff (and those following unless otherwise noted):
The one fact that discredits virtually everything you just said is that in each and every case it is in fact you who starts the trouble not HR1 or myself.
El-oh-el! Such purposeful memory loss and humor Mr. Ruff exhibits in defending Mr. Rogue, T&S's resident WalMart greeter. The phrase "in each and every case" falls into the category of "over-generalization" and only takes one case to the contrary to disprove.
The list of participants is pretty long who have experienced first hand Mr. Rogue "starting trouble." I'd wager that out of the last 3000 comments made to T&S, Mr. Rogue's contribution was greater than one third.
Now if Mr. Ruff is referring exclusively to interactions Rogue-SEO or Ruff-SEO, in probably each and every case an assertion or action was made at some point by a member of the tag-team that inspired me to respond, quite possibly with a referenced rebuttal using their own words to prove hypocrisy, dishonesty, and/or hypnosis in the assertion.
There was no mention of you at all on this thread until you came in...
I agree, this is so true! And just as true, there was no mention of Mr. Ruff at all on this thread until he came came in. Funny how that works.
... and started derailing it.
Was my comment the exact point of the derailment? Or was the over-blown over-reaction the exact point?
Astute readers might notice that the over-blown over-reaction to Mr. Tamborine Man's innocuous comments were the exact point of derailment. My comments would have been at the caboose to that train wreck had not -- surprise! surprise! -- there been further over-blown over-reactions. Mine was the served ping-pong ball that they should have just let flutter right on by.
You saw us telling TM to stay on topic as your perfect opportunity to come in here and increase the disruption.
I told Mr. TM to stay on topic, too. I have two comments from that period in the moderation queue due to their link count and Mr. McKee deciding not to publish them, ergo they added nothing to the disruption. My exchanges with Mr. TM to get him to provide a relevant link weren't a disruption; they were on-topic.
You are the aggressor SEO and the time stamps on the posts prove it.
What time stamps exactly? If Mr. Ruff doesn't list and show the correlation, then his statements aren't fact but opinion without substantiation.
The record shows that at 168 total comments, I made a total of 12 comments (6.5%), but four of them are in the moderation queue due to link counts and Mr. McKee not approving them. Let's ignore their publication status and consider hypothetically all 12 of them as being stick-in-your-eye provocation on T&S.
How many of Mr. Ruff's ~43 commens (25.5%) or of Mr. Rogue's ~72 comments (42.8%) or of their combined ~115 comments (68.4% of the total conversation) were devoted to my [*cough*] "disruption" consisting of just 12 comments?
In a perfect ping-pong volley, the number ought to be between 12 (1 reply from either) and 24 (1 reply each), or between 10% and 20% of their combined comments. Of course, the 7 reactions to the last 2 of my 12 comments hypothetically suggests a trend that could be extrapolated to mean that 42 of their ~115 comments -- 36% of their effort -- were devoted to me! Woo-hoo, again!
Except that even a real-world number shy of 36% -- a total output >9.5 times that of mine -- paints a different picture of who is the aggressor.
BTW, time stamps reflect when a participant attempted to publish the comment, but not necessarily when it saw the light of day, as would be the case for comments in the moderation queue until approval.
Now as to your other blather about HR1 and I working together against you I can assure you that you have earned my critiques through your own actions and if HR1 were not here at all I would still make them.
And Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue have earned my critiques of their integrity through their own actions that I'm not shy of quoting back to them and offering links to substantiate.
Because HR1 and I happen to agree on quite a few things I can understand your mistake of thinking we coordinate all this.
... Or the mistake of thinking that one of you is the sockpuppet of the other.
I agree with HR1 most of the time for one simple reason SEO, because he is right most of the time...
Guess what? I agree with HR1 most of the time, too, in part because how can you disagree with someone else's innocuous work that Mr. Rogue has copy-and-pasted into the discussion? In part also for the instances when he is right, and you don't find me quibbling over it.
But "most of the time" isn't "all of the time." I'll stand up and point out the "part of the time" when Mr. Rogue is mistaken. And that's where the truth hurts.
... and I know he is right from my own research.
Stellar research that includes purposely not reading certain books or websites germaine to the discussion, not reading my comments, and by extention not reading what substantiates my comments.
You on the other hand are often wrong and therefore I often disagree with you.
Me? WRONG! Oh for heaven's sake, do forgive me! I promise to mend my ways if you would only be so kind as to point out exactly where I am in such grave error!
Some other time perhaps I will go through one of your posts step by step and explain in detail what is happening with them. Suffice it to say for now that I will not be responding to your "Chop-chop, Mr. Ruff" remark in any sort of timely fashion, if at all, simply because I don't bite on such obvious bait.
... Ooops! [*Sniff* *sniff*] Smells like a mustelid was here.
On the one hand, I'd like to give Mr. Ruff some slack here, because my blog is a rabbit hole. But on the other hand, Mr. Ruff has been steadfastly avoiding an objective, reasoned, rational discussion with me -- on T&S, on COTO, on my blog -- for more than a year now. He has a track record of making such promises and then failing to make good on it, such as on November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am.
BTW, what makes my request "such obvious bait" when it avoids disruptions here on T&S by having the objective, reasoned, rational discussion with me off-list? Could it be because I propose my blog as the playground, where I have home-court advantage? I promise to be fair and publish replies (that aren't ad hominem snake-piss). If Mr. Ruff had a blog, it could be discussed there (or both our blogs in parallel), and I'd let Mr. Ruff be as underhanded as Mr. Rogue is with his blog.
Or is my request "such obvious bait" when he knows he'll get his ass handed to him.
Damn. [*Sniff* *sniff*] There's that mustelid smell again.
Curious why YOU have not choosen to ignore our comments since you seem to want to scold us for not ignoring yours?
First of all, this individual, lowly reply comes closer to zero(=ignore) than the seven comments made by your team recently.
Secondly, your tag-team has charged me with "being an agent of agitprop." The two of you sound like Larry and Curly with your "Moe! Moe! Moe!" nonsense. (Or was it "M.O."?)
I will go even one better why not ignore our comments and actually post something relevant to the topic?
Done. What's the topic? Oh, that's right...
In truth SEO I really believe you are "agitprop" or an "agent provocateur" who is attacking this blog and some of it's members intentionally and for nefarious reasons. Looking at your most recent post for example I find numerous reasons to reach the conclusion that you are an "agent" of disruption and disinformation.
If Mr. Ruff found "numerous reasons", he couldn't be bothered to list a single one of them. Cheater.
At least when I call Mr. Ruff or Mr. Rogue a hypocrite, a liar, a cheat, or a weasel, I substantiate the instances one by one with direct quotes and links that brought me to such conclusions.
"Attacking this blog?" My 6.5% compared to their 68.4%? El-oh-el. Someone is doing some projecting here.
"Attacking ... some of its members intentionally?" Here, "some" is being re-defined from "four or more" to being equal to "two". If we were to tally all of the participants who have had border-line-nasty rows with Mr. Rogue [giving all the sock-puppets the benefit of the doubt], we'd be able to say "many" with no dishonest re-definitions.
"For nefarious reasons?" Here, "nefarious" is being re-defined to be anything that holds participants to truthful statements, to practicing what they preach, to demonstrating integrity in all their interactions.
++++
Now let's look at some of Mr. Rogue's recent work. Remember, it wasn't necessarily the link that is the disruption, but what someone chooses to drag back from that link to make an issue of that could be the disruption.
I wrote on my blog (2014-04-13) which Mr. Rogue chose to drag back:
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.
Mr. Rogue goes on to say with much eloquence and overwhelming amounts of substantiation (not):
Señor is an in your face fullblown fucking liar – he has been proven wrong decisively on this muclear bullshit and hasn't changed his mind but – as you see from the above, doubles down on the anal hurland... the singing asshole of Señor Bridges.
Moi? "Proven wrong"? And "decisively" so?
How ironic that Mr. Rogue chose a quote wherein Mr. Ruff was reprimanded for not providing links to substantiate his over-blown statements at the time, yet when Mr. Rogue comes to Mr. Ruff's defense, it is precisely those substantiating links that are also missing from his over-blown statements. (Pattern?)
Perhaps Mr. Rogue is referring to the exact same debunking efforts who genesis was November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am and is linked earlier in this message on which he was an invited conspirator (while I was purposely shunned from the party: boo-hoo)?
Perhaps Mr. Rogue is referring to lame, meandering, unsubstantiated articles penned by him on COTO and re-animated on his blog that can't make up their mind what they want to be and allow no commentary from others (e.g., moi) to improve the validity of statements or to correct statements of error?
At any rate, no substantiation when a charge of lying is made is an automatic FAIL and falls neatly into the camp of "attack."
Mr. Rogue drags back to this forum references to "the whole affair on COTO."
You schmoozed that twit JG, and she went on a rampage like Nurse Rat-shit in One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest. You pulled your agitprop game there like a pro, because those people are so jejune.
Ah, the online romancing of JerseyGirl! How could I ever forget? I wrote respectfully, was asked to become a contributor, wrote two articles, defended those articles respectfully (against heaping amounts of disrespect from Mr. Rogue), made references to the COTO rules of engagement, and decisively proved that Mr. Rogue's comments under his COTO articles (and elsewhere) were in flagrent violation.
"That twit JG" was also an admin who did not appreciate being called "Nurse Rat-shit" and other things more nasty and misogynistic by Mr. Rogue, with whom there was already a long-established love-hate relationship. Stamped his own exit papers, Mr. Rogue did.
I know you have the same plan for T&S, to derail it into oblivion like you did to COTO. They have gone from 70 to 80 hits pr hr down to around an average of 25 to 28 since that bamboozle you pulled there.
Let's flag this as a lie and a cheat from the onset, and I'll explain why.
"Hits per hour" isn't even a metric that web analytics measures. "Pageviews" and "Unique Visitors" for a given period of time are the two most useful web statistics. The IP address among other things is used to determine the number of unique visitors from their activity on the site. [Generally] every time a bot visits the page, every time the page is refreshed, and every time a visitor makes a comment, the pageview count for that page increments. Tally these for all of the web pages on the site and maybe this is the "hits/hour" to which Mr. Rogue refers.
Here are data points in Mr. Rogue's historic trend line.
- Mr. Rogue made >1/3 of the last 3,000 comments to T&S (which may actually be low).
- Mr. Rogue made >4,000 comments to Op-Ed News during his tenure there of a year or so.
- Mr. Rogue averaged 4 comments a day to this very thread (72 comments made between August 4 and August 20).
- Mr. Rogue averaged 13.5 commetns a day to a thread on his blog (108 comments made between August 12 and August 20). [The comments that weren't his are balanced by comments he made to other blog entries at the same time that aren't being considered and therefore actually makes this average low.]
Between just this T&S thread and one on his blog, Mr. Rogue is already at 17.5 comments a day, a number already artifically low in representing his total daily internet activity.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume some validity and meaningfulness from his statement: "70 to 80 hits pr hr down to around an average of 25 to 28." Based on Mr. Rogue's posting frequency, the difference of 45 to 52 hits/hour could very well be attributed to (a) Mr. Rogue's posting activities and (b) Mr. Rogue's and other's "refresh" activities as they appease their internet addiction every 5 minutes to see who has commented what and where, and to respond really fast.
In other words, Mr. Rogue is directly responsible for inflating or deflating COTO's hits/hour, according to the level of his participation.
Thus, Mr. Rogue's lie and cheat is to suggest that ~my~ participation on COTO dramatically reduced its hourly hit count, when in fact it was Mr. Rogue's withholding voluntarily his high-frequency participation that drove it low.
And it wasn't long after I left of my own accord, that you abandoned COTO.
"Of [his] own accord" as in "one step ahead of being banned." Were Mr. Rogue not so vile in his assessment of his COTO colleagues on his "Milgram" blog entry, he could probably go back and single-handedly ramp up the hourly hit rate.
Mr. Rogue was actively tainting the perceptions of his COTO colleagues AGAINST me before I made comment #1. As can be expected from a sock-puppet, Veritable1 was lock-step with Mr. Rogue's "ban SEO" rhetoric from day 1 of my entrance, and left exactly when Mr. Rogue did to join him immediately on his blog as sock-puppet VerityTwo, where he continues his remarkable mind-meld with Mr. Rogue today.
Against such PR on COTO, I didn't expect to survive. Before I drafted my own articles, each published comment was ripe in my mind to be my last. I stated up front that I wasn't going to stay. My purpose was to correct the record. That Mr. Rogue got PWNed so badly on his home court was just desserts. El-oh-el!
It is too too obvious what a vile and despicable game you play.
... Says the man with 458 comments to "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus" and 113 comments to "Maxwell Bridges: Disinformant", whose titles accurately reflect the quality of the comments. El-oh-el!
And now we come back to the topic as given by Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff:
[C]onvince a jury of [SEO's] peers of his innocence as far as the charge of being an agent of agitprop.
Ho-hum, already done in the above "fast-talking jabberwacky", and no sweaty armpits, let alone beads of sweat on my forehead.
If I didn't already think that Mr. Rogue was sociopathic and probably assigned to play on the internet by his mental health professions (and their pharmacy subscriptions) as a "healthy" outlet for his frustrations, as opposed to engaging with real people face-to-face, why I'd say that Mr. Rogue was projecting agenthood onto me.
//
x168 ruffadam : OCD to the extreme
2014-08-21
ruffadam
August 21, 2014 at 9:23 pm
As I said before SEO has OCD to the extreme and will NEVER stop. Still to this very moment SEO has not addressed the topic of Gaza at all! Not one post about the topic but we have this war and peace length diatribe above. As far as I am concerned that says it all.
x169 Señor El Once : customer list the most valuable thing
Dear Mr. Ruff,
I enjoyed your OFF-TOPIC stories involving your motorcycle and your rare earth company. Can't say that either event displayed sound judgment, though. The motor cycle chase alone had many downward spiraling decision points.
I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes about the business model for your "rare earth company where [you] sell novelty items (soil samples from unusual places)". And to think I've been called a "carnival hawker!" Your customer list was probably the most valuable thing about your business venture, because if they're willing to buy dirt, the sky's the limit what else they could be duped into buying.
I'm reminded of the movie, "The Long, Long Trailer" starring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. In particular, Lucy's collection of rocks and can food that weigh down the trailer on a narrow road in the mountains at the films climax.
Oh the things that we collect and horde!
As for behavior of the authorities, the constant procedural delays would have pushed my buttons.
//
Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite
DISCLAIMER: Everything in this part was published previously.
The significance of the older history in the previous Part did not weigh heavily in this Part's discussion, but maybe it should have. The previous Part's trend line continues into this Part, although it was a second chance and an excellent opportunity for Mr. Ruff to redeem himself from impressions: "boastful, lying, weaseling, hypocrite."
It is interesting to note in this Part how Mr. Ruff doesn't just cycle through the exact same lame arguments from the past few years. No, Mr. Ruff also has done an exceptional job of ignoring my counter arguments and their substantiating documentation, making him guilty of "~not~ debating in good faith."
In January, Mr. Ruff was given until March 1 to make his case. He did not, nor did he ask for an extension. This April 1 posting documents that Mr. Ruff through all of March made zero comments to the venue, although he was very active on Truth & Shadows.
"Shit or get off the pot."
Mr. Ruff has had literally years to make a cohesive argument against my nuclear DEW premises based on review of my materials. I do not begrudge Mr. Ruff for purposefully [and possibly even deceitfully] avoiding this effort.
Being a no-show without even courteous requests for extensions, Mr. Ruff forfeits.
The consequences are: if Mr. Ruff makes further hypnotic assertions [on T&S, Facebook, or wherever our paths cross] regarding the alleged inapplicability of nuclear DEW on 9/11 at the WTC, this historic record will be linked into the discussion to frag his credibility and reputation. Of course, if Mr. Ruff avoids the topic and lets me say my piece without disingenuous rebuttal, his dubious history with me remains unlinked while his comments on other topics are be given the benefit of the doubt [unless they, too, can be proven wrong and disingenuous.]
Pity that Mr. Ruff so flumuxed his redemption opportunity.
x172 Maxwell Bridges : Mike Collins in 9/11 Truth Movement
Dear Mr. McKee,
I empathize with your bad treatment, and applaud you for escalating it here to show them that you are not without an internet voice, despite your banishment. I enjoyed reading your article.
I've waxed about the inadequacies and misusage of Facebook before (2014-10-10), so I will refrain from posting a repeat except to summarize that: Facebook is not the place for reasoned debate.
I had a minor run-in with Mr. Mike Collins in 9/11 Truth Movement as well, but on my hobby-horse Neu Nookiedoo (of course). Readers with Facebook access and group permissions will note that the start of the discussion was an April Fools prank in bad taste by Mr. Ken Dockery that included a photoshopped portrait of Dr. Judy Wood and had one participant using the alias "Judy Woodster." Ms. Amanda Sedell and Mr. Joe Haley also made token tag-teaming appearances.
Mike Collins [SEO], after youre banned from this group and you wanna go troll some other groups to trick gullible people with misinformation, make sure to skim this first!
Mike Collins [SEO], the only problem with your copy and pasted nonsense is that I actually spent 8 years studying and working my ass off to get 2 degrees in engineering. so when people start talking about nonsense shit that goes against what is physically possible, or begin to use terms which are opposite of what they actually are, its hard to debate you.
Mike Collins you aren't going to graduate with a Master of Science Degree in Youtube videos and Conspiracy Blogs my friend.
I was banned as well. Today my request to join the group was granted, though, and I can now get to the permalink for that discussion again.
Facebook is such the perfect memory hole. All it takes is four comments in a row to push someone else's comment into the "Previous Comments" realm and out of sight even if the discussion itself remains at a top level in your of Facebook's News Feed. And all it takes is coordinated activity elsewhere (e.g., like posting and/or re-posting fluff discussions) to push a whole discussion down in the News Feed and way out of sight. You have to be observant to links in email notification (that have to be turned on and then filtered in your email client so as not to overrun and flood) if you want to snag the permalink. If you're not observant as most participants aren't, it can be very difficult later to get interested lurkers to powerful discussions that have been pushed down.
I don't want to rain on your Facebook parade, Mr. McKee, but I truly believe that your talents are better spent writing articles for your T&S blog (than Facebook), because your blog has a greater probability of permanence and legacy. A wise spiritual leader from two centuries ago gave the advice to "never enter an unhealthy environment unless in an effort to purify it." These may have been your worthy motives for playing in Facebook.
But if you aren't taking steps to preserve your interactions yourself -- that might include re-publishing those interactions to your blog, your book, or a private journal --, then your reasonable Facebook efforts might be in vain in the long run, lacking any public legacy whatsoever [exceptions are the Facebook database and what the NSA vacuums up that can and will be used against at your trial.]
P.S. If you have email notifications turned on in Facebook, I suggest that you mine the permalink from one such email notification and update your posting accordingly. This way, those of us with access to Facebook (and membership in that group) can quickly get to source dirt.
//
x173 Adam Ruff : conversation with Ken Doc
2015-01-27
{mcb: improved the formatting.}
January 27, 2015 at 5:09 am
Well here is my conversation with Ken Doc which I am publishing because he banned me from his forum for no reason whatsoever and I don’t particularly like being gagged.
Conversation started Monday
1/26, 12:33pm
Adam Ruff
So now I am banned from the 911 truth group?
1/26, 12:39pm
Adam Ruff
Hard for me to see what you said or respond don’t you think? Oh well good luck to you Ken I guess a conversation is not possible after all. Too bad because Dany and I were actually starting to make some headway towards resolving this “fiasco”.
1/26, 12:51pm
Ken Dockery
The Pentagon issue has nearly destroyed this movement while wasting soooo much time. Not to mention dealing with all the other disinfo. Ive had enough of it Adam. Sorry.
other disinfo, I mean Judy Wood and Holograms
Monday
1/26, 6:40pm
Adam Ruff
We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments. Censorship doesn’t work Ken it just makes you look weak. I did not break any of your rules yet I am censored so whatever man I don’t need to be part of something like that. P.S. You guys who do not know the pentagon evidence are the ones making the issue divisive by the way not us and it is you guys who make it seem complicated too which its not. Anyway have a good life.
1/26, 8:31pm
Ken Dockery
Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.
For you to say that I haven’t debunked Judy Wood or Holograms, means you know nothing about me.
Anyways, peace out.
1:15am
Adam Ruff
Ken did it ever occur to you that if you are so willing to ban me even though I broke none of your rules that your rules are meaningless? Think about it because it is true. If you are willing to silence me for no cause other than I disagree with you on a few issues then aren’t you a dictator imposing a kind of tyranny? In this case a tyranny where only your ideas and those who agree with you get to be heard. Another consideration is that if you silence all those who disagree with you have you really won the argument? I do not think so but perhaps you consider it some kind of victory I don’t know.
BTW: I never said you have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.
As to the relative size of the two forums I can say with pride that T+S is far better than your forum because it isn’t a tyranny and we can and do talk about anything we want. It is the very definition of freedom of speech while obviously your forum is the definition of well… you get the picture.
Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
1:56am
Adam Ruff
As to the pentagon issue “nearly destroying the truth movement” the answer is no Ken. What the pentagon issue has done is expose the fake truthers and separate them from the real truthers. Fake truthers refuse to inform themselves about the pentagon choosing instead to follow cults of personality such as Kevin Ryan or David Chandler. You simply trust that those “leader hero’s” have done the research and come to the right conclusion because you are too lazy to do the research yourself. Well Chandler and Ryan both are dead wrong about the pentagon and have been thoroughly debunked as far as the pentagon is concerned. So you are following the pide piper literally. This is why neither of them will debate the issue in public because they will lose that debate BIG! Real truthers look at the evidence (as much as they can get their hands on) and draw their own conclusions. This is why I can win a debate about the pentagon with anyone who thinks it is too complicated or too divisive. It isn’t complicated at all the problem is you, for whatever reason, simply do not want to face the truth that the plane observed flew North of the Citgo gas station thereby proving the light poles and other damage was staged. It also proves the plane flew over the pentagon and away. It is quite simple really you just don’t want to face the truth for your own reasons. To you it is “divisive” because you do not understand the evidence very well and perhaps you do not want your hero’s (Chandler and Ryan) to be proved wrong (too late because they have been). You are stuck in cognitive dissonance and hero worship. I am not stuck and I can therefore explain rationally and calmly what the evidence is, what it proves, why it is simple, and how devastating it really is to the official narrative of 9/11. I can say with confidence that the pentagon evidence is just as important, perhaps even more so, as the controlled demolitions evidence. Simply put, who else but insiders could plant evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon? That is why it is important Ken, very important! That is also why we cannot just drop the issue because some uninformed or misinformed truthers such as yourself don’t understand it and don’t want to do the research. By your logic we should drop the CD evidence as well because some so-called truthers out there do not understand physics. We don’t want to be divisive right? They think other evidence should be focused on instead of CD. Don’t believe me Ken? Look up Jon Gold then and see for yourself. Anyway I have the very strong suspicion that I am wasting my time talking to you. I hope to be proved wrong.
x180 Maxwell Bridges : banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum
Mr. Adam Ruff re-posted what he wrote on a Facebook thread or message about his banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum:
We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments.
If this is the case, I await post-haste the reasoned analysis about why a certain [name known to participants] hobby-horse pony is a discredited theory and bogus. To avoid derailing this thread, Mr. Ruff should publish it or re-publish it -- if we are to believe his prior stellar efforts in this regard exist -- on his blog or Facebook page, and then friend us and publish here on T&S advertising links.
Readers should note that discussion on that [name known to participants] hobby-horse was ~not~ stopped because the opponents offered reasoned analysis as to why it was bogus. No, it was stopped due to the Mike Collins-ish deja vu bad behavior of various participants here.
Mr. Ruff's boasting of his personal exploits continued:
I never said you [Ken Dockery] have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.
I have no intention of cranking a new Dr. Wood discussion. But as the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I'm not saying that I'm convinced of space beams on these other towers. What I am saying is that a trick in steering the 9/11TM is to show where X doesn't apply to A, and then to falsely imply or extrapolate without proof that X also doesn't apply to B or C either. The exposed agenda is that any discussion of X in any valid context isn't permissible.]
Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to "some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."
To my recollection -- unless Mr. Ruff is some other participant's sockpuppet here on T&S -- Mr. Ruff has not participated in any Dr. Wood discussion to a convincing degree where he hasn't turned tail and run, bragging how he "doesn't read my [SEO] comments, skipping right over them". Makes him very deserving of the ridicule that I impose upon him.
Also to my recollection, Mr. Ruff has never personally debunked holograms.
I did, though (starting around 2012-02-24). I followed Dr. Fetzer's rabbit hole and found it lacking in supportive scientific documentation to prove holograms could real-world achieve what was observed. [And the 9/11 hologram argument involved grossly misrepresenting and misinterpreting two sets of radar data.]
I do not expect Mr. Ruff to read -- much less step up to dutifully answer -- my rhetorical challenges for him to cough up his work in debunking all nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's work [and that support my hobby-horse].
I suppose it is one thing for Mr. Ruff to make boastful and dubious claims in other forums, but quite another for him to drag them back here and have us, who lived it, believe them true as if we were just like his rare-earth customers.
The whole point of the above exercise in pushing Mr. Ruff's buttons was to chide Mr. Ruff into being not quite such a hypocrite and to champion truth at all times. Otherwise, his less than truthful endeavors will bite him back.
//
x182 ruffadam : choose another venue
2015-01-27
January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm
SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.
x183 Craig McKee : no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion
2015-01-27
January 27, 2015 at 11:46 pm
No worries, I have no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.
x184 hybridrogue1 : all the dings
2015-01-27
hybridrogue1
2015-01-27
hybridrogue1
2015-01-27
“For all the dings that I’ve given the near cult-heroes of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the focus was their work and deficiencies therein. Their reputations could be saved with a simple:
“In light of new analysis that exposes data points that were near hidden in plain sight in many official documents, purposely never connected, and purposely skewed or omitted to give false impressions to downstream efforts (e.g., me and my work), I change my opinion and see where such-and-such is just as plausible — if not more so — than that in which I have been promoting with a vested interest these last N years. I apologize for the oversight and for any misinformation that I might have spread. I amend my views accordingly…”
Personal honesty and integrity.” // Maxwell Bridges on:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/
. . . . . . . . . . .
“For all the dings that I’ve given the near cult-heroes of the 9/11 Truth Movement…”?!?!?!
One might inquire, WHAT DINGS? This is a boast without foundation. Bridges has given no “dings” to anyone’s reputation but his own. If he really had this, “Personal honesty and integrity” he claims for himself, he would be the one to apologize for the oversight and for any misinformation that he might have spread. I amend his views accordingly.
. . . . . . .
While I am delighted that T&S has stirred back to life somewhat with this new post from Craig, the downside that comes with it is having to put up with the bullshit from this twat Bridges again.
“Personal honesty and integrity” what fucking bullshit!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-27
SEÑOR EL ONCE ? 2012-11-22
Old news is not news.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-27
Hey Maxitwat, if you have a message for me, man-up and come out with it on the current T&S page. This slinking about making blank commentary here on HR1blog is dickspittle.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-28
So this agitprop son-of-a-bitch Maxitwat is at it again, full guns on T&S targeting Mr Ruff with his usual defamation tactics. And a verbose load of steaming bullshit it is.
I won’t have anything to say to this anonymous cocksucker unless he targets me personally. But if he does, it won’t be to discuss his nookiedoodoo shit, that is said and done. But I will point out that this disingenuous shit he spews about not wanting to hijack the thread again is clearly a lie. He’s a fucking pussyboy.
Go fuck your mama Max.
\\][//
x185 hybridrogue1 : COMMENT REMOVED: treated to some huge amount of verbose bullshit
2015-01-28
January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm
COMMENT REMOVED
hybridrogue1
January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm
{mcb: Retrieved from email, here's the content of the COMMENT REMOVED.}
Let’s see Craig,
You have “no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.”
And yet we are treated to some huge amount of verbose bullshit on the matter by Señor El Once, who is again simply attacking Mr Ruff, using the Wood issue and the handle to his club.
And on this same thread you asked for no more mention of Fetzer, and yet we have this massive tome of turgid trash from Dwil at: dwil -January 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm.
I am not going to bother answering either of these assholes here. But again I am confused if your “requests” not to have certain issues continue here, are simply that, “requests” or are they the actual rules of the game here?
\\][//
x186 hybridrogue1 : the agitprop bullshit laid on me
2015-01-28
January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Well now that the stew has already boiled over I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.
As you will note, again this anonymous nutjob has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion. We, that is Mr Ruff and I, are his targets. I don’t think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit. What he gets off on is defaming those who have shown him for what he is, an agent of disruption.
As is such I hope Mr McKee will stand to his “requests” that this crap come to an end.
\\][//
x187 Craig McKee : not enforcing my own rules
2015-01-28
January 28, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Let’s see, HR. To make something clear once again. I work during the daytime and can’t deal with comment moderation until I get home. As it is I am blowing my lunch break to deal with this. I really don’t appreciate the implication that I am not enforcing my own rules, particularly when comments, as you know, go up in real time and unmoderated (unless the person posting has never posted here). Are you recommending that I return to having all comments sit until I can approve them? Please let me handle my job, okay?
Dwil’s comment is indeed off topic (at least part of it). I will look at it when I have time. Dwil may choose to send another version without the Fetzer stuff. Perhaps I should impose a permanent word limit as I did on a previous thread.
x188 hybridrogue1 : load of horseshit from pussyboy
2015-01-28
hybridrogue1
2015-01-28
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30283
Señor El Once – January 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm: Another even longer load of horseshit from pussyboy.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-29
Déjà vu all over again!
How many times have we sat stunned and dazed like this after the spook storm passes?
“where have all the flowers gone…?” and et cetera …
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-29
Señor El Once – January 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS ABOUT A CHALLENGE REGARDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD.
______________________________________________________________________________
Déjà vu all over again!
How many times have we sat stunned and dazed like this after the spook storm passes?
“where have all the flowers gone…?” and et cetera …
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-29
“Personal honesty and integrity.”~Maxwell Bridges
This is the same kind of scurrilous bullshit you get from the CIA, and all the other fucking psychos in this pathological society. How anyone can be fooled by this clad disguise is beyond me.
\\][//
x189 Maxwell Bridges : COMMENT REMOVED: Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges
2015-01-28
2015-01-28
{mcb: The original comment was modified by the T&S moderator as follows.}
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS ABOUT A CHALLENGE REGARDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD.
{mcb: Original Comment follows.}
I am surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges, when he wrote:
SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked.
Stay tuned to this message for information on the off-T&S venue chosen.
Because I am a fair and generous fellow in search of understanding, I offer Mr. Ruff choices [A] and [B] as amendments to the original challenges and his anxiously-awaited participation. These modifications come about entirely due to my present state of understanding, whereby neither of us needs to waste time on debunking what we are already more or less agree on.
Specifically, I've debunked holograms myself, as stated and linked in one of my last comments. I don't need more convincing of the same. I would only be interested in such links if it takes me to Mr. Ruff's authored words that make a unique and substantiated argument why holograms were not involved. Otherwise, he shouldn't waste his time. Choice [A] is a modification of Mr. Ruff's proposal, minus hologram planes.
++++ Choice A ++++
Choice [A]: Direct me to where Dr. Wood's work has been debunked. Great if it is page-by-page, but section-by-section (applicable also to sections on web-pages) is a more likely granularity.
He'll get bonus points if some on the list of links to "Dr. Wood debunking" analysis are Mr. Ruff's authored words that make unique and substantiated arguments.
Should Mr. Ruff set up the frame of space beams, he should remember that I'm mostly interested in analysis that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I've already ruled out space beams for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.] If Mr. Ruff's debunking of Dr. Wood starts and stops at space beams and/or doesn't go to those odd-ball towers, however, he fails.
The only reason I'm entertaining Choice [A] is that no one has comprehensively analyzed Dr. Wood's work [nor rescued those pesky nuggets of truth]... other than my piddly and humble efforts, I guess. If Mr. Ruff actually found such and can provide a comprehensive set of the links, excellent news for the 9/11 Truth Movement! Mr. Ruff does us a great service! Woo-hoo!
Because I only champion the nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work and re-purpose them in my 4th generation arguments, this suggests a way for Mr. Ruff's efforts to be focused in a reasonable and logical manner. He knows where I'm headed. Otherwise, if he doesn't heed this directional detail, he could find himself going off on a complete derailment (or straw-man) over areas of Dr. Wood's work that have no or little bearing to the deviant nuclear considerations, which is my overt agenda.
Further, debunk the nuggets, or acknowledge them as nuggets of truth. Be aware that each acknowledged nugget of truth could necessitate re-evaluation of prior beliefs, if Mr. Ruff is exhibiting true objectivity and integrity.
If Mr. Ruff comes up with zero nuggets, he fails, because nuggets of truth are the foundation of all disinformation. A result of zero nuggets will shoot Mr. Ruff's objectivity all to hell in the eyes of the latter-day lurker readers / judges. Such a lashing is avoidable, but requires learning from the mistakes of Mr. Ruff's rogue companions.
++++ OR ++++
++++ Choice B ++++
Choice [B]: Mr. Ruff should slap a saddle on my old hobby-horse, Neu Nookiedoo, and take 'er for a spin or two around the coral before headin' up to the high country. The saddle bags can store the nuggets of truth collected from all sorts of disinformation sources along the way.
Mr. Ruff, you and the readers should know that 4th generation nuclear devices is my present state of understanding about some of the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction, my hobby-horse, my holy grail, the mindset that needs to be corrected if I'm to sheepishly return to the fold of mainstream 9/11 Truth.
I choose [B] and will probably bring my discussion around to [B] even if you attempt the [A] Dr. Wood distraction. [B] is what Dr. Wood left out of her book, what Dr. Jones left out of his analysis, what fits the evidence, what fits the song & dance and dog & pony show up and down the media circus, and what merits the much bigger disinfo campaigns in forums at suppression and at sidelining via ridicule as opposed to reasoned argument. Hell, we already have one proven-objectivity-challenged participant trying to put the skids on such discussions happening even off-list [which is my objective], by calling foul to the moderator:
[T]his anonymous nutjob [SEO] has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion... I don't think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit... I hope Mr McKee will stand to [SEO's] "requests" that this crap come to an end.
Neu Nookiedoo is a hobby-horse. Therefore, the "nookiedoodoo bullshit" is ridicule coming from another bullshitting source, like the very one who gets credit for helping coin the hobby-horse's namesake.
I care about Neu Nookiedoo very much, and contest any such disingenuous comments that suggest I don't. Of course, if Mr. Ruff et al is successful in those off-list endeavors at convincingly debunking the premise with substantiation, I won't be flogging that dead horse no mo'. I'll change my belief, apologize to the public, and move on.
Choice [B] says to not waste such unstructured time on Dr. Wood's work, because to do so would be to create an unnecessary, time-sucking, distraction that could run your objectivity through the wringer if integrity is lacking. Plus, if you don't find the requisite, comprehensive debunking section-by-section (that also has the moxie to acknowledge nuggets of truth) -- like a hybrid failed to achieve before you --, then this exercise will deflate significantly your boastful claims and reflect poorly on your character.
Mr. Ruff wrote:
choose another venue
With one caveat, I choose my blog (some links below). I promise to be a fair and impartial moderator, publishing your remarks as long as they remain reasonable. In the next few days or week, I'll create an entry with re-purposing of comments here to serve as an introduction and starting point. The discussion can go then forth in the comments there under.
The caveat from above about my choice in venues? Mr. McKee is welcome to host an article on T&S where the discussion can happen. [It would be a most interesting experiment to see who shows up and what arguments they make.]
Because I am fair, I want my debate opponents to be as knowledgeable as possible in what my beliefs are and what evidence substantiates them, so they will know "what" to attack [and not "who"]. In that spirit, I call Mr. Ruff's attention to these.
A 2014-04-13 comment with the title "sick of SEO claiming we have not done so" is a direct response to some burrs that Mr. Ruff tried to insert under Nookiedoo's saddle. It was not published on T&S. Curious readers and serious debate opponents should follow some of the rabbit hole links contained therein.
I haven't had a chance to write the revision and extension of an article intended for VT but never published there, "Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)", but it is on my list of things to do. However, I linked the 2014-01 article because it lays down a foundation of truth nuggets mined from lots of (disinfo) sources that remain valid as my beliefs shifted into 4th generation nuclear mechanisms.
Thus, if Mr. Ruff finds issue with something on my blog relating to these themes, he can make a comment directly there.
++++ More Fair Advice ++++
Write your response off-list in an editor. Save it locally, so that you'll have it to re-purpose other places. [You don't want my blog to be the sole repository of your excellent words. CYA.] Record a list of links on where you posted it, otherwise you'll defeat your stated purposes of dispatching future discussions of this sort with a mere go-to URL.
Take your time. Complete your thoughts and make a big case. Be logical and thoroughly. Starting with a copy of my works could be the structure and framework needed to debunk it, point-by-point.
Because the size of each comment on my blog is restricted by Blogger, be prepared to divide up your big response off-list with "Part x/N" reader affordances so that that readers will know to look for all parts of a multi-part response.
Minor HTML mark-up goes a long way to making a polished presentation that is easier to read.
++++ Summary ++++
Mr. Ruff can start to put together his all-star comments and links to the same. If Mr. Ruff takes a week or more to craft a more perfect debunking production, that would really help me out time-wise. I could be nudged to completing that aforementioned revision and extension of my previous belief into 4th generation nukes as a new blog entry, and that could be where our rational discussion continues.
P.S. To Mr. Rogue. You claim that I attack Mr. Ruff!
No, I am holding Mr. Ruff accountable for his boastful statements that I don't think were honest particularly with respect to the extent of his personal efforts. I want him to have some integrity and not be such a hypocrite. I'll hold his feet to the fire, because, -- GOD DAMN IT -- the effort will strengthen the truthful arguments, be they his or mine or both. [If they're his, I've got the integrity to admit and acknowledge such.]
In case you didn't notice, Mr. Ruff promises to finally set the record straight on [A] but hopefully [B], something you were spectacularly incapable of in the most agitprop sort of ways. For the 9/11 Truth Movement's sake, let's hope that Mr. Ruff isn't stepping into some of his own blow-hard bullshit.
Off-list, Mr. Rogue, on my home court. You can come play, too. I'll be fairer to your words than you are to mine.
By the way, Mr. Rogue, your "January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm" comment -- quick on the heels of your "January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm" REMOVED COMMENT -- was purposely made where it doesn't belong. And... *boo-hoo*... It wasn't very kind to me! *sob*
It all is like Albert Einstein's theory of relatively. From your perspective:
I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.
Relative to my perspective and underscored by your ridiculing efforts in this very thread (and the larger picture of how your antics have long resembled those of Mr. Mike Collins), the source of the agitprop bullshit was the other way around.
Proof of this was your inability to avoid the spot-on, discrediting dings to your objectivity and integrity ... by having some. On stupid shit, no less. Don't believe me? Check out the lack of cyber-qualifiers on the expression "our resident stalker, Señor". Without such, you make a serious charge with far-reaching criminal implications that has no bearing in reality or truth. Careless in the small things; careless in the big as well.
++++ TO BE CONTINUED OFF-LIST ++++
... unless otherwise sanctioned by Mr. McKee.
//
2015-01-29
2015-01-29
To everyone: I do not want to see any more of the attacks that have popped up on this thread. No more name calling and no more off topic “side” discussions. If I think someone is deliberately derailing the thread, as testing me to see what they can get away with, I will get very annoyed. The article offers many opportunities for on-topic comment. Adam Syed, for example, has made numerous comments that are right on topic – so let’s all follow that example, shall we?
x191 Maxwell Bridges : COMMENT REMOVED: editing left out possible URLs for venue
2015-01-30
2015-01-30
{mcb: Comment Removed.}
Dear Mr. McKee,
Your lunch hour was well spent moderating the comments to this thread, which included one of mine. Kudos, and no hard feelings.
However, Mr. Adam Ruff was clearly begging for a venue where he could go to town:
[C]hoose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. ... So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all.
Your editing left out possible URLs for that, so that my earnest desires -- and those of Mr. Adam Ruff -- to not derail T&S could be fulfilled. As luck would have it, I still had a thread creatd from 2014-08-06 intended for die-hard Dr. Wood supporter, Mr. Jeff.
- Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices
Alas, after Mr. Jeff's few comments on T&S to stir the pot, he was a no-show on my thread.
The thread remains an excellent place for Mr. Adam Ruff to "school me correctly." I encourage him to use it.
Let's hope that Mr. Adam Ruff does better than Mr. Jeff and at least shows up to carry out that which he has been boasting. I'll give him a reasonable amount of time (until March 2015) to compose his glorious work.
//
x192 Craig McKee : out of order
2015-01-30
January 30, 2015 at 4:43 pm
Señor, This latest comment is just as out of order as the much longer one that preceded it. If you want to connect with ruffadam in another arena I could put the two of you in touch with each other privately – if both wish this. But I don’t want any more discussion here about Judy Wood or the prospects of discussing her.
x193 Maxwell Bridges : trying to get the discussion elsewhere
2015-01-30
{mcb: email to Mr. McKee.}
Dear Mr. McKee,
I have never in the past been offended by actions you've taken in moderating the comments, even when mine were the victims.
But I must protest the deletion of the last one. I'm trying to get the discussion elsewhere, as requested by ~ALL~ parties. I can't do that if you remove the links and the comment itself.
Mr. Ruff specifically requested it. Go back and read his words.
If you're not even going to let me specify a venue -- and if sure as shit, you're not going to create a venue for this to play out on your home court --, then WTF, Mr. McKee? You should go and heavy-hand edit his January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm commment in like fashion.
Mr. Ruff is a blow hard caught in the middle of a lie, namely of having (or of being willing to produce) a set of links that decisively debunks something. It isn't the first time he's bragged about doing it or going to do it. I'm holding his feet to the fire.
I suggest you take a step back and consider the significance of those who failed in spectacular fashion their objectivity and integrity tests, yet battled on from their ignorance anyway.
What is ironically funny about this affair is the reflection of the FB tactics that you experienced elsewhere, but on your home court. With you on the other side of the censor chair.
The Pentagon isn't the only contentious issue that inspires bad behavior of participants (Pentagon, SimVictims, exotic weapons). I might be a stubborn duped useful idiot, but that doesn't make my analysis wrong. And every turn I take to get someone to consider it and seriously debunk it (from Gage to Chandler to Cole to Mr. Rogue), I get squat.
Worse that squat. I get Rogue/Ruff tag-teaming that is the first to expose itself as being hypocritical of the very rules they'd apply to the forum.
By all means, have Mr. Ruff contact me (maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us) and point him in the direction of this blog entry as you're contacting him:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
//
x194 hybridrogue1 : arrogance is overwhelming and fanatical
2015-01-30
hybridrogue1
2015-01-30
YET AGAIN!!!!
Bridges arrogance is overwhelming and fanatical. He is clearly insane. Just under the comment that Craig eliminated just the day before, he again makes this challenge to Adam Ruff, EXACTLY the reason Craig gave for removing his comment in the first place! Astonishing and absurd.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/can-largest-911-facebook-forum-rise-above-ridicule-insults-and-contrived-controversies/#comment-30306
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-30
So this cunt Bridges wants to challenge both Mr Ruff and I to a debate. The he/she/it thing even suggests it’s own blog site for such. But there is nothing to debate. That debate is long over, it is done. As I pointed out before:
Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11, is like debating whether Martians actually attacked during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War Of The Worlds.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-01-30
“Judy Wood is offering the hypothesis that the twin towers were taken down by directed energy weapons, and the problem is that nobody knows what she is talking about, including herself.”~Niels Harrit
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-02-01
Hey Max, have you gone into hiding? You rolled up in a fetal position babbling to yourself?
I thought you were hot to “debate” Mr Ruff! Why haven’t you answered his emails?
Did pussyboy Max make peepee in his diaper again and is crying to his mommy?
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
\\][//
x195 Adam Ruff : give my e-mail address to SEO
2015-01-31
January 31, 2015 at 10:17 am
Fine with me Craig you have my permission to give my e-mail address to SEO or to suggest a venue for this “discussion”.
x196 Maxwell Bridges : deadline until March unless requested to extend
{mcb: Although posted to Mr. Rogue's blog, it is not published.}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
I have not received any emails from Mr. Ruff, even after checking spam. I'm not sure if Mr. McKee communicated to him my email address. At one point, the two of you were in communication, because you were going to work on the ultimate nuclear/Wood debunking. Therefore, you could always route to him a valid email address from me.
Because I have not received any of his emails, I am not sure he sent any. How do you know he sent any? Did they bounce?
Be that as it may, going with the information that I know for sure -- no emails, no comments on my blog --, then your negative assessment does not apply to me, but to Mr. Ruff: "a pussyboy making peepee in his diaper again and is crying to his mommy."
I'm not in any hurry. I gave him until March, a deadline I'd be happy to extend if requested.
Still, it'd be nice to know if he got the messages I left for him. Although removed from T&S, they form the introduction on the venue that I'm making available.
It'd be nice if he'd validate the communication path through my blog just by leaving a comment.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
Meanwhile, I've got way too many real-life things to attend to. When I think 9/11, it isn't the prospects of discussing with Mr. Ruff or you, both of whom I know to be closed-minded to the point of being almost agency-agenda-toting. Mr. McKee's latest with Dr. Harrit is worthy of an analysis, which floats around in my mind when I do think 9/11 but hasn't been entered into the computer as a draft yet. Plus, I've got a couple of other related projects started but back-burnered that are more deserving of my literary talents.
//
x198 Maxwell Bridges : a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in
2015-02-06
Dear Mr. Ruff,
You know me as Señor El Once, or SEO, on Truth & Shadows. You gave Mr. McKee permission to pass your contact information to me.
I make no excuses for my delay in contacting you directly, on top of Mr. McKee's delay in performing his match-making services. I'm busier than ever with other priorities, thereby demonstrating the priority I give to cranking the "rhetorical challenge."
It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in. Pickle? Yes, many-fold so.
For starters, you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme "boastful lying hypocrite" etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse.
Secondly and maybe more importantly, Dr. Wood's (Dr. Jones) efforts didn't go the distance required and to all the proper corners. The abrupt stops that several of their research venues make is a clue, because rational logic thought-momentum in those directions naturally would have the inquisitive and curious mind step precisely into Neu Nookiedoo, 3rd and 4th generation.
Thirdly, Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. "Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..." It can be a risk to your character if mishandled.
Therefore, I hope that you will consider my proposed modifications to the parameters of our discussion, as given at this link:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
The above blog entry re-creates the T&S discussion as an introduction. It includes comments that you might have missed, owing to Mr. McKee's moderation efforts. You should give those removed comments a read. The x18 comment "Señor El Once : COMMENT REMOVED: surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges" offers to scope limit your efforts and not have you do busy work.
Be that as it may, the comments that we make below the introduction would then be our discussion realm.
I would rather have you choose option [B] and attempt to debunk 4th generation nukes. Were we to tango through Dr. Wood's tulips, this is the topic that stops her short. Also stops Dr. Jones short.
A few addendum to that x18 comment.
- I've got many things in my life in flux at the moment. I'm not eager to get involved in a time-sucking discussion, particularly if I start detecting disingenuous arguments, lack of acknowledgment of truth nuggets, and overall lack of objectivity.
- I'll applaud and cheer every substantiated nugget of disinformation that you or your research brings up. But that research and analysis is expected to go the distance A-to-Z.
- I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with "liar, cheat, and weasel," because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. But as was substantiated, he earned those valid assessments of his character that made him an untrustworthy participant.
- I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. Learn from Mr. Rogue's mistakes by doing the opposite of what he done. Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
- The test of your objectivity -- and that of your sources -- is measured in nuggets of truth acknowledged and re-purposed from disinformation vehicles.
I assigned a deadline of March 1 for your results. If you need more time, make notification of such. Endeavor to be above board and honest regardless of what you attempt.
This being said, I repeat: "It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in."
I'm open to suggestions.
If your heart isn't into it? Even though I'm burned out on 9/11, don't under-estimate the religious fanatic in me. Fanatical about Truth. If you're not into it, back out now.
All the best, Mr. Ruff.
//
x199 Adam Ruff : who has who beaten
2015-02-06
{Email from Mr. Adam Ruff.}
Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?
Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory?
First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers. So I would like you to define for us all:
1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities? Was it a particle beam? A laser? A rail gun? An x-ray beam? A sonic weapon? A super mondo cool (Hutcheson) beam made up of future tech stuff us mortals cannot understand? What type of weapon was it?
2. Was it space based or ground based when it was supposedly used on the towers?
3. What are the power requirements for this weapon and from where did the power come?
4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?
Once you can provide some answers to these basic questions I can provide the promised debunks of her theory (whatever it actually is).
Sincerely,
Adam Ruff
PS. I have BCC'ed a few people who will be kept informed of this "debate" but who do not want to engage in it.
x200 Maxwell Bridges : Post to the venue
2015-02-06
{Email to Mr. Adam Ruff sent from smartphone.}
Please post that as a comment to the blog whose URL was given.
Also, you need to specify the amendment to the challenge that you're taking on. So we will know what is in and out of bounds.
Dr. Wood is easy to frame. I suggest we go right to nookiedoo, and when appropriate, I'll insert evidence collected (or put on display) by Dr. Wood. I'm not going to waste my time defending all her rabbit side tunnels.
//
x201 Maxwell Bridges : according to Wood?
2015-02-08
{Response to Mr. Adam Ruff's email.}
Dear Mr. Ruff,
I do declare, but you should pay heed to the biblical edict to be faithful in the small things first, before big things are entrusted to you. What are latter-day lurkers going to think of you in our discussion when (1) after you asked for a public venue, you are a no-show in making comments there?
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html
(2) You response shows little indication that you've read my words. Specifically, my x18 entry above asks for some reasonable scope-limits to your efforts via options on which I've gotten no outright selection or objection: [A] Dr. Wood + Holograms; [B] Dr. Wood alone; [C] Neu Nookiedoo.
You wrote:
Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?
I know I do, and this is evident by the way you frame the strawman.
Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory? First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers.
Indeed. This was a major criticism of Dr. Wood's work that I have already written about many times. Her book does not connect together in any cohesive fashion any of the varied concepts brought up. Neither her book nor website definitively tells us the nature of the device.
You go on to write:
So I would like you to define for us all:
1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities?
I need not go any farther than this in torching your Dr. Wood strawman, well before you get a chance to knock it down and parade around as faux-hero. The phrase "according to Dr. Wood" flags your disingenuous intent right from the get-go, because owing to your first identified problem of Dr. Wood having no defined theory, it becomes a fool's errand to defend Dr. Wood in her non-statements about specific types of weapons used.
Removing the phrase "according to Dr. Wood" and slapping a saddle on Neu Nookiedoo, I can proceed in answering your inquiries about the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. In the process, Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Harrit among others will get skewered, because they demonstrate such a lack of an engineer's curiousity in researching and exploring nuclear solutions to the observed WTC events.
- Dr. Wood has a whole web page devoted to the fresh dirt observed being trucked in, spread out, then a few days later scooped up and trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques. Yet she doesn't go there. She doesn't address tritium. Doesn't address in any real-world what could power her devices, and gives nuclear means the bum's rush.
- Dr. Jones in his article that attempts to debunk nukes DOES NOT EVEN MENTION neutron devices or any 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices. This is on top of relying on flawed and scope-limited reports as the final authority on tritium and radiation. Garbage in, garbage out.
- Dr. Harrit even in his recent interview with Mr. McKee talks about the results of the RJ Lee study of the dust from the lobby of Banker's Trust and how it contained a high percentage of iron spheres. He tries on the shoes of nano-thermite and says these could have been the result of a thermitic reaction, but neither he nor Dr. Jones walks in them far enough to estimate the initial quantities in question, which would be massive. Dr. Harrit does not ever put on the shoes of 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices and walk around in them to see if they can account for the evidence.
You parrot some of the same questions as Dr. Harrit in his McKee interview: "Was it a particle beam? A laser? An x-ray beam?" Good questions. Why didn't Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, or Dr. Wood attempt to answer them?
You asked:
Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality?
Why, yes there is. From a Google search, eventually these items came up:
- http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
The second link is to "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects." Although written in 2005, the author Andre Gsponer co-authored in 1999 a book called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons." Do the math with regards to 9/11/2001.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/700503.Fourth_Generation_Nuclear_Weapon
Public and university libraries do not have their databases in Google. A person on site at just about any university's engineering, math, and physics library will be able to dig up mountains of more references -- books, technical journals, etc. -- that specify at the time of writing where various nuclear technologies were at and where research was heading. [These would be the public records, and not anything hidden behind national security labels.]
Yet seemingly none of the professors listed above could be bothered to perform such research in their universities' libraries. Even a failed venture to find plausibility of neu nookiedoo in the (public) nuclear research is a result worthy of publication and promotion, kind of like a hypothesis that testing disproved. However, this wasn't done, because the venture wouldn't have been a failure; it would have netted Andre Gsponer's work and that of many others.
You might find this re-purposed Facebook discussion of interest,
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
++++ quote from 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.
++++ end quote
According to me (and not Dr. Wood), each tower had 6 or so devices of the 3rd and 4th generation nature. Each was fusion based, leaving little lingering radiation. Each probably had elements related to neutron devices, because aiming various amounts neutrons out of the way would help scale down side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP) and prevent the pre-mature killing of neighboring tandem devices.
Further, these devices would direct energy at specific wavelengths, that further takes away energy from side-effects and neutron output. What wavelengths? Weapons that used X-ray wavelengths are known to exist and were speculated in the Reagan presidency. Here's where the fun comes in for diligent researchers. They can pick representative sample wavelengths across the spectrum of energy to (mentally) test what would happen to materials. Of interest is when wavelengths are on the order of, say, molecular distances or when multiple wavelengths are output whose interference pattern could be destructive (which then puts it into the realm of Hutchison.)
Even wavelengths in the microwave realm could produce with sufficient amplitude interesting outcomes. For instance, concrete, drywall, and porcellan have residual amounts of water buried in their structure. Sufficiently large microwaves could turn such water instantly into steam with a very strong outward force to the point of blowing apart the structure that contained it. Concrete has aggregates as well that act like a fork in a microwave oven.
Dr. Harrit has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Although not a physicists, he should have sufficient knowledge of atomic structures to speculate knowledgeably about what sudden influxes of energy at various wavelengths would do. Molecular disassociation and dustification might be applicable in the description.
I find it very disingenuous of Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones (and many leaders of the 9/11TM with science or engineering backgrounds) to not attempt the research and to not attempt strapping on nuclear shoes and go for a stroll.
You wrote:
4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?
I ask the same questions about nano-thermite devices. Sure, thermite has a long history. (So do nuclear devices, although most of it is classified.) But ramping up thermite to achieve the brissance required for pulverization, where's the real-world example of that? And when you cough up such a device, ask yourself if it could then go the distance with regards to the duration of hot-spots attributed to it? And if so, how much of that ramped up super thermite would be required?
Other than the above being a glaring flaw in the limited hang-out known as "nano-thermite", your inability to produce real-world, operational NT devices does not prevent you from speculating into its 9/11 involvement. I expect the same leeway for 4th generation nukes. Your #4 questions are not gating.
//
x202 AdamRuff : moved the goal posts
Well Maxwell I have not responded yet for two reasons.
1. I have very little time lately.
2. You moved the goal posts. Originally I said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and you are clearly shifting the topic to mini nukes.
I accept your admission that Wood has no cohesive theory. So as far as I am concerned Judy Wood has been debunked. Since Wood is the only topic I have addressed so far all we can say at this point is that you have failed to defend her from my very basic questions so I do not even need to proceed with a complete debunk of her non theory. Now as to the mini nuke argument you are now trying to shift the discussion to I will have to get back to you on that when I have time and I do contend that the mini nuke argument is bunk. I will address it later though as I get time to do it properly.
I assume that because you are shifting the discussion away from hologram planes that you are not going to be defending that bogus crappola either, is that right?
x203 Maxwell Bridges : desire to shift debate dates back years
Dear Mr. Ruff,
It is not that I'm "trying to shift the discussion." Without a shift in the discussion, all you'd be doing is flailing at a straw-man, and doing a poor job of it, too. Without a shift in the discussion, truth cannot be found and there is no discussion.
I take minor offense with your insinuation that my 2015-02-08 comment is where the shifting happened, as if in response to your 2015-02-06 email and a complete weasel move. No! My desire for you to reconsider the scope of the debate dates back to 2015-01-28 [if not years prior]. You obviously are not subscribed to articles on T&S or you are not reading my comments, because otherwise you would have a record of my comment before Mr. McKee removed it and know my desires.
Certainly the tedium of reading my blog leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what my hobby-horse is.
Only a technicality allows any hollow victory claim today in debunking Dr. Wood: she doesn't give explicit theories, has problems powering what does leak out, and stops dead short of analyzing nuclear evidence as such. Had you been reading what I've been consistently writing, you'd know this.
However, once you properly address the neutron nuclear DEW argument and 4th generation devices (and ~not~ "mini nuke", as you wrote), you will discover not only their validity, but vindication for Dr. Wood's efforts in bringing more awareness to DEW. You'll see where she was closer to being right with DEW than anyone else leading the 9/11 Truth Movement ever was with nano-thermite.
Based on the above, you could risk damage to perceptions about your integrity and objectivity. The quick way that you'd like to dispatch Dr. Wood's work -- without page-by-page analysis and rescue of nuggets of truth -- on a technicality, no less, that'll do the negative number on your reputation. It was for your own good (and my sanity) that I graciously presented other discussion options for you to consider to "shift the debate" from Dr. Wood. It would be a complete bummer and massive deja vu if your ass was fragged in the same manner as Mr. Rogue's was: with a spectacularly failing of a simple objectivity test that involved taking down Dr. Wood's premises legitimately, and not on technicalities.
Be that as it may, using the 4th generation goal posts: Don't be tempted to try similiar tricks with neutron nuclear DEW, ala previous simplistic statements from you "no radiation = no nukes". You can't prove the "no radiation" premise, because no measurements of samples were taken in the narrow 24-48 hours window of time when radiation from fusion-based (and neutron-based) devices would have been present and measureable. Prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements for radiation even after that narrow window don't exist, or if they do, they weren't published. These are major failings to your "no radiation" premise that are only compounded as being wrong when tritium is brought up.
I posted the links regarding my debunking of hologram planes. I have no desire to go there.
Take your time in responding, and be sure to review the reference material before responding. In particular:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
x204 AdamRuff : I will get back to you about the mini nuke issue when I have time to do so
I quote from my very first remark which spurred on this so called debate which you ARE attempting to shift to mini nukes or low yield nukes or 3rd or 4th generation nukes or low radiation nukes or fusion instead of fission nukes or whatever you want to call them. My quote was:
"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy."
So it is clear that I had intended to debate Wood and hologram plane theories. You have moved the goal posts as I said.
Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so.
In the mean time please provide links to the source material for your 3rd and 4th generation nukes so that I can evaluate those materials. If it is all theoretical at this point and you have no verifiable proof that these weapons actually exist then please indicate that. Thank you.
x205 Maxwell Bridges : no pleasure to point out you being disingenuous
2015-02-10
Part 1/3
Dear Mr. Ruff,
It gives me no pleasure to point out you being disingenuous, in the simple things no less. But I do so as a gentle warning of what you can expect if you are found being dishonest going forth.
Your very first remark in this latest Wood genre was not 2014-01-27 at 11:36 pm (or x13 comment above):
"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy."
No. First of all, there is no "again" about it, because if you had done it before elsewhere, you instinctively would have preserved the link and had it readily available to plunk down. Secondly, what I consider your first remark to the genre was a blow-hard re-purposing of comments from Facebook on 2014-01-27 at 5:09 am (or the x8 comment above).
"We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus."
My response to your blovocating was January 27, 2015 at 1:46 pm (or the x12 comment above). It leads off with requesting your "reasoned analysis" into my hobby-horse topic, something you've been avoiding for literally years and even had you try to assemble an A-Team to debunk in late 2012 (that obviously got no-where).
My x12 response continued into the realm of Dr. Wood:
+++ begin quote
[A]s the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. {...}
Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to "some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."
+++ end quote
So, Mr. Ruff.
- If you're not going to avail yourself of the opportunity to shift the discussion into more worthwhile, fruitful, and meaningful topics: namely 4th generation nukes...
- If you're going to hold to the straw-man premise of directing me to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked on T&S (which was the tenor of your comment but I'll be gracious by permitting other sources) , ...
Then chop-chop, Mr. Ruff. You're making your bed, so now lie in it...
End Part 1/3
Part 2/3
You be sure that your Wood debunking links go the full A-Z distance. Keep in mind these items:
(1) Viability of a concept is different from applicability to specifics of an event. If reasoned analysis proves a concept wasn't applicable to ~all~ particulars of an event, participants/sources will fail their objectivity test if concept viability isn't acknowledged, should it not be debunked.
(2) The event needs to be analyzed in your links by WTC building. Unacceptable are the red-herrings "destruction of X didn't happen from the tippy-top, so space-beams don't apply to X... so therefore by no logical reason, applies to neither Y nor Z... so therefore by further faulty reasoning to advance a disinfo agenda, DEW in all shapes and forms didn't happen." *BEEP* *BEEP* ... That dog don't hunt.
(3) Failure in your collection of Wood debunking links to acknowledge any good in Wood efforts is an indication that they didn't go the full A-Z, that they may not be completely objective, and that they could even be individually promoting a disinfo agenda of their own.
(4) If your collection of links and/or your reasoned analysis do not go into 4th generation nuclear devices (or equivalent), your blow-hard ambitions fail. Why? Because most of these fall into the category of directed energy weapons (DEW), the very same category to which Dr. Wood alludes but doesn't give specifics.
Mr. Ruff, if you continue with your present course as indicated by the re-posting of your words from 2014-01-27 at 11:36 pm -- "I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked" -- then my role is to help you avoid being perceived as a hypocrite and other negative nouns by hounding your ass with the above until this wonderful and glorious task of legitimately debunking Dr. Wood for the entire 9/11TM and world to greatly benefit is achieved.
++++ OPTION B
I am a reasonable fellow. Proof thereof, I'm allowing another opportunity for you to save face and lots of busy-work that could possibly damage your reputation if not handled honestly and properly.
Start with #4. If you can debunk 4th generation nuclear devices, then much attributed to Dr. Wood's is by extension debunked and you won't even have to go there (to convince me). Why? Because these are the DEW to which she alluded but gave no specifics; these are the nuclear weapons that Dr. Jones never mentioned is his greatly flawed "no nukes on 9/11" work. This is the holy grail.
If you can't debunk #4, then it must be acknowledged as a new standard. [And from there, if one desires, one can work backwards into Dr. Wood's efforts to flag the disinfo and rescue appropriate nuggets of truth.]
Either way, if you start with #4, Mr. Ruff, you probably won't have to perform the integrity-testing busy-fucking-work in finding further debunking analysis of Dr. Wood's work.
As a further token of my reasonableness, if you start with #4 ~and~ do a reasonable, objective, logical analysis thereof, not only will I ~not~ hold you to #1 through #3 with regards to Dr. Wood, but I will also throw out hologram planes, meaning you won't have to go there at all.
This is the choice I earnestly hope you will accept.
If you stick with your present choice and not avail yourself of my gracious options, then I have already exposed my game plan, and you should prepare accordingly. I am going to hold you to Wood's A-to-Z ~AND~ to holograms A-to-Z, otherwise I do you no services in helping you avoid being labeled a hypocrite in not following through with ~all~ of your boastful claims.
End Part 2/3
Part 3/3
Point of clarification, Mr. Ruff. Many of my comments above show good-faith attempts to negotiate the boundaries for the discussion before either of us invests any significant amount of time of the little time available to either of us. The charge of "moving goal posts" can only be applied after the game has started, should such dastardly play occur.
Reasonable fellow that I am, I consider everything that has transpired so far just warm-up while we come to agreement on the game boundaries, and while you experience some taste of what will happen to you if you are less than honest and objective.
You wrote:
"Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so. In the mean time please provide links to the source material for your 3rd and 4th generation nukes so that I can evaluate those materials."
*Sigh*
Mr. Ruff, I earnestly want you to review the 4th generation nuclear materials, which is why I dutifully perform the busy-work that you request by posting more repeated links to it here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Because I earnestly want you to read it, I'm not going to ride your ass too hard about why you didn't see this at the end of my last comment as well as in many other comments from me, thereby giving your request a disingenuous hue of time-consuming busy-work.
In "The Art of War," we are told to "Know Your Enemies." Extrapolated to debate, you need to know your opponent's argument, which can't be done if you so blatantly demonstrate that you aren't reading my words and following substantiating links.
Let's remove this failing from your future debating tactics, shall we?
You wrote:
"If [4th generation devices are] all theoretical at this point and you have no verifiable proof that these weapons actually exist then please indicate that. Thank you."
Be careful about the standards for measurement that you wish to set forth.
Are you foreshadowing one of your moves in the game? Are you going to play the card that say: "Because no verifiable proof that such weapons actually exist, therefore no need to discuss"? I know that I'm never going to show up at your doorstep with DEW device to convince you by taking out a mini-van, house, building, or bridge. But I will have three decades of research into Star Wars, Strategic Defense Initiative, and newer names that you'll have to prove was just a work-creation program for the overly educated PhD's having no expectation ~ever~ of producing anything operational.
Further, if you hold to those standards for measurement and attempt that tactic against 4th generation nukes, in a "good for the goose/gander" turnabout you will inadvertently destroy your base position, namely that of nano-thermite. You aren't going to show up on my doorstep with a NT device (in any combination with other chemical-based weapons) that can pulverize content while at the same time burning hot for months in the resulting debris pile. Mr. Rogue will tell you that high school chemistry puts at conflicting odds brissance and duration [massively unreasonable quantities excepted]. Design for one -- brissance or duration --, sacrifice the other.
Dr. Steven Jones let slip in September 2012: "Something maintained those hot-spots, (not just NT.)"
Let that be a clue.
//
End Part 3/3
x206 AdamRuff : get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly
Hey can you get a little bit more verbose in those comments? Let us get one thing straight here from the outset. I do not like you at all, in fact I think you are quite literally insane with some kind of serious obsessive compulsive disorder. I was VERY reluctant to give my contact details to you for that reason. That having been said you can just stop right now with the bullshit that I march to your orders. I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly. You can stuff your snide remarks up your asshole as well pal because you are not as fucking smart as your arrogant attitude would suggest.
By the way since you did shift the goal posts I will do the same for you. In your remarks above you indicate that the nano-thermite evidence either doesn't prove anything or is somehow false. Prove it big mouth. You haven't offered jack shit that shows the nano-thermite evidence is bogus other than your opinion which is worthless to me.
So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit.
x207 Maxwell Bridges : marched right into it with ample opportunity to take a hike early
2015-02-10
Part 1/2
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Your negative feelings for me are of no consequence, except that they cloud your judgement.
Moreover, if your honest opinion was that I am -- ho-hum --, "quite literally insane with some kind of serious obsessive compulsive disorder", then WTF are you doing discoursing with me? Why am I always getting the better of you?
As for your contact details, that was your doing. Not mine. I posted the links TWICE to where you should go, the exact venue you were begging for. Ok, maybe your ass was too slow to read them on Mr. McKee's blog before -- after a long day's work -- he comes home to the task of replacing the contents of those comments to avoid others acting the Mike Collins on his blog in response.
Still, you would have got two email notification with the unadulterated version, no? (And if not, why not? How do you even know if someone responded to you?)
Still, the T&S blog shows placeholders for my removed comments as direct responses to you; surely you would have been curious. Surely Mr. Rogue could have updated you.
Still, I told Mr. McKee off-line to pass along to you a link to the venue (did he do so?) before he got around to passing your email address to me.
The point is, had you been paying attention at multiple junctures to learn where to post your comments to me and had you done so early, by golly I would not be in possession of your email address. I haven't abused the privilege.
But I'll hand this to you. You might have something going on with your "obsessive compulsive disorder" charge against me. Just look at my effing blog!!! I can't say that it was everything I ever wrote in my quest for 9/11 Truth, but so far, it is the best-of; and woe unto those who venture to read it all, such a repetitive bore it has become, even for me!
You wrote:
"That having been said you can just stop right now with the bullshit that I march to your orders. I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly."
You're the one who marched right into it, with ample opportunity to take a hike early. I didn't order you. You volunteered. All I'm establishing are the ground rules. FTR, it was always understood and strongly encouraged, Mr. Ruff, for "{Mr. Ruff to} get to {SEO's} argument when {Mr. Ruff has} time to do it properly." But if you want frame that as an order, so be it. Just see that it gets done eventually.
Mr. Ruff, look what happens when I quote you back to you:
"You can stuff your snide remarks up your asshole as well pal because you are not as fucking smart as your arrogant attitude would suggest."
Neither a pretty sight nor your best work.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Maybe I should hand this one to you, too: "{SEO is} not as fucking smart as {SEO's} arrogant attitude would suggest." But sure as shit, I'm better organized with better tactics and more truth. And you're on my home court. If you're not nice to me, my game plan is to mock you mercilessly with your own words by embracing the insult and giving it center stage. In other words, Mr. Ruff, I plan on picking up your figurative ammo and firing it back at you. With this foreknowledge, maybe you should adjust your tactics accordingly going forward.
You wrote an attempt at assigning me busy-work:
"In your remarks above you indicate that the nano-thermite evidence either doesn't prove anything or is somehow false. Prove it big mouth. You haven't offered jack shit that shows the nano-thermite evidence is bogus other than your opinion which is worthless to me."
Au contraire! And ho-hum.
Read what I wrote at the section Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite. Do the high school math for yourself. Be sure to venture into other sections of this work for enlightenment, although know that my beliefs have shifted to 4th generation nukes since authoring that article.
See? I told you I was better organized with better tactics and more truth. You've completely under-estimated the value of "quite literally insanely seriously obsessively compulsively disorder", or how much of a religous fanatic I am: I'm fanatical about Truth.
In moments of defeat like this, I bet you wish you were nearly as well organized so that you would have at you handy acess links to where you debated such topics and won -- if they really exist -- so that you could serve them up here, and be like *ho-hum*, too.
Want to know the irony of that blog article? You helped me hone it! Yes, indeed, there are sections of that article that I can attribute to coming directly from discussions I've had with you. If memory serves me, "No Radiation"? Really? and "The dirt on that" are two examples.
So, thank you, Mr. Ruff. I owe you a debt of gratitude in the creation of this "quite literally insanely seriously obsessively compulsive" blog!
Let the revelations contained in this short response and associated links be a token of the continuance of me being a fair fellow towards you! What supports my contentions are readily available.
You wrote:
"So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit."
If you would but read my words and understand them, there's no immediate pressure from me on you to respond quickly. Just don't run out the clock like Mr. Rogue did. Beginning of March is soon enough. If you need more time, communicate that request.
// Part 2/2
x208 Maxwell Bridges : COMMENT REMOVED: an opportunity for an objective discussion on my hobby-horse topic
{mcb: Comment as edited by Mr. Craig McKee.}
COMMENT REMOVED
Señor El Once, it seems that I need to be more specific about what I don’t want discussed on the blog. Not only do I not want Judy Wood brought into the discussion, but I don’t want any updates on a discussion of her on another blog. I don’t want the fact that she isn’t allowed to be the subject of comments. Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here.-CM
{mcb: Original comment from me.}
Dear Mr. McKee,
Let me take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. McKee!
That which I have most desired is about to come to fruition! Namely, an opportunity for an objective discussion on my hobby-horse topic [OFF-LIST], so that I can be set straight in my beliefs and then welcomed like a black sheep back into the fold of 9/11 Concensus Truth.
FTR, it was never my intent to have a discussion *here* on T&S about Dr. Wood's work. Sorry if you took my efforts the wrong way. All along, I was trying to establish an appropriate off-list venue. Ended up being my blog.
For that matter, though, I had no real desire to discuss Dr. Wood's work, which is why it was for me a "rhetorical challenge". However, if I was unsuccessful in shifting the debate boundaries beforehand, I was going to make Mr. Ruff pay the piper for his boastful words by having him back them up as a lesson in "integrity in the small things..."
Thanksfully after much cajoling on my home court, Mr. Ruff has agreed to a change in topic to my hobby-horse. Mr. Ruff promises:
February 9, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so.
February 10, 2015 at 1:01 PM
I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly... So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit.
I post this for my fan base... and the lurker readers: so that they will know:
(1) what they missed in some of the REMOVED COMMENTS above and
(2) where the off-list [off-T&S] discussion continues...
... With the caveats (a) that Mr. Ruff was given an arbitrary deadline of March 1 with no requests for extensions so far, and (b) that Mr. Ruff determines his own research and writing schedule.
Although I find it most curious how eight of Mr. Rogue's comments from several nested discussions at various times stack up at the bottom of the thread to put a cap on it, I'll repeat a worthy nugget Mr. Rogue brings to our attention in one of his two trolling comments from February 15, 2015, because it is ironically applicable to Mr. Ruff and in his endeavors.
"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind." ~William Blake
//
x209 hybridrogue1 : progress report
2015-02-19
February 19, 2015 at 6:50 am
Do we really need a ‘progress report’ on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread?
Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.
And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
\\][//
x210 Maxwell Bridges : COMMENT REMOVED: my treatment on T&S runs very much parallel
{mcb: Comment as edited by Mr. Craig McKee.}
COMMENT REMOVED – See explanation for removal of Feb. 16 5:50 p.m. comment. While there may be a couple of points that were on topic in this 1,356-word comment (I didn’t feel like editing it), most of it was a repeat of themes that I don’t want to see. These include anything related to discussions of Judy Wood, whether here or on another site. When you “relate” your “hobby horse” to a point in the article, it appears to just be a disguised way of slipping it in.-CM
{mcb: Original comment from me.}
The topic of this article was the treatment of Mr. McKee on the 9/11 Facebook group "9/11 Truth Movement". About that endeavor, he wrote:
There is another bone of contention that leads to toxic exchanges – the idea Collins and moderators Dockery, Haley, Sedell, Carmady, and others seem to have that it's their job to purge the movement of believers in no planes at the WTC and Judy Wood. Collins actually believes that by calling those people names and attacking their intelligence, he can reduce their number. What it does instead is focus MORE attention on the alleged disinformation. If a real agent is being paid to bring up no planes or Judy Wood, they aren’t going to go away because they are called names. Instead, they’ll succeed in setting the agenda. This point is continually missed by those listed above.
Gee, my treatment on T&S runs very much parallel to this. Here's Mr. Rogue from this morning:
Do we really need a 'progress report' on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread? Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse. And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
Maybe Mr. Rogue should have followed Mr. Collins' lead by emphasizing his JEJUNE labels in all-cap's?
For the record about off-limits "bullshit" for this thread:
(1) The theme of Dr. Wood was deemed off-limits but:
(a) Not off-limits are links off-list that would take curious readers to the venue where she was to be discuss.
(b) Not off-limits are subtle references to "this clown’s rocking horse." [I have no plans on going there *here* -- unless Mr. McKee establishes an appropriate T&S venue -- because there is already an off-list venue that seems to meet the immediate need.]
And more importantly:
(c) ~NOT~ off-limits is the on-topic theme of the TREATMENT that one receives for championing aspects of 9/11 with which not all truthers agree.
(2) Even as I was giving Mr. Ruff the raspberries for his unsubstantiated boastings about having debunked Dr. Wood, my words published here (including those removed from T&S but re-published on my blog) show utmost respect and courtesy to the forum via several earnest efforts on my part to take the taboo discussions off-list so that the thread would not be derailed.
(3) As part of Mr. Ruff's bloviating personality [January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm], he himself demanded me to "choose another venue" where Mr. Ruff will supposedly debunk said premises. His comment remains in tact. Thus, the "venue" subject itself is acceptable, as are advertising links to the requested "venue", which sincerely demonstrates a desire to take the discussion elsewhere and not derail the discussion about "the TREATMENT that one receives for championing certain aspects."
Ergo, my comments that provide links to that venue are very much on-topic... And important for my fan-base and the latter-day lurker readers.
+++
Mr. Rogue should have felt flattered that I repeated his William Blake quotation, indicating my objectivity in acknowledging how Mr. Rogue does sometimes (even often) make statements with which I have no disagreement. Here's the agreeable quotation again:
"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind." ~William Blake
Yet Mr. Rogue claims:
And every fucking time [SEO] has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
The above statement should be juxtaposed (at the time of writing) to eight of nine trolling-for-life comments appearing at the end of this thread, all from Mr. Rogue, and the last one [February 15, 2015 at 10:10 pm] gasping for communication from others:
We are standing still.
\\][//
Silly Mr. Rogue -- with 29.3% of the comments and starving for conversation -- for not knowing why his name was brought into my "junk-pile rhetoric"! [Ooo! I like that, Mr. Rogue. One of your better and more creative belittling descriptions.] Although plenty have gone before it, let's label this one Exhibit A in the Treatment that I, Mr. SEO, get on T&S.
In Exhibit B, note the irony:
Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.
Ooo! I like this even better! If it wasn't ironic enough that I agree with Mr. Rogue's statement, by typing that trollish statement, Mr. Rogue not only "focus(es) MORE attention on the alleged disinformation" [Mr. Mckee quote] but also gives me an opportunity to respond... AT LENGTH!
What makes my "slinky advertsement" even more "underhanded", is that it puts on record that Mr. Ruff is in the middle of an objectivity test.
How he will fair? Is anyone's guess.
I have my "William Blake"-ish running-water hopes and dreams for its outcome that differ from Mr. Ruff's trend line so far. I've gone out of my way to have Mr. Ruff avoid obvious traps, like those that damaged Mr. Rogue's credibility.
I'll be sad if Mr. Ruff fumbles badly, although that is what expectations suggest I prepare for, come March.
Further making this comment on-topic -- whether or not Mr. Rogue labels this, too, as "slinky underhanded" --, Mr. McKee wrote in his article:
If a real agent is being paid to bring up no planes or Judy Wood, they aren’t going to go away because they are called names. Instead, they’ll succeed in setting the agenda.
I do not accuse Mr. McKee of aiming his statement at me, Señor El Once, or of calling me "a real agent", even though I have been the resident left-&-back-handed champion of no planes and Dr. Wood in the past on T&S. [But others have and will accuse me of such.] In fact, it was through such left-&-back-handed tactics that many a brain-dead supporter of such were handled and dealt with on T&S by me.
Demonstrating my objectivity in the matter, were I a paid agent -- no longer on no planes, no longer on Dr. Wood but today -- for blatantly rattling the saddle of my hobby-horse in these here parts, I could think of many ways in which I could be more effective, like in increasing my output from its present 4% in this thread to, say, 29.3% just on this forum alone.
Another option would be to create my own "A.Wright"-sockpuppet just for my hobby-horse that I could dutifully battle and vanquish regularly.
And my! Seems like I'd be shooting holes in my Agent 86 shoe-phones with my legacy and demeanor: consistency, courtesy, respect, integrity, objectivity, persistance, and an ability to change opinions. [My views have morphed when presented with new information, which is difficult for real agents with agendas to demonstrate.]
So, yeah. I'll try on that agency shoe and hobble around for you with my best, batting-eye "come-hither" look, but double-oh-seven don't really fit. Instead, I embrace the label "duped useful idiot", but made sure that what duped me (... err, "convinced me") was evidence and proper analysis; and that all alternative theories would be rationally considered in the hopes that their evidence and their proper analysis would be more convincing (and I could be duped another way.)
What I earnestly sought was rational, objective discussion. Particularly in my hobby-horse area(s).
Instead I'm called a "clown", and "bullshit" is the label eagerly applied to that of which I have been convinced.
*That* is the treatment I get, as it tries to set the negative tone and establish the agenda: that of a flame war on T&S to distract.
Gosh darn it! Where's that agency shoe I just took off? Maybe we should slap that on somebody else!
+++
The only questions left in reader's minds are:
Why didn't Mr. Rogue ignore me?
Indeed, why did Mr. Rogue ~have~ to reply to (or about) me?
Why couldn't he have ignored my errant comment in the middle of all 174 comments?
Why couldn't he have rested on the laurels (a) of eight of the last nine comments at bottom or (b) of his commanding 29.3% of the total comments.
"By their fruits ye shall know them..."
Do we really need a 'progress report' on this bullshit...?
Oooo, yeah, baby!
Watch out for the back-fire!
//
x211 hybridrogue1 : COMMENT REMOVED: I have a feeling
2015-02-19
February 19, 2015 at 9:20 pm
{mcb: Comment as edited by Mr. Craig McKee.}
COMMENT REMOVED – This comment was a response to a comment that was removed.-CM
{mcb: Original comment as submitted by Mr. Rogue.}
Mr Once, I have a feeling you have just submerged yourself in a vat of boiling water.
I refer to the fact that Mr McKee has removed your comment of February 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm
Which is much less verbose and insulting to Craig’s stated wishes than this current one.
Yes indeed Mr Once, Watch out for the back-fire.
\\][//
x212 hybridrogue1 : more of his anal hurlants
2015-02-18
hybridrogue1
2015-02-18
I notice the Maxitwat has posted more of his anal hurlant on T&S.
Nobody gives a shit about his rocking horse nookiedoodoo. He should just fuck off and fade away like a good little troll.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
February 19, 2015 at 6:50 am
Do we really need a ‘progress report’ on this bullshit that has already been determined to be off limits on this thread?
Another slinky underhanded advertisement for this clown’s rocking horse.
And every fucking time he has to bring my name into his junk-pile rhetoric.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2015-02-19
Max, you are out of your fucking mind!!!
Seriously you are a blithering idiot! You need to be put in restraints and sedated. You are a danger to yourself and those around you.
I don’t know why the fuck Craig puts up with your flaming bullshit…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
February 19, 2015 at 9:20 pm
Mr Once, I have a feeling you have just submerged yourself in a vat of boiling water.
I refer to the fact that Mr McKee has removed your comment of February 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm
Which is much less verbose and insulting to Craig’s stated wishes than this current one.
Yes indeed Mr Once, Watch out for the back-fire.
\\][//
x213 Craig McKee : you respond and keep things going
2015-02-19
February 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm
And every time you respond and keep things going. Perhaps it would be more effective to led me deal with what is on and off topic.
x214 hybridrogue1 : grit me teeth
2015-02-19
February 19, 2015 at 9:38 pm
My apologies Craig.
It just makes me grit me teeth.
\\][//
x215 Maxwell Bridges : link is required as a relief value
2015-02-20
{mcb: email to Mr. McKee}
Dear Mr. McKee,
What's done is done. I do you the favor of an off-list message rather than escalating on the blog(s). As always, I harbor no ill will against you for your editorial actions. I'll even show you my cards in the course of this message so that you can mentally prepare.
You wrote in your editing:
"Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here."
I disagree. The link is required as a relief value, particularly as you clamp down on certain themes and if you want to avoid an all out flame wars on your turf.
I have always maintained that links should be considered a secondary playing field with different rules and allowances.
Why is it that you don't want readers knowing where they can read opinions that you removed from T&S? That's sort of overstepping your bounds, and puts you into the role of a censure and gate-keeper. Rather ironic.
Let me show you some of my cards. Mr. Rogue over the course of our discussions has discredited himself: "liar, cheat, weasel" and substantiated. Although I hope for other outcomes, I expect that Mr. Ruff is going to fail his in-progress objectivity test as well: "blow-hard, liar, hypocrite". You should note that, if these aren't the only nay-sayers of nookiedoo, they are certainly the most vocal, and lately with mostly colorful ad hominem. Yet the words of both of them can't be trusted, because they haven't been "faithful in the small things."
I've already pin-pointed the weaknesses in what Dr. Harrit peddled to you in your interview. I'm just waiting for an appropriate opportunity and enjoying the lull. Neu Nookiedoo unchained can put hoof-prints into the asses of Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harrit, Richard Gage, and a good portion of the leaders of the A&E9/11 Truth group.
Unfortunately, I can see where your writing contract gigs with A&E9/11 may now give you some conflict of interest. Might also be a factor in some of your deeper editorial moves (against me).
I have endeavored to write words worthy of preservation, because I knew I was going to re-purpose them, to own them, to stand behind them. I didn't always advertise that I was doing this, but anybody googling my alias would quickly find this out. It has become a pretty formidable tool.
Just be careful, Mr. McKee, because when those latter-day lurkers eventually find my worthy words, you don't want that collection to reveal a pattern of your gate-keeping on my hobby horse subject, particularly when it was laid out in a rational, objective, manner and particularly when it is a subject that you fence-sit. (Still surprises me. My efforts ought to have tipped you one way or another.)
Now that you've demonstrated your prowess in editing the comments of others, I humbly ask you to:
(1) Revisit the February 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm comment.
(2) [Optional] Remove your sentence "Least of all do I want a comment that lets readers know where they can read opinions that I previously removed here."
(3) Add the link:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html
(4) Done. And nobody who is prone to unhingement will probably even notice.
Consider it a good-faith compromise and the needed relief value.
Without the link -- without the compromise --, the religiously fanatic in me will always have me bounding back and inserting it in every (n-th) thing I post. I'm unemployed at the moment: you don't want me making "a project" out of T&S to consume my time and make you work much much harder at reigning me in.
Not in either of our best interests for us to partake in such petty games.
So why the link? The link is the other venue demanded by Mr. Ruff and that also holds Mr. Ruff accountable for his boastful words from January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm.
Has to be done, Mr. McKee, so that the trolls can be identified and separated.
Meanwhile, Mr. McKee, I believe I'm following Truth. I make no apologies for what I champion (today... until evidence and more proper analysis convinces me of something else.) If you aren't going to field an appropriate venue for a rational discussion on my hobby-horse, then you'll have to watch me closely for what I sneak in.
Mr. Adam Ruff, Mr. Adam Syed, and you have all re-published Facebook exchanges in the pursuit of on-line truth with Mr. Ken Doc (and Mr. Mike Collins). In a fair and just world, I could re-publishe my Facebook exchanges with Mr. Doc and Mr. Collins. Let me place the playing card on the table for you to see:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
Take the wind out of my sails by publishing the link (first one above) for me as part of the compromise. Then I'll just let Mr. Rogue troll on, trolling on... without me.
Have a great weekend.
//
x221 Maxwell Bridges : sincere hopes to publicly change his mind
2015-03-06
Upon reviewing Andre Gsponer's work from 2005 Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects and his pre-9/11 work, Mr. Adam Ruff has my sincere hopes to publicly change his mind -- or at least hop onto the fence -- with regards to 9/11 nuclear DEW devices playing significant roles at the WTC. He could say words like:
"I was shocked to discover through my research -- seeded by Mr. SEO -- that time delays in sampling, small numbers of samples, and scope-limited reports indeed provide sufficient wiggle room in the evidence analysis to make plausible the involvement of 4th generation nuclear devices on 9/11 at the WTC. I was personally disappointed to learn how lacking were the good faith estimates into chemical based destruction methods by various PhD's, how absurd the implied quantities, and how pitiful the nuclear considerations."
The above could be how Mr. Ruff saves face and demonstrates some integrity.
But this doesn't appear to be how Mr. Ruff is presently playing his cards.
Walt Disney wrote: "Everyone needs deadlines. Even the beavers. They loaf around all summer, but when they are faced with the winter deadline, they work like fury. If we didn’t have deadlines, we’d stagnate."
Hence, over a month ago, Mr. Ruff was given multiple times a deadline of March 1 for his DEW debunking master piece. With that date now already blown by and the clock run out, no where do we have Mr. Ruff's analysis nor any courteous request along the lines:
"I'm reviewing your links but am not finished with my analysis and write-up. Might you be so kind as to grant me a humble extension of ____ days?"
Nope.
Mr. Ruff is on the fast-track to failing his objectivity test administered above and thereby may legitimately earn the descriptive labels: "blow-hard, liar, hypocrite." And to think that it all started with these ironic bloviating comments?
2014-01-27 at 5:09 am
"We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus."
January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm
"SEO {...} choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all."
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
One month ago, I wrote as a well intentioned warning in Saving face and the pickle you're in:
+++ begin
{Mr. Ruff,} you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme "boastful lying hypocrite" etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse...
Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. "Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..." It can be a risk to your character if mishandled. ...
I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with "liar, cheat, and weasel," because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. ... I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. ... Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
+++ end
Nope. Instead, Mr. Ruff makes more ironic statements on Truth & Shadows.
March 5, 2015 at 5:23 am
"So it has naturally degenerated into a cess pit of Stalinist selective censorship {...} huh? Sad to see another potentially good place for 9/11 truth go down the crapper the same way 911Blahhhger did. It is embarrassing for those who run the place although some of them are just willfully blind about why they should be embarrassed."
February 28, 2015 at 6:54 am
"I have to say though that the group is of no use if people cannot even discuss the evidence and disagree with {...} without getting booted with no warning?"
March 5, 2015 at 5:38 am
"I think 9/11 trolls do what they do not only to waste our time but also and perhaps more importantly to make us feel hopeless and defeated and to wear us out."
How many total times was a link to Andre Gsponer's work into Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons run under Mr. Ruff's nose that he ignored yet boasted about wanting to review and debunk? What about his trollish attempt to waste time that I shut down with Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite?
So far, I am mighty disappointed. Zip was presented by Mr. Ruff, thus literally nothing that could change anyone's mind. Except in their trust and esteem in Mr. Ruff himself.
I still hold out hopes for Mr. Ruff to save some face and his integrity.
// Part 2/2
x222 Adam Ruff & hybridrogue1 : never ending bullshit carousel
M. C. Bruecke has left a new comment on the post “Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices”:
Part 2/2
One month ago, I wrote as a well intentioned warning in Saving face and the pickle you’re in:
+++ begin
{Mr. Ruff,} you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I’m having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme “boastful lying hypocrite” etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse…
Dr. Wood’s work can’t be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. “Faithful in the small, faithful in the large…” It can be a risk to your character if mishandled. …
I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with “liar, cheat, and weasel,” because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. … I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. … Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
+++ end
____________________________________________________________________________________
Maxwell,
I find it amusing that you think your opinion of me is somehow important. I don’t consider it important at all and I really do not think there are many people out there who do consider your rantings and ravings important either. So as far as I am concerned you can proceed with whatever contrived BS statements you want to make about me to whoever you want to make them to. You slander me though and all bets are off. I doubt there is anyone out there who will give a shit what you say about me. I originally said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and that is what I agreed to “debate” you about. You quickly and very deceitfully attempted to change the debate to nukes. I pointed out you moved the goal posts, which you did, and then I said I would get around to debunking the nukes meme when I had time to do so. I have not had time to do so properly yet, and to be frank with you, you are very low on my priority list and I am involved with other things that are far more important to me. I will eventually get to it but it will be on my time frame not yours and your attempt to badger me is useless because I do not value your opinion AT ALL nor do I care what you say to others about me. I will tell you this right now though:
The nuke theory is stupid and unprovable disinformation because there is literally no physical evidence at all that you can point to which shows conclusively that nukes were used at the WTC. On the other hand there is all sorts of physical and eye witness evidence that explosives and incendiaries such as thermite/nano thermite were used. You also have no actual verifiable evidence that these 4th generation nuke devices are anything more than theoretical at this point in time let alone in 2001. Yes there are scientists talking about them but do they actually exist in physical reality? You have no proof they do. Furthermore you have no eye witnesses to such devices nor any video evidence which shows anything other than that which can be easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries. In other words you haven’t got shit to back up your speculations with. Finally there is no physical need to use nukes in the first place to bring down the WTC buildings since conventional explosives and incendiaries could do the job just fine. There was therefore no logical reason to leave behind a radiological signature from a nuclear device that could be traced back to a source reactor and possibly expose the responsible parties. It would have been moronic to use nukes for that exact reason because it could be traced back to a specific reactor. So your disinformation was DOA in the first place for all these reasons and a few others but since you are literally OCD to an extreme level you will never be capable of admitting your mistake or stopping your OCD behavior of pushing this crappola. At this point you are like an insane priest spouting biblical revelations as though it is all literally coming true right now. You will NEVER stop because you can’t stop. At any rate this is all the time I have for you now.”~Adam Ruff
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The never ending bullshit carousel of the Maxifuckanus… what a bore. Mr Ruff should just shine on this lunatic and let him bounce around his rubber-room at his blog.
\\][//
x224 James 1:19, 22-25 : swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath
2015-02-20
James 1:19, 22-25
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
x225 Maxwell Bridges : Mickey Mouse Games
2015-03-10
Part 1/7
Backstory:
Mr. Ruff boasted of his debunking prowess.
Mr. Ruff is among the some who would say that my nuclear DEW hobby-horse needs to be debunked.
Mr. Ruff's bluff was called.
Mr. Ruff boasted to choose a venue, although he had opportunities and was encouraged to establish the venue himself, such as through his Facebook page.
Mr. Ruff was given links to my blog from T&S [since removed] and then emails [once permission granted for sharing contact info.]
Mr. Ruff took more than one email before he availed himself of his ability to make comments under the designated blog posting.
Mr. Ruff required a considerable amount of reasoning before Mr. Ruff conceded to a shift in topic to my hobby-horse [e.g., his reputation would get punked if he mishandled the Wood debunking.]
Mr. Ruff was provided a March deadline multiple times starting in January, either for the initial delivery of the "debunking product" or for a request for an extension.
Mr. Ruff over ran his deadline without as much as a courteous request for an extension.
Mr. Ruff was notified through a blog comment (2015-03-06) that such discourteous behavior to an earnest attempt at a rational discussion would not weigh favorably on his character [and standing in the debate] in the judging minds of the morbidly-curious, latter-day, lurker-readers.
Mr. Ruff allegedly responded within twelve hours.
- Not as a replying comment on my blog.
- Not as an email to me.
- Not as a comment initiated by Mr. Ruff to Mr. Rogue's blog.
- But as [an email notification of] a comment made by Mr. Rogue to his blog (2015-03-07) under Mr. Rogue's wonderful thread dedicated to me as being an alleged "agitprop disinformant". This blog comment made by Mr. Rogue contained a passage supposedly authored by Mr. Ruff and addressed to me!
If one looks at the communication path a bit squinty-eyed, it has almost the appearance of a "sockpuppet fail," but let's not.
These Mickey Mouse games of avoiding a direct, on point, on time, on blog discussion are becoming telling of Mr. Ruff's character that readers can deduce for themselves. But let's set this aside, too.
Due to the communication path, some doubt could exist in the accuracy or authorship of the passages attributed to Mr. Ruff in Mr. Rogue's comment. Therefore, the following assumes the validity of Mr. Ruff's words and takes them at face value. If this assumption proves invalid, an apology, retraction, and modification to the following will be made.
// Part 1/7
Part 2/7
I will now decompose relevant statements from Mr. Ruff's reply. Mr. Ruff began with [A]:
"I find it amusing that you think your opinion of me is somehow important."
Mr. Ruff doesn't get it. It doesn't matter what I think. What matters are our actions and how others will judge them. Mr. Ruff is game playing, and puts himself on the fast track to not just losing the debate before it even can get started, but of impugning his own character and reputation that will flag him an unreliable if untrustworthy participant in all further discussions.
Mr. Ruff writes [B]:
"I don’t consider [SEO's opinion of Mr. Ruff] important at all... "
This cavelier attitude is apparent. And it is also contradicted by his later words.
Mr. Ruff [C]:
"... and I really do not think there are many people out there who do consider your rantings and ravings important either."
I commend Mr. Ruff for this hynotic suggestion. Today, perhaps his statement is true. Mr. Ruff underestimates legacy and what distant tomorrows might bring when this discussion gets linked in.
Mr. Ruff [D]:
"So as far as I am concerned you can proceed with whatever contrived BS statements you want to make about me to whoever you want to make them to. You slander me though and all bets are off."
Were it not for the fact that "slander" is verbal and "libel" is written -- a mistake that Mr. Rogue always makes, too, despite correction --, these [D] statements are contridicted by Mr. Ruff's [B] statements.
Mr. Ruff need not worry about defamation of his character through libel (much less slander) from me. Why? Because defamation implies an element of unsubstantiation.
What Mr. Ruff needs to worry about are the substantiated instances of Mr. Ruff's integrity not measuring up [to standards that Mr. Ruff in cases laid forth himself], which then would make negative statements about Mr. Ruff "valid character assessments" and not defamation or libel at all.
Mr. Ruff [E]:
"I doubt there is anyone out there who will give a shit what you say about me."
Mr. Ruff is entitled to his doubts about the readership numbers, but he should not play his cards as if it were a done deal for all time.
// Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Mr. Ruff [F]:
"I originally said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and that is what I agreed to "debate" you about. You quickly and very deceitfully attempted to change the debate to nukes. I pointed out you moved the goal posts, which you did, ..."
(1) Mr. Ruff was going to fumble the ball spectacularly in debunking Dr. Judy Wood -- like Mr. Rogue before him -- and suffer massive casualties to his reputation for his shoddy efforts. The stoic manner in which Mr. Ruff refused to read Dr. Wood's book already pegged his objectivity at an unbecoming level and practically guarantees a poor personal outcome. Even though I would have been the ride operator, out of kindness to us both, I sought harmonious ways to prevent the need for cranking that carousel.
(2) Mr. Ruff's attempts to cement the discussion goal posts at Dr. Wood and hologram planes is a straw-man ploy and red-herring. Dr. Wood did not take her published research far enough and was never considered the end-station, so it is deceitful to limit rational discussion to its bounds.
(3) Mr. Ruff misses the destinction that "the DEW issue" does not have to constrain itself to power sources suggested or hand-waved by Dr. Wood. "The DEW issue" encompasses nuclear power sources as well. Most of the devices considered Fourth Generation Nuclear devices fall into the category of DEW.
It wasn't out of "deceit" but out of "mercy and kindness" that I strongly encouraged modifying the boundaries of the debate to the more productive realm of nuclear DEW, to which Mr. Ruff already had agreed to discuss twice.
In this discussion, let that be the last time that Mr. Ruff cranks the "moving goal posts" carousel [as a weak attempt to smear my character and to get out of discussion my hobby-horse.] Nuclear DEW should have been always on the table in considering "the DEW issue".
(4) Moreover, it isn't as if the nuclear DEW goal post hasn't been in the playing field and inteferring with Mr. Ruff's game for quite some time. November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am, Mr. Ruff boasted:
+++ begin quote
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 ... 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... 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?
+++ end quote
Mr. Ruff did not ask me to participate. Pity, because I could have provided them point-by-point all of the things that they needed to address in order to be able to claim a complete and thorough debunking.
Mr. Ruff obviously has had no follow-through, nor meat, nor substance to his blovicating from late 2012. Otherwise in theory by now, Mr. Ruff could have boasted about having the definitive Wood debunk with actual substantiating URLs right in the comment.
But let us set that all aside, too, and not let Mr. Ruff's personal failings from 2012 (until now) taint this fresh opportunity for Mr. Ruff to deliver on his debunking promises within a reasonable time frame.
// Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Back to the present, Mr. Ruff wrote [G]:
"... and then I said I would get around to debunking the nukes meme when I had time to do so. I have not had time to do so properly yet,... "
Mr. Ruff is given the benefit of the doubt regarding his available time to do a proper analysis. Given that even Walt Disney wrote "everyone needs deadlines," then Mr. Ruff should have respectfully communicated his status, the new delivery dates, and a request for an extension ON THE BLOG where it was relevant in order to avoid being accused of playing Mickey Mouse games.
Mr. Ruff [H]:
"and to be frank with you, you are very low on my priority list and I am involved with other things that are far more important to me. I will eventually get to it but it will be on my time frame not yours ..."
Meanwhile, though, if Mr. Ruff is going to "eventually get to it" on "his time frame," Mr. Ruff is expected at the least to document that time frame with actual calendar dates. When does Mr. Ruff expect to "eventually get to it"?
Without a concrete commitment to new deadlines [yet to be provided by Mr. Ruff himself], then all Mr. Ruff is doing above is running out the clock in his blovicating, Micky Mouse games.
Mr. Ruff [I]:
"... and your attempt to badger me is useless..."
If Mr. Ruff had good intentions, my words would be called simply a "friendly reminder". Bad-faith intentions on not doing squat would find it necessary to label the reminder as "badgering".
"... because I do not value your opinion AT ALL nor do I care what you say to others about me."
Contradicted by the existence of the alleged message to me.
Maybe Mr. Ruff should value my opinion and what is truthfully written about him and substantiated, in the hopes that it might improve Mr. Ruff's reasoning, debating, and following-through skills.
Mr. Ruff [J]:
"I will tell you this right now though: The nuke theory is stupid and unprovable disinformation because there is literally no physical evidence at all that you can point to which shows conclusively that nukes were used at the WTC."
What is "the nuke theory" to which Mr. Ruff alludes? There are many -- as many nuclear DEW devices as are given the 4th generation nuclear device document. Were Mr. Ruff to wade into the specifics, he would have a hard time proving any of them "stupid," although he might find himself stupid in understanding them and some of them not applicable to 9/11 at the WTC.
Unprovable? Mr. Ruff has obviously not been reading anything I've written, a re-occurring theme and an early indication that Mr. Ruff is not debating in good-faith.
"No physical evidence" is a two-edge sword that does more damage against nano-thermite than it does against nuclear DEW.
- Show me where the RJ Lee Group, the USGS analysis on the dust, and Paul Lioy reports prove the existence of NT in the dust. They don't have it; only Dr. Jones' dust samples do. Yet NT is supposed to be the source of the pulverization as well as the hot-spot duration!
- Show me where Dr. Jones and AE9/11 Truth analyze Dr. Jones's dust samples for other explosive elements that Dr. Jones speculated was used with NT to make pulveration possible. Dr. Jones admits in September 2012 that something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT. Where's the analysis into that?
The delays and data gaps in the various reports were sufficiently large to allow whole classes of 4th generation nuclear (DEW) devices to stretch out and have a party, supposedly undetected.
The report on Tritium and Dr. Cahill's air sampling stand in direct opposition to Mr. Ruff's boastful "no physical evidence" hypnotic suggestion.
// Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Mr. Ruff [K]:
"On the other hand there is all sorts of physical and eye witness evidence that explosives and incendiaries such as thermite/nano thermite were used."
The above is a glaring misrepresentation.
(1) The eye witness evidence only alludes to hearing and seeing explosions. Nuclear DEW might not be immune from having an audio signature that sounded and look like explosions.
(2) The use of thermite/nano-thermite isn't questioned in these discussions. What is questioned if it could be considered the primary mechanisms of destruction, or if the 9/11 Truth Movement should continue looking for the true primary mechanisms? As Dr. Jones is considered a God to the 9/11 Truth Movement, he repeatedly declared "something was mixed with NT" and "something else maintained the hot-spots (not just NT)." Yet these words haven't been heeded by most.
Mr. Ruff [L]:
"You also have no actual verifiable evidence that these 4th generation nuke devices are anything more than theoretical at this point in time let alone in 2001. Yes there are scientists talking about them but do they actually exist in physical reality? You have no proof they do."
Ho-hum, this is a repeat of previous statements from Mr. Ruff in this discussion, so here was my response.
Mr. Ruff [M]:
"Furthermore you have no eye witnesses to such devices nor any video evidence which shows anything other than that which can be easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries."
Involvement of conventional explosives and incendiaries isn't the issue, and maybe some of the observed squibs can be attributed to this.
Exact opposite to what Mr. Ruff wrote: the issue is that the evidence in total is ~not~ "easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries." They don't go the distance in accounting for the duration of hot-spots, in addition to having literally massive logistics hurdles. They do ~not~ have representation in the reports, yet evidence of nuclear hijinx slips out even when the reports are scope-limited and skewed in their data collection.
Mr. Ruff [N]:
"In other words you haven’t got shit to back up your speculations with."
Another glaring example of Mr. Ruff spouting his mouth off without having read anything written by me or referenced by others.
Mr. Ruff [O]:
"Finally there is no physical need to use nukes in the first place to bring down the WTC buildings since conventional explosives and incendiaries could do the job just fine."
Mr. Ruff should publish the calculations from Dr. Jones (and Dr. Harrit) regarding their estimations on the amount of said materials needed to account for (a) the observed overkill pulverization and (b) the duration of hot-spots. (Assuming something is found) These amounts are massive and explain very clearly to the math oriented that they represent an unreasonable logistics hurdle that is made even more difficult by the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior to 9/11.
// Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Mr. Ruff [P]:
"There was therefore no logical reason to leave behind a radiological signature from a nuclear device that could be traced back to a source reactor and possibly expose the responsible parties."
Mr. Ruff gets dinged again for proving that he did not read my material, because radiological signatures are discussed. They vary depending upon the actual nuclear device, and can certainly slip into the delays in sample taking, shoddy sampling, and other skew introduced to reports as well as security clamp-down at the WTC that prevented even the investigations and analysis by professional Fire Investigators from the fire departments.
Mr. Ruff gets dinged for not having any imagination when writing his "no logical reason" statement. The logical reasons were:
(a) A half dozen 4th gen nuclear DEW per tower would be logistically easier to implement in a short time frame than the needed massive amounts of conventional explosives and incendiaries [required to achieve the observed overkill].
(b) Generals and Majors with itchy trigger-fingers were literally just dying to use devices from their arsenals and prove the concept of "low radiation nuclear weapons."
(c) They controlled the WTC, the media, the committees, the reports. They can and did tell the public whatever they want the public to believe.
Mr. Ruff [Q]:
"It would have been moronic to use nukes for that exact reason because it could be traced back to a specific reactor."
Mr. Ruff spreads misinformation with his misunderstanding and munging together of nuclear topics. Mr. Ruff's statement applies to some nuclear devices, but not all.
Mr. Ruff [R]:
"So your disinformation was DOA in the first place for all these reasons and a few others ..."
Oh the wonders of modern truth! What once was considered DOA has been revived, point-by-point, and the signs of death were clearly, purposely, and disceitfully interpretted... by someone playing cowardly and repetitive games.
Mr. Ruff's [S] concluding remarks:
"... but since you are literally OCD to an extreme level you will never be capable of admitting your mistake or stopping your OCD behavior of pushing this crappola. At this point you are like an insane priest spouting biblical revelations as though it is all literally coming true right now. You will NEVER stop because you can’t stop. At any rate this is all the time I have for you now."
// Part 6/7
Part 7/7
Because Mr. Ruff's comments to me weren't sent to me or made to my blog, but instead were inside a comment from Mr. Rogue on Mr. Rogue's blog, Mr. Rogue comments get to be studied as well. Mr. Rogue wrote [T]:
"The never ending bullshit carousel of the Maxifuckanus... what a bore. Mr Ruff should just shine on this lunatic and let him bounce around his rubber-room at his blog."
Mr. Rogue continued with [U]:
+++ begin quote
Adam, The key to this whole argument is in the title of Maxitwat’s prize source for his info on the topic of fourth generation nuclear weapons.
The term “Quest” is the operative word here. The military is hoping to someday achieve such weaponry. It is speculative at the current level of research.
I have notified the twat about this countless times, that the whole thing is conjecture and speculation. Just like his whole “theory” it is speculative fiction at this point. “Speculative Fiction” is popularly known as “Science Fiction”, and that is what Maxhole is trying to sell with his Nookiedoodool nonsense.
+++ end quote
The above is a classic cheat from Mr. Rogue. How many different 4th generation weapons were discussed in Andre Gsponer's work? Mr. Rogue doesn't say. He hasn't analyzed a single one of them. No indication is given that Mr. Rogue even read the work beyond its title, where the word "quest" seems to trip him up, as if the debate can be won on a technicality.
Having only a high school education, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue are both crippled by ~not~ knowing the wonders contained within any decent university's engineering, math, and science library. Much of it won't be found on Google (although this changes every day). But even before a researcher smacks against barriers of "national security," "need-to-know," "with approval" in researching nuclear themes, the scope and abilities of nuclear devices in what is "public" makes clearer what is and isn't "Speculative Fiction" on the "quest continuum" for low-radiation nuclear devices. The good PhD's of the 9/11 Truth Movement are expected to have better research skills (if not minions to do the legwork) at the very university libraries they walked passed daily, yet very little research was provided into the existing literature in the shoddy reports offered to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
// Part 7/7
x227 Maxwell Bridges : Mr. Ruff's reputation and integrity are reaching the lows of Mr. Rogue
2015-03-14
{Portions of an email.}
[T]hank you for the idling opportunity.
I'm writing to fill [lurker readers] in on some "Mickey Mouse" activity of two most-vocal regulars that I know morbid curiosity will have it read. This link shows no deviation in the trend line for boastful Mr. Ruff and what he was being called on. He has not delivered on that on which he promised. He's run out the clock once already.
As it stands now, Mr. Ruff's reputation and integrity are reaching the lows of Mr. Rogue. With his present course, he'll be legitimately flagged as an unreliable if untrustworthy participant in all further discussions.
//
Hide All / Expand All
Toggle - Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff
Toggle - Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite
6 comments:
Dear Mr. Ruff and Mr. Whitten,
I am a sincere seeker of Truth. Recently I was taken aback by this quotation:
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." ~Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931)
Certainly dovetails with:
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ~Mark Twain
Inspiration to present conditions -- even on the themes of 9/11 -- can often be found in biblical passages. For instance:
I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Revelations 1:3: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."
Are Mr. Ruff or Mr. Whitten blessed for having read 4th generation nuclear weapons? In "proving" or "testing" it, did they find any good on which to hold fast?
Why am I communicating with them? Why am I bringing this up? Because Mr. Ruff wrote on October 5, 2015 at 8:32 pm:
+++
To me the fact that the "team" refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part. A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one.
+++ end quote
Then on October 29, 2015 at 8:32 am, Mr. Ruff repeats:
+++
A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do.
+++ end quote
Using Mr. Ruff's own definitions:
- Mr. Ruff is not a truther (a real one). (a) He doesn't have any permanent work: articles, blogs, etc. to support his no-nukes on 9/11 premise. (b) If we graciously include statements that he made on T&S and my blog as his work, Mr. Ruff has totally shied away from addressing challenges to it. No show for quite some time. (c)_ "Blessed is he that readeth", therefore blessed is ~not~ Mr. Ruff who boasted of not reading my postings or reference materials.
- Mr. Whitten is not a truther (a real one). (a) He won't make comments on my blog. (b) He won't allow my comments on his blog. [(c1) He won't participate on Facebook, despite it being perfect for him, his belligerent style, and his penchance for cycling through repetitive arguments.] (c2) "Blessed is he that readeth", therefore blessed is ~not~ Mr. Whitten who admitted not finishing Dr. Wood's book and then perpetuated for two years a lie about having destroyed the book in order to avoid discussions. Why? "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [I Thessalonians 5:21]
hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
In the past, I "relished the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove my hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one." Thus, I was the real truther.
Not so much any more, owing to 14 years since 9/11 and the crushing reality of the difficulty in convincing others how they've been fooled.
//
Part 1/2
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on Truth & Shadows April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm:
"For the record if you invite Senior El Once {SEO = Bruecke = Bridges} into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme..."
El-oh-el. Sure; when I discover a nugget of truth, I cling to it like a dog to a bone. Sure; I'm organized. Sure; I collect drip-by-drip, comment-by-comment my words, relevant quotes from my opponents that I'm responding to, and dates & URLs where such transpired.
The issue isn't what my legacy exposes about me, because I have been sincere, I stand behind my words {until new data or analysis necessitates a change}, and the knowledge of the collection task affects even the authoring process to curb baser instincts and to write content worthy of preservation.
The issue is what legacy exposes about my opponents: blow-hard, hypocrisy, lies...
Mr. Ruff continued: "... and {SEO} will NEVER leave you alone! Ever."
Mr. Ruff's exaggerations verge on lies, which has been the issue and merits contact in an attempt to correct the record.
"I told him many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway."
Mr. Ruff was told to set up a filter for my messages, and he promised that he had already done so: my email messages go directly to spam or trash UNREAD.
Phrases like "will NEVER leave you alone" and "kept doing it anyway" take on a hue of daily spam and irrelevant to anything. On the contrary, my off-list messages to Mr. Ruff have been so infrequent, the average over the course of a year probably isn't twice a month. The content of those infrequent messages related directly to Mr. Ruff's online activities.
Mr. Ruff continued: "He sends very long elaborate diatribes which are confusing and hard to decipher and which are full of all sorts of erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies."
Hold it right there! If Mr. Ruff repeatedly declared publicly & privately that he did not read my comments / emails and that he set up filters precisely to avoid reading my emails, then Mr. Ruff has zero basis to assert "erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies" in my work. Either Mr. Ruff (a) is lying about filtering / not reading my words, (b) is lying his assessment of my actual content, or (c) both.
Book reviews without actually reading the books (Kevin Ryan, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Andre Gsponer) are data points already in Mr. Ruff's trend line. He could only know if an email were "very long elaborate diatribes" if he looked inside. Therefore, (c) two lies are exposed.
Given Mr. Ruff education level and IQ, I give him a pass on thinking my words are "confusing and hard to decipher". In a cognitive dissonance sort of way, my messages probably are and probably "hurt his widdle bwain."
For the sake of discussion, if we assume true Mr. Ruff's baseless assertions, improving or eradicating the very same "erroneous conclusions and logical fallacies" has been a motive behind my entire web presence and efforts to establish communication channels.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Readers can speculate themselves what possibly could be tainting Mr. Ruff's description of me. Maybe he doesn't like me dragging up instances of his own hypocrisy (March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm with minor edits for FGND):
"A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn't an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong. So you changing your opinion isn't the issue {...}. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear {...} If you don't do that you are NOT a truther. The BS game you are playing here {...} says some very disturbing things about you. Why would you persist in trying to obfuscate some of the best proof we have of an inside job? Why would anyone do that? Honestly I wish a real truther was there to slap you in the face and tell you how dirty it is to do what you are doing. it makes me sick."
Mr. Ruff from March 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm:
"The JREF'ers have been up to no good for a long time that is for sure and not just with 9/11 but you know the NSA's Q group has been at this for a long time too. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try and tear us down and divide us but you know what {...}? The truth ALWAYS wins in the end. No matter what they do the truth cannot be defeated, the only thing they can even remotely hope for is to suppress the truth for a while. So in essence they are like cockroaches scurrying around hoping and praying the light doesn't get flicked on. These disinformation artists promoting the lie about {NT @ the WTC will soon be} a dying breed, discredited and demoralized, just like the corporate media. No one is buying the BS they are selling anymore."
OCD-me! I did what Mr. Ruff was incapable of starting: objective research and review of DEW and nuclear devices for their state about 2001. Herewith, I fulfill my promise of making available my raw research into DEW and Nukes.
I earnestly and sincerely tried MANY TIMES to initiate a rational, reasoned, researched, substantive discussion, only to be be JREF'ed and Q-Group'ed by the likes of Mr. Ruff and Mr. Whitten. Mr. Ruff has skirted discussions. He avoids emails. I presently don't have posting privileges on T&S. We don't have communication channels. So Mr. Ruff's April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm comment is an unsolicited attack.
Look no further than Mr. Ruff's closing remarks: "By contacting {SEO/me} you are letting a crazy person into your company. You have been warned."
Oooo! Dat's kwazy twalk!
// Part 2/2
Are you still the same old twat you have always been Maxifuckanus?
No doubt you are.
I found someone almost as bad as you on Amazon, an anonymous stooge going by Suetonius.
A real cunt this one is. I bet you two would get along great!
HAPPY NEW YEAR Twatman!!!!!!
\\][//
Are you still the same old twat you have always been Maxifuckanus?
No doubt you are.
I found someone almost as bad as you on Amazon, an anonymous stooge going by Suetonius.
A real cunt this one is. I bet you two would get along great!
HAPPY NEW YEAR Twatman!!!!!!
\\][//
Dear Mr. Whitten,
I don't check my "conspiracy" email very often anymore, so didn't see your lovely attempt at a posting until now (2017-01-23).
+++
Willy Whitten has left a new comment on your post "Another one discredits himself":
Are you still the same old twat you have always been Maxifuckanus?
No doubt you are.
I found someone almost as bad as you on Amazon, an anonymous stooge going by Suetonius.
A real cunt this one is. I bet you two would get along great!
HAPPY NEW YEAR Twatman!!!!!!
\\][//
+++
You asked in a malframed manner if I was "still the same old twat"? Have you stopped sexually abusing your children?
Suetonius is not me. I don't play on Amazon. If he were me, my blog would have claimed credit by now by virtue of me re-purposing my words on my blog, such is the nature of my writer's ego.
Awhile ago (months), idle curiosity had me visit your blog and notice a re-purposing to your blog of some Amazon comments. Followed them there. Jump around several dozens of pages of comments. Noticed that what rationality you could exhibit took very quickly a backseat to emotional flame wars and trolling.
I inherited another blog over the summer. Was a little bit of a time suck in maintaining. Trump's election knocked the wind out of me. I'm not a regular participant anywhere anymore, but I am a regular lurker on Facebook. Trump trolling has increased.
Thanks for thinking of me.
// MCB
Post a Comment