Show All Parts / Hide All Parts
Rabbit-hole warning! Re-purposes discussions on Truth & Shadows that were of interest to me, even though I was in exile. Sometimes comments were authored by me even knowing that they might never be published until now.
Part 4: What Happened While I Was on T&S Vacation
{mcb: Several new T&S Participants appear in this section. Their words are copied for fair-use for the purposes of education and commentary. I do not take credit or responsibility for their words. Re-publication of their words here does not make them my aliases. Herr der Elf and Señor el Once are my aliases.}
x165 T&S Newcomers : Dr. Wood is the only topic in this article which is subjected to special rules
2015-03-21
{mcb: Although re-posted here, these are not my writings; those were not my aliases. Collected here becaue of their interesting theme.}
Sitting_Duck
March 17, 2015 at 12:46 pm
I see I’ve stumbled upon another disinformation site masquerading as a forum of people looking for and discussing the “truth”.
It’s very telling that Dr. Wood (not Woods) is the only topic in this article which is subjected to special rules about what can and can’t be discussed. If you’ve uncovered some evidence that refutes the evidence and CONCLUSION (not theory) that that evidence supports – then present it as an introduction as to WHY the topic of Dr. Wood is being censored. Else, don’t present yourself as someone who’s first loyalty is to the truth.
“Her work doesn’t fit with other theories” is a woefully insufficient explanation.
veritytwo
March 17, 2015 at 1:53 pm
Mercy! Another one. The BS meter needle has already been bent on the top peg past any kind of redemption. You’re way late in the game to be pushing Dr. Judy Woo Woo nukie Doo Doo
Craig McKee
March 17, 2015 at 1:54 pm
The topic of Judy Wood has not been censored on this site as a whole (I did a post on her in 2012 that features hundreds of comments). But I have prohibited it on certain comment threads because there are people who contribute here who would derail any discussion by raising the DEW issue. It is my right as the creator of this blog to stop that from repeatedly happening. I don’t see the benefits of the Truth Movement fighting over Wood’s non-theory since we all agree that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down in some type of demolition. I feel the same way about the mini-nuke position. Anyone who supports Wood or the nuke theory is welcome to publish articles on their own blog or any other site that is open to that.
Sitting_Duck
March 18, 2015 at 12:04 pm
Thanks for the reply.
I respect your right to run the blog as you see fit and for you allowing me to criticize it. I was pointed here by a member of the truth movement. We were engaging on a different site and he was unable to debunk the fact that Dr. Wood’s evidence refutes traditional CD.
He wanted me to come here and debate because he thought I would find more formidable opponents here. But, it appears the book is closed on Dr. Wood’s work here.
I have read through several dozen comments critical of Dr. Wood – both here and on the one other article (for which comments are closed) but did not find anything compelling enough for me to dismiss her evidence.
I would be grateful, and I would consider my time here well spent, if you could provide the most compelling argument / evidence that convinced you that Dr. Wood should be dismissed or at least diminished.
I vow not to use this as a launching pad for a debate on Dr. Wood’s work. Thanks in advance for anything you care to offer.
I seek the truth, peace.
Nikogriego
March 18, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Have you checked out the link to Dr. Gregory Jenkins’ paper on the implausibility of DEW being used on Nine Eleven? I think you will find the arguments and science irrefutable.
Nikogriego
March 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Have you ever investigated the amount of energy required to “dustify” steel? And the fact is, as I saw myself when I was at the site in 2001, there was a tremendous amount of steel, not “dustified,” that was being carted away by hundreds of trucks, so the premise that all the steel was turned to dust is simply wrong.
Why not read this article about the amount of energy required, and other issues, with DEWs such that it is impossible for that technology to have been used. And I love that Judy Wood supporters resort to the description of all others who do not believe in the DEW hypothesis as “disinfomation” when clearly Wood’s hypothesis itself is provably disinformation designed to discredit the movement to find truth, and cause it to be ridiculed by others not willing to do a little independent research.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
deboldt
March 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Here is my strategy: I try not to stay wedded to any one interpretation of the cause of the 9/11 events, including some of what I regard as likely ones, like controlled demolition of 1, 2, &7. Most people have been scared off of even looking at the evidence. What I do instead is question the biggest and most improbable conspiracy theory of all–that 19 guys with box cutters brought the greatest security system in the modern world to its knees. I simply ask if my interlocutor buys the Official 9/11 Report. That usually gets them. No rational person can possibly buy the conclusions of the Report. Then I ask them to support a new investigation by a truly independent, powerful, unbiased committee. No honest person can refuse that. I especially try to push this idea at any appropriate opportunity I find to comment on the writings of my progressive heroes who ought to know better. Folks like, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glen Greenwald, Michael Moore, Chris Hedges, etc. These folks have to understand that we will support them if they at least call for an investigation.
Look up “Gaslighting” sometime. We have a whole society that has been gaslighted with regards to 9/11!
Nikogriego
March 17, 2015 at 3:17 pm
I agree with that, except that WTC7 is so obvious that it is hard not to use it. Here is a statement, actually written by Paul Craig Roberts, along the lines of what you wrote, that I often use:
“Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.
In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.
The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free-fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.”
Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conspiracy-Theory-by-paul-craig-roberts-110620-169.html
deboldt
March 17, 2015 at 3:26 pm
I really admire Paul Craig Roberts. I’ll bet he has paid a price for his candor.
Sitting_Duck
March 21, 2015 at 10:17 am
Yes I’ve looked at this. And I promised the owner of this blog that I would not launch into a debate about Dr. Wood’s research.
I will say this, I have looked at Dr. Jenkin’s attempt to discredit Dr. Wood’s research. It follows the same pattern of all the other attempts I’ve seen to debunk her work. Step 1. Ignore the salient point of Dr. Wood’s research: There is evidence that clearly refutes the possibility that either a gravitational collapse or conventional CD were responsible for the destruction of the towers. Step 2. Misdirect. Get folks caught up in doing calculations that are irrelevant to the evidence and conclusion supported by Dr. Wood’s work. Step 3. Dig in and become indignant.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that Alex Jones and his crew have been part of this PsyOp since the beginning. “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” – V.I. Lenin.
Peace and Truth.
hybridrogue1
March 21, 2015 at 11:03 am
“I will say this, I have looked at Dr. Jenkin’s attempt to discredit Dr. Wood’s research. It follows the same pattern of all the other attempts I’ve seen to debunk her work…. 2. Misdirect. Get folks caught up in doing calculations that are irrelevant to the evidence and conclusion supported by Dr. Wood’s work.”~Sitting_Duck
. . . . . . .
Dr. Jenkins, calculations are hardly “irrelevant to the evidence”. They in fact explain the physics of 9/11 by the evidence at hand. The problem is that you don’t grasp physics well enough to understand Jenkins’ explanations. He has addressed all of Wood’s assertions and shown the blundering errors of her “non-conclusions”.
As I have pointed out before Mr Duck, the best rebuke to Wood’s pseudoscience is the full grasp of the physics of chemical explosive demolition. As I have directed you to that information posted on my blog, I won’t repeat it here for the umpteenth time.
\\][//
Sitting_Duck
March 21, 2015 at 1:10 pm
I don’t believe you’ve ever pointed me personally to information on your blog regarding the physics of chemical explosive demolition. You took the the time to pen two paragraphs of ad hominem attacks against Dr. Wood and myself, surely posting a link is not an arduous task by comparison.
Good NLP, though – attempting to de-credential Dr. Wood for example.
hybridrogue1
March 21, 2015 at 7:07 pm
Here you go Mr Duck;
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/
\\][//
x166 T&S Participants : wrong approach
2015-03-29
ruffadam
March 28, 2015 at 9:15 pm
In my opinion the truth movement in general and AE911TRUTH in particular are taking the absolute wrong approach in their attempts to get justice and truth for 9/11. This effort to get the AIA board to vote on this resolution is just the latest of many examples of the wrong approach in action.
So what will happen with this vote? Let’s evaluate it. If the resolution were passed, which it definitely will not be, what does it mean for our goal of justice for 9/11? It would mean that even more architects are saying “hey there is a problem with the way building 7 came down”. It would mean those architects and probably the entire AIA organization would be attacked and ridiculed as crack pots and every attempt in the world would be made to silence them, discredit them, or even eliminate them. OK but so what if they did pass the resolution? We already have architects and engineers, a lot of them, saying it was blown up with explosives, which it was, but them saying this has not led to justice has it? No it hasn’t led to justice. So why hasn’t it let to justice? This is the crux of the issue, why haven’t the truth movements efforts over 14+ years led to justice? BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN THE WRONG APPROACH!
This resolution is the best possible example of the wrong approach. Essentially this resolution is saying hey we need these “official guys” at AIA to support our movement because only when these “official guys” say there is a problem with building 7 will the rest of the world listen. FALSE!!! Totally false premise and totally counterproductive. Why you might ask? Well the answer is simple and right in your face. The reason the “official guys” will not approve this resolution and the reason it would not matter if they did is because it was the “official guys” that did the crime in the first damn place! Isn’t that obvious to everyone at this point that the entire establishment is in on the crime up to it’s eyeballs? Isn’t it obvious that the AIA board full of “official guys” intentionally ignored their responsibility to expose the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC buildings? Haven’t they already shirked their responsibility for 14+ years now? Just like the MSM shirked their responsibility to tell the truth for 14+ years. Just like the entire government of the United States has treasonously shirked their responsibility to investigate and tell the truth about 9/11 for 14+ years? When is the truth movement going to “get it” that the “official guys” are the problem not the solution?
Going to the “official guys” like the AIA board with our hats in our hands and saying “hey will you guys support us in exposing the fact that you all totally shirked your responsibility, as architects and as human beings, to expose the truth about the WTC demolitions?” “Please guys will you support us and show the world what establishment shills and pigs you really are?” “Pretty please with sugar on top.” My God man it really makes me sick. When in the hell is the truth movement going to “get it”? The media isn’t going to investigate or report the truth! The AIA isn’t going to admit that they knew all along that the WTC was blown up. The government isn’t going to even survive if it admits any part of it’s roll in perpetrating 9/11 so they sure as hell will NEVER help us. In fact all the groups I just mentioned have a vested interest in preventing the truth of their complicity and negligence from coming out!
We are NEVER going to make any real progress until we face the truth about what it really is we are up against here. We are up against the entire establishment including the AIA board. They will fight against us tooth and nail because their very survival depends on it. Have any of you in the truth movement ever really considered what would have to happen for 9/11 justice to even occur? The entire government of the United States would have to be removed from office and replaced somehow without the country collapsing into anarchy. Many officials would have to be prosecuted for treason up to and including the president(s) that have presided over the cover-up and crime itself. The entire banking system would have to be dismantled and a new system would have to be put in place and many banking elites would have to be prosecuted. The entire MSM would have to be dissolved and many of it’s controllers prosecuted. The whole legal system would have to be radically changed and most of it’s top judges and AG’s would have to be prosecuted for misprision of treason. In short people the whole damn thing has to come crashing down before we will see justice for 9/11.
In other words we have to have a full blown revolution to get justice for 9/11. Just get that straight in your mind and think about that and then ask yourself if we as a movement are pursuing the right strategy with efforts like this one. Hell ask yourself if you even want justice for 9/11 considering the monumental consequences of actually getting it.
My strategy is simple but Jim Garrison said it for me a long time ago. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall!”
ruffadam
March 28, 2015 at 9:22 pm
We are hacking at the small branches instead of taking an axe to the trunk and that is why we have failed for 14+ years.
hybridrogue1
March 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Amen Adam, you nailed it.
A.Wright
March 29, 2015 at 4:43 am
@ruffadam A big thank you to Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, Dave Von Kleist, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Dylan Avery, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage, Keith Dewdney, Fran Shure, Jesse Ventura, Barbara Honegger, Rebekah Roth, Alex Jones, and any others I’ve forgotten to mention. Good job.
hybridrogue1
March 29, 2015 at 8:09 am
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
~John F. Kennedy
\\][//
fremo
March 29, 2015 at 3:10 am
the heavens have already fallen. thats what 911 was. free fall bang bang . the heavens falling.
Atlanta may well end in epic fail; its a known known the guns will be out. But AE are at least putting it to them. Giving those AIA fucks a bit of a go. I live a long way away from the nuts and bolts of any chance of seeing a trunk, let alone taking a swipe at it. I take my hat off to AE, but cannot disagree with adam’s overall….
x167 hybridrogue1 : comfortable with my position
2015-04-04
hybridrogue1
2015-04-04
Some of the readers/commentators here do not seem to understand what I have already said. So I will make it clear one more time;
I am comfortable with my position and the conclusions I have come to on these matters.
All of these issues have been argued over too many times already.
Others are free to come to any conclusions that they feel to be reasonable. And they can express such positions as they will. Although I will remark that I see many instances that I do not find at all reasonable.
It is unreasonable to insist that only their “experts” are legitimate, especially when such experts have been found lacking. My critics may argue that this is a two way street, claiming they have found a lack in the experts I find viable. But these are arguments already made and acknowledged.
I let all concerned stand their ground. I am now speaking to the general readership of this blog. I consider them the important audience here. I am happy to let the candid world decide who is right and who is wrong in these matters.
\\][//
x168 T&S Participants : pointless to argue about things that we cannot know for certain
2015-04-22
dji9424
April 22, 2015 at 9:29 pm
It’s unfortunate this commentary is degenerating into speculations about Mrs. Roth, implying that somehow she is less than genuine and can be readily dismissed because she has declined to dialogue about others’ positions for which she disagrees. Seriously, do you actually think that resolution of any differences would result from such an exercise? I sincerely doubt it, not unless there was iron-clad, irrefutable information and we all know there is nothing of the sort.
Simply stated, I believe Mrs. Roth’s position is the pieces add up, namely that the planes were taken over by remote control (FTS), flown to a non-public air base, flight crew/passengers were selected to make calls and eliminated once the message was communicated. It’s certainly plausible, even though there are potential time discrepancies with the official time of the calls and the estimated flight times from the flight calculator software.
I do not pretend to know Mrs. Roth’s full position but I have heard her state in several interviews that she is not willing to discuss ideas that the airline crews were complicit, that the planes never took off, that the flight attendants’ voices were “morphed”, that all crew and passengers were loaded onto one plane, etc. I can only surmise that she is unwilling to discuss these ideas because they reflect poorly on the airline pilots and crews and she has not known anyone in the industry she worked in for 30 years to be less than professional, and by doing so, she would be extremely disrespectful. I can respect such a position and am willing to leave it at that.
Lastly, I will state that we will never know all the details of how it was done so it is pointless to argue about things that we cannot know for certain. Furthermore, anyone that refuses to engage in such discussions should not be dismissed out of hand. Just because they do not want to debate an issue does not mean they are mistaken, all it may mean is they do not see it accomplishing anything worthwhile.
hybridrogue1
April 23, 2015 at 9:00 am
“Furthermore, anyone that refuses to engage in such discussions should not be dismissed out of hand. Just because they do not want to debate an issue does not mean they are mistaken, all it may mean is they do not see it accomplishing anything worthwhile.”~dji9424
It is my opinion that when someone refuses to engage in such discussions, it most likely means is they do not see it accomplishing their agenda.
In my view it is the responsibility of someone who has enjoyed uncritical promotion, to step forward and address criticisms and questions. I see no reason whatsoever to trust Roth in anyway on anything she has said at this point.
\\][//
dji9424
April 23, 2015 at 11:05 am
Thank you to those who responded to my comment, I understand your position(s). The most troubling thing for me is this: How does anyone determine what is good (reliable, truthful) information from what is not? Are the FBI reports 100% reliable? I sincerely doubt it given their history for badgering people about what they saw with their own eyes (TWA 800 is just one example). So then, what do you do with their reports? If you trust them to be accurate and then find out after further examination that something does not add up, where does that leave you in your investigation?
I contend that is exactly what their reports are designed to accomplish, i.e. a coherent picture of what actually happened cannot be put together without throwing out some of the “official” information. But have you disregarded the right information? Without indisputable forensic evidence to support your hypothesis, whatever you postulate can easily be made to look foolish by those in the know.
When it comes down to it, all we have is evidence of a questionable nature; however, given the manner of the official investigation(s) and their implausible conclusions, we can be safe in saying the official story is a pack of lies. Does that mean we should try to ferret out what is true from what is false? Sad to say, that is what the perpetrators are happy to see us do because they know it will never be fruitful, at least not in the sense of bringing everyone involved to justice. It is quite depressing to think that even with rock solid evidence against anyone involved, who could you count on to fairly try the case? (Look at the farcical trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and what was offered as his “defense”,)
I certainly don’t want to discourage anyone from trying to expose what happened but realistically the best we can hope for is for widespread public awareness of the corrupt nature of what is purported to be our government.
hybridrogue1
April 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm
dji9424,
I appreciate the points made in your comment. However, there is forensic evidence and visual evidence in the 9/11 case that can be analysed and firm conclusions drawn.
For example, see the following:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
dji9424
April 23, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Thanks for the link. Just so you know, I was confining my thoughts to what Mrs. Roth was primarily investigating, i.e. what happened to the planes and the passengers.
I believe her explanation is quite plausible, but I caution everyone to be careful about being absolutely adamant about any position because you leave yourself wide open to challenges. Mrs. Roth may have a lot of things right, but if someone can demonstrate that something she thought was absolutely true is not, then her entire explanation may be questioned.
Unfortunately, the investigative game is not fair, and anyone that steps into the fray will quickly realize that you are on your own when it comes to confirming information.
hybridrogue1
April 23, 2015 at 1:44 pm
Oh, I’m sorry dji9424, I am taking Mrs Roth at her word that she has written a novel.
I’m not interested in fiction at this time.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 23, 2015 at 1:01 pm
Also dji9424, there is a huge selection of articles on this very site that you can browse through for solid analysis and information, in particular articles on the event at the Pentagon.
\\][//
dji9424
April 23, 2015 at 5:29 pm
If anyone really wants to know what she thinks, ask her directly, via her website. She has offered to answer any questions or provide the information she is using to support her position. I believe she is genuinely offering to do just what she says, regardless of what anyone may infer from her declination to participate in this blog’s discussion.
I commend Mr. Zarembka for speaking with her directly, although I am saddened to say I cannot unequivocally support him for publishing his points of contention on this blog, not unless he informed her of his intentions to do so when he first spoke with her. Frankly, Mrs. Roth may not have fully appreciated just how seriously 9/11 information and analysis is evaluated by other independent researchers and thus her responses may have been too glib – I’m sure she now knows how high a standard has been set. It’s so ironic that the government does not have to abide by the same standard.
As I have previously said, her explanation of what happened to the commercial passenger planes is plausible, even though there are pieces that may not perfectly mesh. But given the FBI’s history in (mis)handling evidence in many other significant cases, I am more inclined to believe the circumstantial case that Mrs. Roth has assembled over the veracity of the FBI’s reports. It’s a sad commentary on what masquerades as our federal governmental investigative agency and what makes any re-investigative work so problematic.
Finally, I’m not so much interested in the “how” as I am in the “who” and given the pathetic whitewash investigation conducted by our(?) government, it’s clear they are determined not to tell us who was actually involved. That is the main contribution of Mrs. Roth’s book as I see it, she is not afraid to name the people and corporations she found in her investigation. Although she may not have been the first to do so and cloaked it behind the historical novel genre, she has not been afraid to state what she believes to be true in all the interviews she has given to date and I commend her for it. Furthermore, if her book is reaching people beyond the typical 9/11 research groups, she will have made a significant contribution.
ruffadam
April 23, 2015 at 8:31 pm
Well I offered some possible explanations above to resolve some of the time discrepancies so those are not my major issue at this point. I could see those being ironed out in a discussion. In fact if Roth simply said you know the call times and departure arrival times can’t be trusted as accurate because the only source for those times is the government then I would have to say “you know what Rebekah I can’t argue with that” and the issue would be resolved as far as I am concerned.
My issue now is the gut feeling I get when someone refuses to discuss issues and throws up the stone wall of silence. My gut tells me not to trust that person. My gut is usually right. I did try to contact her by the way and sent a very nice e-mail which she has not replied to. So to suggest that we are not doing enough to reach out to her is not fair. Paul’s article should be enough to prompt a conversation at least. If not that then Craig’s invitation to discuss it should be enough. Added to that is my invitation. So we have reached out to her.
This scenario is playing out just like others have in the past.
Kevin Ryan – stone wall of silence
David Chandler – stone wall of silence
Barbara Honegger – stone wall of silence
Consensus panel – stone wall of silence
911Blogger – stone wall of silence
Ken Doc – stone wall of silence
I am just tired of this BS that we have to go begging people to discuss their 9/11 position or research. I feel at this point that if you can’t face questions about your work then maybe there is something wrong with it.
x169 T&S Participants : this being a fools errand
2015-05-25
ruffadam
May 19, 2015 at 6:29 am
I hate it that I was right about this being a fools errand. I know that we as a movement need to vastly improve our strategy and plan of action. These “fools errands” are getting us nowhere really fast and I submit it is time to change things in a big way or simply quit. I for one will no longer be limited in my actions by the “consensus” of the group consciousness. I am no longer going to stand on a corner with a damn sign that says “investigate 9/11? or “Google Building 7? because it is impotence at this stage. We either put on our big boy shoes and start kicking some ass (figuratively speaking) or we pack up our marbles and go home. There isn’t time left to do this the slow as molasses in winter time way. We need to grow up as activists and admit what doesn’t work and start taking actions that do work.
hybridrogue1
May 21, 2015 at 6:32 pm
We are waiting for you Adam! Don’t be late, it’s YOUR party!!!!
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/moon-landing-hoax/
\\][//
Craig McKee
May 21, 2015 at 6:44 pm
There will undoubtedly be a similar discussion right here at some point, when I get around to writing about this subject. And I agree with Adam.
hybridrogue1
May 21, 2015 at 6:59 pm
“And I agree with Adam.”
Yup I know Craig. Tweechizone!!
\\][//
Craig McKee
May 21, 2015 at 7:36 pm
And the little clip on your blog about computer simulating the lighting makes more than one reference to “the conspiracy theories.” Not a point in its favor (although this is admittedly not the substance of the piece).
hybridrogue1
May 21, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Yea, I know you are sensitive to the term Craig, but some people see the moon hoax as a ‘conspiracy theory’. There are some wacky conspiracy theories!
I have argued against them myself, the bullshit from Shack about video fakery, the nonesense from Judy Wood, the nuking the WTC. As far as I am concerned those are all pseudoscience nonsense.
And I know you’re not convinced of that yourself.
That is why I am not interested in making those arguments here anymore.
But if you want to post on HR1blog, go ahead, I will look for it and approve your commentary.
I am interested in reading what you think is persuasive evidence, just like I am interested in what Adam thinks is.
\\][//
Craig McKee
May 21, 2015 at 7:55 pm
I have no problem with arguing against nukes at the WTC or Judy Wood’s DEW – both of which I do not agree with (so to imply that I am undecided on those would not be accurate). I do, however, feel that excessive “debunking” ends up giving disinformation the power to dominate the discourse. But beyond that, I believe that those who challenge officials stories of all kinds should never use the language of those who would seek to marginalize us.
hybridrogue1
May 21, 2015 at 8:15 pm
“I believe that those who challenge officials stories of all kinds should never use the language of those who would seek to marginalize us.”
I do to Craig, but not everyone is as tuned into the massive conditioning played on the people, that does not mean they are irrational in their analysis.
I don’t like the CT jibe anymore than anyone else here, I understand the psychology of using such doublespeak.
But the analysis of the lighting is another matter isn’t it?
I wasn’t entirely sure of your opinions on the nukes and DEW issue. I try to keep up with all of this, but I am keeping up with a lot of things, just like all of us.
But I am glad you have firmed up your position on those issues.
Getting back the moon hoax thing, I would really like to hear a persuasive argument put to it!
I’ve never been on the moon, I don’t know for absolute certain that those landings took place – but I haven’t seen an alternative that convinces me. And now that there are satellite images of the sites coming in… well…
Sure, it could be an ongoing coverup. Those are certainly going on. The recent bin Laden limited hangout by Hersh is a good reminder of that. But those are words. It is a larger program to continue generating fake imagery.
So if you have an argument for the moon hoax that you think is solid, you are invited to make it on my blog.
\\][//
Jimbo
May 23, 2015 at 11:55 am
“Getting back the moon hoax thing, I would really like to hear a persuasive argument put to it!”
Dave McGowan has done a brilliant and hilarious job of showing how we never went to the moon in “Wagging the Moondoggie.” He shows that moon rocks have been faked and that key documents are missing but at the core of his argument is that there was technology so advanced back then like batteries that could cool, heat and drive space buggies and yet today we still don’t have such good batteries. McGowan offers up a plethora of startling examples that has me nearly convinced. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html
hybridrogue1
May 23, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Sorry Jimbo, but I simply cannot stand to read McGowan yap about his personal life and then throw in a few tidbits of what he thinks are proofs of his bizarre theories.
I suffered through his Laural Canyon bullshit enough to catch the drift of what a dolt this sucker is.
It’s like Fetzer, for me if Fetzer says it, it is automatically bullshit. Same with McGowan.
Now, if someone were able to take what McGowan is saying and give a no nonsense presentation of just the facts, without all the hohoho & colored balloons provided by the McGowan clown I would appreciate that.
\\][//
Craig McKee
May 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Automatically bullshit? Wow. This is an usual lapse on your part, HR. Discounting any information because you don’t like the source is not logical. Information stands or falls on its own merits.
hybridrogue1
May 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm
“Discounting any information because you don’t like the source is not logical.”
Ii is not illogical when I have found the source to be consistently unreliable. The choice of what each of us finds to be valid or not is a right we all have in common.
There are many diverse sources of information to chose from. Like I said, I read McGowan’s, Laurel Canyon series, I found it utterly ludicrous. I don’t find him a clear thinker, I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 23, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Has it ever occurred to anybody that Dave McGowan is a satirist and his whole shtick is spoof blended in with an overdose of daily autobiography?
Take the film Dark Side of the Moon, as an example. It is a spoof, and yet the Moon Hoax crew took it as serious.
\\][//
Craig McKee
May 23, 2015 at 4:25 pm
No. No one who has read his stuff would think that. And I have a SERIOUS problem with your reference to the “Moon Hoax crew.” This is exactly the kind of thing a debunker would say to anyone engaged in conspiracy research. You might as well call them conspiracy nuts.
I’ve seen many people fooled by satirical articles, but that has nothing to do with whether they are correct in their beliefs or not.
x170 Herr der Elf : My T&S Time-Out
2015-06-11
{mcb: "Herr der Elf" is an old alias of mine, but never used on Truth & Shadows. It was re-called and deployed to create subscription comments to T&S. As of 2015-09-09, no comment from Herr der Elf has made it out of moderation, some of that on purpose by including three URLs. This comment was never published.}
2015-06-11
2015-06-11
Herr der Elf
I've been using my time-out from T&S for many purposes. One such endeavor -- at a very low priority and still incomplete -- has been some academic research at my local institution of higher education into the state of weapons technology leading up to 2001, particularly as it relates to my hobby-horse. I've already gathered information from over 100 technical articles from the lead-in decade. To give me a better grasp of fundamentals, I've patiently read several highly technical books cover-to-cover, and several others are checked out and to be read soon... when I get around to it.
Others in this discussion above brought up Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood, not always in a good light and filled with much ignorance. This applies to both their supporters and detractors. Everything else weighing in its favor, a poorly argued case can still lose the argument.
My opinion: Real aircraft hit the towers. Period. All it should take to convince honest and open-minded no-planers of this is the many images of the landing gear, some taken before either tower was deciminated. The ones I like the best are Figure 9-123 from NIST NCSTAR 1-2B and also a different perspective of same damage:
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict1.jpg
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict7.jpg
The two pictures show lying on the ground a portion of an aircraft wheel assembly embedded in a wall assembly that had been ripped out from the matching and still-smoking exit hole on one tower (towers still standing.) Very hard to fake. Ten differet reports exist of landing gear being found: on Vessey Street, West Street, in a parking lot, in a Jacuzzi, on top of a woman, Rector Street. I've done the physics math and proven at least to myself that pieces of the landing gear could have "gone the distance" to get to Park Place (roof) and then Church & Murray. [Goal achieved with an exit velocity of 122 mph, after being reduced from the impact velocity for +400 mph.]
On top of this, those like Rich Hall or his fan, Dr. Fetzer, who promote things like holograms completely misconstrue the technology, its limitations (even today), and purposely & disingenously malframe the radar data. The latter by itself demonstrates disinformation in its purest form.
So, real aircaft.
Real aircraft, however, does not have to equate to the alleged commercial aircraft.
This is where some of Dr. Fetzer's earlier work comes into play ("pods on planes") as well as concepts from Dr. Wood (DEW). From my recent research, many articles about DEW prior to 2001 talk about the practicality and high likelihood of mounting DEW devices on aircraft!!!
For the sake of discussion, let's say that the towers were built redundantly solid (as designed), such that a comparatively light aircraft might just in part bounce off, in part decimate itself (ala the Sandia F4 crash videos), and in part pass through like a pencil through a mesh screen (as designed), and thereby not create sufficient damage to the structure to make plausible the "initiation of collapse." A risk known at the onset and one where steps could be taken in the planning and execution to mitigate.
Also for the sake of discussion, let's say that the no-planer's have a point that the crash physics is a bit hokey with the planes entering too easily, too completely into the towers. And remember that the official story has never definitely mapped serial numbers of plane parts found in NYC to the alleged commercial aircraft. It is a deliberate black hole.
The deviant point here is that DEW "pods on planes" could account for these anomalies. They could have softened the way somewhat in the entrance holes. Many different perspectives shows an anomalous flash on the towers' face prior to impact.
As an aside, my research into DEW of that era convinces me (again) that DEW from space could not have achieved the decimation of the towers. The power source was typically chemical-base, and would require massive amounts; not trivial to get into space. Optics from space-to-ground further compounds being able to get sufficient energy per square surface area to do the decimation deed. In all of the Star Wars testing of DEW from ground-based systems, they "cheated" in the sense that they aimed a tight beam (small surface area, lots of energy per square inch) at "explosive" areas of their targets, e.g., fuel tanks or explosive payloads. Such cheating wasn't available in the towers, thereby making astronomical the source of power to account for the observed pulverization over many orders of magnitude larger surface area. The observed decimation was not tippy-top down as would be expected from space-based DEW. (It initiated 20 some floors within the tower.)
Dr. Wood's PhD should have been able to calculate ball-park estimates to prove (or disprove) applicability and practicality. Missing in action. Her very shoddy research into nuclear sources for her DEW elements mounted within the towers is a glaring deficiency.
Despite me shooting down Dr. Fetzer's work (e.g., holograms) and Dr. Wood's work (e.g., beams from space), doesn't mean that such sleight of hand disinfo detours into inapplicable space isn't masking tangential nuggets of truth from their work.
For my loyal fans, my incomplete research has yet to dismount me from my hobby-horse, although it has been raising some doubts. So far, I attribute this to my research being limited to PUBLIC information and just the boarded-up entrance to what is a very deep CLASSIFIED rabbit-hole.
Before either of my two main T&S detractors chimes in, don't. I repeat, DO NOT!
[*] The discussion has run its course; a new T&S article already has an active discussion.
[*] They've already had their say (over many months), with nary a word edgewise from me.
[*] This isn't aimed at them, and doesn't disagree with their views (e.g., "real aircraft but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft.")
[*] Their "I agree" or "me-too-ism" isn't sought. I do not desire engagement with them.
//
x171 Lilaleo : everyone seems to have more of a problem with you than you have with them
2013-11-22
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
November 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm
“I think Scott has more of a problem with me, than I do with him.”
Willy,
If I may say as a friendly note, everyone seems to have more of a problem with you than you have with them. I am not even gonna go in to why I feel this may be so, because I sense that you already know… And, as you have expressed on a few occasions in the past, you don’t really “give a shit” about what people think about you… :-]]
So, when you adopt a tone deaf argumentative persona and ignore people’s reactions to (mostly) your language, and you don’t give a shit, It just creates a cycle of feedback inhibition that gets out of hand on hot topic discussions. Especially with people who have steadfast with their convictions and don’t easily get intimidated by “language”.
On a side note, I did get a notification email this morning when you posted your JFK article(s). So, seems like new post notifications seem to be working, but comment posting notifications don’t.
And yes, I do stop by occasionally to sniff around, but haven’t had much time lately to participate in any discussions.
Until next time, take care.
x172 Maxwell Bridges : discussing the ongoing time-out
2015-06-16
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Craig McKee wrote:
Dear Mr. Bridges,
So I gather you would like to resume posting comments on Truth and Shadows?
There are some issues I would like to address with you before I decide whether to permit this. However, this will have to wait for a week or so because I am up against a couple of deadlines - one for AE and another that actually pays.
I will tell you this, however. I have been enjoying the comment streams in recent weeks because more resemble conversations than many that went before. This is achieved at least partly because of the fact that comments have generally been not longer than 350 words or so. These relatively short comments allow for much more back and forth and make it easier and more pleasant for the reader to make sense of. Your last comment was about 1,000 words, and you've had others that go as high as 3,000. This kills the conversation, without me even addressing what the comment is about. This a whole other subject.
I will pick this up with you again as soon as I have met my two pressing deadlines.
Craig
Dear Mr. McKee,
So I gather you would like to resume posting comments on Truth and Shadows? More than anything, I wanted to be able to subscribe to the discussions, but you did not re-enable this with my old alias. Subscription mission accomplished. Whether or not you take me off of moderation or desire me to assure at least 3 links in my comments to force them into the moderation queue for your review are other questions. I'm patient, and will save and later re-publish my words regardless. Although my last comment was 1,000 words, you're probably not moderating my comment from an actual view of the discussion in context, but from a queue of out-of-context comments awaiting your approval (or even your email inbox). Context ought to make a difference in your assessment. That comment was placed on a thread whose conversation had already stopped and the participants moved on. My comments were very much on-topic and researched.
You wrote:
I don't do Twitter, Mr. McKee. Although you say long postings are a conversation stopper, I say that they are easier to skip over or for you to moderate. 1,000 words was what I had to say after much contemplation, review, editing, and revision, whether in a single comment or multi-part comments posted within seconds of one another verging on "forum flooding". If my detractors are going to get thrown into a hyped, over-reacting tizzy at the sight of one comment, what are they going to do when I blast relevant chunks of my bigger message as lots of little comments across the blog? I'm trying not to enrage them.Moreover, my long postings make valid points. They hold participants accountable for their words. I take time to compose my comments and don't post until finished, which, with interruptions, could take more than a couple calendar days and generate multiple versions. Such thought and contemplation invested in a single comment to your blog ought to be encouraged. The length of my comments isn't the issue. The issue is how my detractors engage me. Without me as a target to wind up these last months, participation trends are still evident and point to others as the bad apples.
In movies and fiction -- and blog discussions --, conflict breeds interest. This maybe explains why you tolerate Mr. HR and Mr. RA to engage Mr. AW... with their trademark surly, shoot-from-the-hips and eye-poking back-hands. Worse is the discussion itself! Talk about carousel rides!
++++
Not too long ago, you revealed oh-so-briefly your views, Mr. McKee. Now you are firmly in the camp that nuclear weapons and DEW weren't involved, no? Obviously, I would be curious about the evidence and analysis that convinced you, as well as the perceived flaws in my work that then didn't convince you.
Why don't just you and I have a Jefferson-Franklin style conversation, something that we'll both ultimately publish? You could interview me and ask all sorts of questions. [Joke] "Herr der Elf, you seem to be the sole duped-useful idiot championing nuclear weapons were used on 9/11. Why? What evidence do you have?" [/Joke] I'll respond to the questions in the batch, then you can ask another batch of question. You could debate me and point out flaws in my position, and I vice versa.
You and I would be doing a great service to the 9/11 Truth Movement and world, if we could hash this out as reasonable, rational, articulate adults without the interference of agents... at least until it gets published and you open it up for comments.
Convince me or let me convince you. I'll even share my raw research with you obtained recently from my T&S time-out about DEW in the era leading up to 9/11 to help you get a leg up in asking intelligent questions and defending your beliefs. Take down legitimately what I
champion, if you can and God bless you in your efforts!!!
IT IS TIME FOR SUCH A DISCUSSION TO TRANSPIRE !
You know it, too. You've been fence sitting and avoiding it for years. An added benefit for doing this project with me is that I look at it as my last hurrah in championing the bat-shit-crazy. Neither you nor I will have to do it again. This could be the definitive word on my hobby-horse.
To you, I have a tendency to reveal too much about me in my emails. This is to underscore that I am a real person, if I haven't already demonstrated that when I conceded points and modified my beliefs when presented with convincing evidence and analysis. I would hope that you don't consider me a troll on your blog as my detractors hype in their efforts to derail ideas and conversations.
Alas, if I am a troll, I am certainly in a very different class of trolls from the Dr. Wood's supporters, the NPTers, the A.Wright's, the Albury's, the HR's, and the RA's, many of whom have been proven seriously wanting, if not dishonest and integrity-challenged, despite many fresh opportunities to rectify character deficiencies and defeat what I champion in a logical, researched, thoughtful manner.
What makes me a different kind of troll, Mr. McKee, is that I am a true believer. I am indeed a religious fanatic: fanatical about Truth with a capital T and a synonym of God. I am sincere. If I error in my beliefs, I earnestly seek correction.I have been a reasonable, consistent, well-researched, well-organized, articulate discussion participant. {mcb: snip.}
I respect you and your views, Mr. McKee. Always have. You do what I can't. Your 9/11 efforts are laudable. You and I are aligned on so many things, even most things 9/11. Nuclear DEW is the only outlier (except for sports, where I have little interest). As a writer yourself, you ought to be able to hold your own in any discussion with me. As a journalist, you ought to be able to ask appropriate questions and lead a discussion. Ultimately, you'll get to publish your edited version.
So, Mr. McKee, after your immediate commitments are met, let's you and I respectfully go toe-to-toe. Ask me questions (prefaced with your views.) Save up the exchange; publish it as a blog post at the end.
{mcb: snip.}
All the best, Mr. McKee.
// Herr der Elf, formerly Señor El Once
x173 hybridrogue1 : Maxifuck has been effectively silenced
2015-07-14
2015-07-14
July 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
I just felt it was a good time to point out how pleasant it is on the web now that Maxifuck has been effectively silenced.
Bravo!
\\][//
x174 Maxwell Bridges : aren't getting enough "fight"
{mcb: Posted but not published.}
Ah, Mr. Rogue, you're such a persistent liar. Guess you aren't getting enough "fight" from the remnants on T&S (and the "yes-men" you've recruited) that you've got to level a dig at the only opponent who bested you -- big time and with your own petards -- to see if I can be re-animated.
I'm around. I'm subscribed to T&S. Just not engaging. Hell, even Mr. McKee doesn't participate nowadays. And don't ask me why he puts more time into Facebook.
Been using my time away from participating in T&S to good effect. Thankfully my new employment is another damn good reason to avoid the time-sucking temptation of commenting. But before I landed this job, I was doing what you were incapable of doing: fair and objective research at my institutions of higher education into my hobby-horse themes.
You would find the book "The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Future Wares Will Be Fought" by Doug Beason, Ph.D. 2005 an interesting read.
My research is incomplete but far enough along that -- were I so inclined -- I could destill a new "position statement" on my hobby-horses. The fact that I can change my views based on research and analysis, proves my sincerity, humanity, and lack of disinfo agenda.
I detest the treatment of Dr. Wood and of her themes. The former because it is unprofessional and low. The latter because people echo-chamber supposed debunking points without any real research or understanding.
Proof, I suppose, of me being sincere in my search for 9/11 Truth, I could probably do now what you & Mr. Ruff were so spectacularly unable to do: debunk Dr. Wood's themes LEGITIMATELY.
My learned opinion is that the only form of directed energy weapons that might have been involved (and might not have) with 9/11 would have been associated with the crashing planes at the towers, whereby "pods on planes" and the "sudden flashes on WTC facade immediately prior to WTC planes" recorded by many camera could hint at the very real ABL (airborne lasers). If used, they would have mitigated the risk that possibly the planes would not have penetrated sufficiently into the towers to make plausible their demise.
Alas, it is one thing to sacrifice a couple of planes; quite another to sacrifice a couple of ABL system within the planes, a very costly endeavor. So even while I entertain with research the possibility of this, I don't champion it.
My research also has me debunking all forms of "beams from space" today, even if the source were actually a ground-based laser bouncing its beams off of the mirrors of satillites. It is one thing to aim a high-powered laser at the fuel tanks or explosive payload of a missile, whereby a tiny breach takes advantage of the make-up of the target. It is quite another to muster sufficient energy density over a large surface area (e.g., WTC-6 crater) without explosive payloads to achieve what was observed on 9/11.
Maybe because nuclear information is classified so heavily, my research into the public information about anything resembling nuclear DEW as I envisioned it has not been as fruitful as hoped. Hasn't been debunked, but hasn't been proven definitely, either.
Truthfully, it is the anomalies that nano-thermite (NT) can't easily explain (e.g., duration of under-rubble hot-spots, brissance) and the major holes in the data collection & analysis of supporting documents to "no-nukes" (e.g., sampling delays, small sample sets, lack of explanation into elements in the samples, etc.) that inspire me to persist in my half-hearted research, where I seem to be the lone nut-case.
These very areas are indeed where you, sir, error in your beliefs. You don't admit to the failings! NT didn't do it by itself, Dr. Jones said himself and an open-minded analysis of the evidence suggests. Yet nobody is looking into other sources. From all of your other readings & postings, I'm surprised that you can't see that the NT circus is just another propaganda/disinformation stunt.
One of the detours in my hobby-horse research was in reading a book (mid-1990's) about Psychological Operations over the years: WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Russia, etc. Written by military people about military efforts. 9/11 fits the trend-line, particularly in the realm of lessons learned (e.g., "You need to have a coordinated message on all fronts.") Funny how the official word has never varied even in the face of blatant contradictions.
But it's been nearly 14 years. My humble efforts -- if successful -- aren't going to change the world. Too much water under the damn. I've reached the point of diminishing returns. So even though I had 8 months when I had the time to really research and hone my newly aligned "position statement", to what end? Rarely can I openly discuss this with friends and neighbors. So I circumscribed my efforts smaller, and avoided time sucking destractions (like Facebook).
Be that as it may, Mr. Rogue, you should know that you were always the weaker. Not that you couldn't have been the stronger and bested me by something you might have dug up to get me to change my mind, but more important than your weak research & analysis skills, you lacked integrity, and still do. [Proven by your approach to Jimbo on T&S today.] About the only thing worthy you post is (poorly) quoted from others. Certainly, there is nothing honorable on your blog pertaining to me without your unhingement poking a reader in the eye and shooting yourself in the foot.
Take a lesson from that. Improve your tactics going forward.
//
x175 Maxwell Bridges : early stages of Alzheimer's?
{mcb: Posted but not published.}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Are you in the early stages of Alzheimer's? It appears so, and I'm sorry for you. Such a miserable way to go.
How so?
No where in my unpublished message did I state or infer that you were "a bum ... for not giving [me] voice on [your] blog." That you ascribe such to my clearly worded posting paints you either (1) a liar or (2) in age-related senility.
I made and make no such requests to have my words published on your blog.
To set the record straight, I care not one little bit about getting my words published on your blog. Not necessary.
However, since you brought it up, the very fact that you are too chicken-shit to publish my comments on your blog does illustrate from a different direction how you lack integrity, how weak your arguments, and how much you fear me in debate.
Geez, FYI and for what it's worth, I already made tons of hay on my blog in the lofty status you've bestowed on me of NOT being permitted to comment and respond on your blog. Badge of honor that dings your character. Compared to you, I have been vastly fairer on my blog in the treatment of your words with accurate quotations and links to the source, although you've never made a comment there and made no attempts either. (Again too chicken-shit to take me on directly.) Objective readers finding both our blogs will suss this out.
Despite my valid "chicken-shit" taunts, I do NOT desire publication, debate, discussion, or discourse with you. You were the one pinging me to life.
Alas, another (1) lie or (2) "senile wishful thinking" in your comment is that my unpublished message to you was in vain.
The 2005 book "The E-BOMB" by Doug Beason gives you the ammunition (and understanding) to debunk Dr. Wood legitimately.
Check it out from your local library, even if it requires an inter-library loan from an institution of higher education.
When championing Truth with sincerity, honesty, and respect, banishment can back-fire.
Do endeavor to NOT respond to this. Your readers will never be the wiser (until lazy old me one of these days possibly months from now gets around to re-purposing these words for my blog. But by then, who will care? Only the sincere seekers of Truth.)
All the best in your remaining days of lucidity, Mr. Rogue. Be happy, because for all I know at my present age more than a decade your junior, I have the beginning signs of the casualty or disease which will terminate my earthly existence.
//
x176 hybridrogue1 : written in vain yet again
2015-07-15
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/#comment-7370
Maxitwat has written me to say that I am treating Jimbo poorly on T&S. He has written to tell me what a bum I am for not giving him voice on my blog.
He has written in vain yet again.
\\][//
x177 hybridrogue1 : the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say
2015-07-15
July 16, 2015 at 2:49 am
What a dumbfuck Maxitwerp, you still do not understand the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say…like my saying you wrote to tell me I am a bum for not giving you a voice here… whining about it for a whole page of mindless verbosity … pretending it does not anger you to have no voice on the web but for your seldom viewed blog that no one gives a shit about.
No my memory is just fine toots, go gobble some more dick.
\\][//
x178 Maxwell Bridges : stop polluting your smear job on me
{mcb: Posted but not published.}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Stop polluting your despicable, vile, disinfo smear job on me with meaningful but inapplicable dribble from others!!! It's just a lame attempt to get their wisdom to rub off on you. Focus, asshole, and don't water down your efforts! As probably the one and only subscriber to this thread, I do not need the constant reminders that your wisdom isn't so wonderful, necessitating you borrowing from others.
Go fuck around on your other threads. This one should be purer in its Rogue-ian poison.
//
x179 hybridrogue1 : the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say
2015-07-16
hybridrogue1
July 16, 2015 at 2:49 am
What a dumbfuck Maxitwerp, you still do not understand the difference between quoting someone and characterizing what they say…like my saying you wrote to tell me I am a bum for not giving you a voice here… whining about it for a whole page of mindless verbosity … pretending it does not anger you to have no voice on the web but for your seldom viewed blog that no one gives a shit about.
No my memory is just fine toots, go gobble some more dick.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
July 16, 2015 at 7:46 pm
Señor El Once aka Maxitwat, etc…
2 minutes ago
“Dear Mr. Rogue,
Stop polluting your despicable, vile, disinfo smear job on me with meaningful but inapplicable dribble from others!!! It’s just a lame attempt to get their wisdom to rub off on you. Focus, asshole, and don’t water down your efforts! As probably the one and only subscriber to this thread, I do not need the constant reminders that your wisdom isn’t so wonderful, necessitating you borrowing from others.
Go fuck around on your other threads. This one should be purer in it’s Rogue-ian poison.” //
. . . .
So now this arrogant son-of-a-bitch is trying to tell me how to manage my own blog, my own threads!! He wants everything on this thread dedicated to himself only!!
Hahahahaha!!
\\][//
x180 hybridrogue1 : reminds me of Maxitwat
2015-07-26
hybridrogue1
July 26, 2015 at 6:21 pm
In his usual disingenuous manner Bill Clarke prevaricates, minces words, and plays rhetorical games on JFKfacts. Clarke’s distinction between “Classification” and “Clearance” is not only meaningless, but irrational. He slurs Fletcher Prouty, making claims that he can only backup with bullshit accusations. Bill is the one who is a liar and arrogant know-nothing when it comes to deep knowledge of covert affairs. He reminds me of Maxitwat from T&S in many ways.
\\][//
x181 Maxwell Bridges : very consistent with my online aliases
2015-07-27
{mcb: Posted but not published.}
Señor El Once
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 27, 2015 at 4:40 am
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You have the freedom to have your memory jogged in many ways. But please be careful who you equate with me. I’m very consistent with my online aliases, taking credit for them, re-publishing my efforts, etc. Bottom line is that I have been enjoying an internet hiatus; stop re-animating me.
You heard it first from “the Maxitwat” himself. I am not any those other people with whom you’ve been debating on other forums of which I know nothing. I do not like being equated with them. And based on your PR smear campaign against me, I’m sure they don’t want to be associated with me or as me, either. Don’t make stupid mistakes, asshole.
And as long as I’m tipsy from a weekend fiesta, let me say… Regardless of what others (e.g., Bill Clarke) may write, ~I~ have substantiated why I found you to be a “liar, cheat, and a weasel” in your discussions with me. Intractable you are, as well as unconvincing in your arguments and substantiation (*cough, cough*) to most of which is meant to get me to change my mind.
I am not going to waste my time following links (if they exist) to where you are having this passionate love-affair with Bill Clarke, who it seems has also pegged you a liar for reasons that I remain ignorant of. Mr. Clarke’s hobby-horse ain’t mine. And I am very much a one-trick pony and out of the picture. Don’t bring me in needlessly, to have me “me-too” my negative experience with you that builds up Mr. Clarke.
Finally, I sympathize with your problems. Once you start playing the “alias ASS-ociating” game, it is easy to get carried away. Hell, I have half-a-mind that pegs you with sockpuppets as diverse as: VerityTwo, A.Wright, and AdamRuff. And that mulit-player software you use… What’s it called? “Persona Management System? Ain’t perfect, is it? I’ll be it as bugs, like the ones that cause you to post in the wrong place and imperfectly helps you monitor the forums.
Leave me out from now one.
//
x182 hybridrogue1 : right where I want you Maxiturd, bound and shackled in the cellar with your mouth taped shut
2015-07-27
hybridrogue1
July 27, 2015 at 4:46 pm
I got you right where I want you Maxiturd, bound and shackled in the cellar with your mouth taped shut, you pathetic impotent cunt. Thanks for your latest drunken squalling whine.
\\][//
x183 Maxwell Bridges : don't give me the notion to send you emails
2015-07-27
{email}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Evidently "bound and shackled in the cellar with mouth taped shut" is the only way you can hope to "win" a discussion. Probably a variant thereof is how you like your sex with Mr. Ruff, Mr. VerityTwo, and Mr. A.Wright. I'm sure Ernie and Ruth and your kids don't approve [not of your sexual orientation but of your deviant skew.]
Clearly this email disproves your premise about my mouth being taped shut. What I've written to you on your blog (and you've left unpublished) does get published on my forums. I am not without voice. Just slow to consolidate and re-purpose. Because I am fair with your words, readers get a more accurate impression of you, if your one-sided foul rants didn't already poke them in the eye.
I know you don't want emails from me. I've held to your request, but you haven't to mine.
Stop pinging me back to life on your blogs dedicated to me or off-hand references to me on other blogs you run or participate in... unless I've written something that merits it.
Stop your speculation into alias-ASS-ociating me with others (more unwarranted pings on your blog), because they aren't me. I don't have time or inclination for such games. I'm doing you a favor by telling you this, so you aren't proven the fool. Don't give me the notion to CYBER-stalk you into those forums and tag-team with your debate-partner to really frag your ass, but good.
Shit, don't give me the notion to send you emails. I know you don't want them.
//
x184 hybridrogue1 : cunt Maxiturd stalked me through the Internet
2015-08-01
hybridrogue1
2015-08-01
For years this cunt Maxiturd stalked me through the Internet, harassing me at every website i commented on, called me a weasel and a cheat and a liar with serious intent to defame my good name, and Now he wants me to leave him “out of it”. Just as late as 2015/07/27 at 4:40 am, I got another whining complaint that poor little twatdog Max wants me to leave him alone.
Well maybe if you would shut your lying fucking mouth and stop badgering me here on my own blog I might just forget about you Bridges. But no! you have to snivel and bitch like some whining cunt – STILL harassing me. If you don’t like what you read here, you stupid motherfucker, then don’t drop by and read it! It’s that easy you silly chump!
\\][//
x185 Maxwell Bridges : a pretty big set of venues
2015-08-03
{email}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Clearly, I've been your only worthy debate opponent, which is why you feel compelled to constantly re-animate me in discussions with your antics that do little to dissuade people of my assessment of you: liar, cheater, and weasel.
Case in point, you wrote on your blog in response to my email request to stop re-animating me:
For years this cunt Maxiturd stalked me through the Internet, harassing me at every website i commented on, ...
You can't even get half-way through your first sentence -- a run-on sentence at that -- without uttering your first lie. "Every website [you] commented on" is a pretty big set of venues.
How about you list all of the websites and therein specific articles (or blog entries) where you have been active since 2012? Then using my website, where I very much OCD-style take credit for ~all~ of my internet commentary (and aliases), determine a similar list for me. [I'm such a gracious and fair fellow, I'll even let you restrict internet activities to just 2014 or 2015 to avoid busy work into those other years' analysis that undoubtedly lead to the same conclusions: you're lying about "every website".]
PSYCHIC PREDICTION: The Venn-Diagram of overlap between us will be small. Outside the overlap, we can ignore the few venues in which I participated and you didn't (e.g., Facebook), because they don't factor into your premise. However, because it's your premise, we cannot ignore the very large number of venues in which you participated and I didn't that frags you as a liar.
Case in point, I don't know the URLs, but (1) you and Adam Ruff were active this last year (?) on a psychology website attacking 9/11 conspiracies, and (2) you are presently involved in multiple JFK conspiracy discussions. Neither website (nor any specific articles contained therein) have had any comments from me whatsoever, much less comments harassing you. Failure right there, Mr. Rogue. Liar, liar.
... called me a weasel and a cheat and a liar with serious intent to defame my good name.
I still call you a weasel, a cheat, and liar -- with substantiation renewed in your recent blog comment --, but it has zero to do with any intent on my part to defame your good name (which may have never been good, for all I know and for what your track record has been.) Shit, I've given you ample fair and objective opportunities to correct the record and your ongoing behavior. You are oblivious to your own failings and continue to ding your own reputation yourself.
..., and Now he wants me to leave him "out of it". Just as late as 2015/07/27 at 4:40 am, I got another whining complaint that poor little twatdog Max wants me to leave him alone.
It was not sent at 4:40 am. It was sent at 2015-07-27 4:26 pm (MST) in response to your 10:46 am (MST) blog comment [that has the July 27, 2015 at 4:46 pm time stamp, because your blog doesn't know what time zone it is in.]
"Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large..."
Well maybe if you would shut your lying fucking mouth and stop badgering me here on my own blog I might just forget about you Bridges.
Including this message, my last two communications with you was via email. Ergo, it unravels as yet another recent bold-face lie from you that I'm "badgering [you] on [your] own blog." Email is not your blog.
If I have written lies, you have yet to identify them nor defend them as such in open debate. Quite the contrary; your accusations have been beaten back, and you've received in-your-face renewed substantiation of you being a liar, a cheat, and a weasel.
Worse still, it unravels as an ongoing cheat and weasel move from you to utter such nonsense about me allegedly badgering you when ~nothing~ from me has ever been approved for publication on your weasel blog. In other words, you can't point lurkers readers to a single instance of my participation on your blog, thereby making null-and-void any claims of such instances being badgering. [I'd give you half-credit if you can cough up the blog comment numbers of my dastardly deeds, but, alas, without publication, half-credit is still only 50% and a failing "F" in substantiating your premise.]
Furthermore, you have the technical ability to filter my emails into the trash unread and to ban me from your blog such that you won't even be aware of "another whining complaint [from] that poor little twatdog Max"... EVER AGAIN! Lurker readers might very well question why such actions weren't taken already much much earlier, particularly if my activities communicating with you were in truth so out of line.
But no! you have to snivel and bitch like some whining cunt - STILL harassing me. If you don't like what you read here, you stupid motherfucker, then don't drop by and read it! It's that easy you silly chump!
I'm subscribed. I don't have to drop-by and give you the satisfaction of +1 to your pageview count. As soon as you post and I check my email, I see it. And of course I'm going to stay subscribed, because it's under one of the two blogs that you have dedicated to me!
I was going to make you a deal, Mr. Rogue. It was: If you don't re-animate me with stupid comments about me to your lame-ass blog, then I won't make a project out of you. A project, how so? One option. I could take you up on your back-handed on-going invitations and show you what internet stalking is really about. Unfortunately for you, you won't be able to claim to others "I told you about Maxiretards cyber-stalking! SEE!" Why not? Because today a mark is put in the sand for everything that transpired in the past that already proves you a liar for claiming such about me. Anything "cyber-stalking and harrassing" by me going forward from today's mark in the sand fits into a new category and will be explained away as you having regularly badgered me into it (e.g., link to your last blog comment).
And you can bet, I'll have URLs and accurate quotations at-the-ready, and you won't.
Eh, who am I kidding? You aren't worth the trouble. I changed my mind well before finishing the text on the deal.
Nah, you can and should continue "jabbering with yourself" and raving like a lunatic to no one in particular on your blog (about me or about whomever). In fact, rather than me taking the tact of respectfully asking you to stop your re-animation efforts, I'm now doing just the opposite. I encourage you to publish more of your raving, flaming, coo-coo unhingement about me anywhere on your blog, but especially under those dedicate to me. Make all manor of unfounded alias-associations with me that you want.
How can I be so encouraging and cavalier about the libel that you produce about me? Because it is just that. Very little substance even about topics of substance.
I know that the poor overall quality of your blog will shoot you in the foot if you try to include the URL to even a single entry from your blog as "substantiation" in a comment to any debate elsewhere involving me (... the real me, and not some schmuck that you alias-ASSociate to be me.) A lurker reader following the URL and scrolling up/down for context won't be nearly as convinced as you were in writing it. Subsequent Googling of me from your blog takes them to my blog and will further undermine your case. I'll be vindicated. You? Not so much. Shoot, the only way your blog can re-deem itself and you is to flush what's there and start again, el-oh-el!
My blog and website don't have that problem, because they were written from the high-road at the onset, Mr. Rogue. I learned from my mistakes in my earlier debates and improved my tactics accordingly. My words don't poke lurker-readers in the eye. Not only do I include well-formatted and accurate quotations from you, I link to the source discussions. Whether context of my blog or context of the source discussion, my efforts stand up and stand the test of time even where I was wrong and had to apologize and amend my views later.
It should already be evident who the stupid silly chump has been.
You keep on keeping on, Mr. Rogue. El-oh-el.
//
x186 Maxwell Bridges : public accolades
2015-08-19
Dear Mr. McKee,
You deserve some public accolades from me, for you have done me a great service these many years by permitting (until last Spring) my comments and attempts at rational discussion about bat-shit crazy themes in validating them or legitimately taking them out. The debates have honed my research and opinions. And my infrequent participation on T&S -- once extracted, collected, and re-purposed in the new OCD context of my website & blog -- owe their very existence and quality to the high standards set by your blog.
I've offered public apologies for when I was wrong, September Clues and NPT being the big ones. I'm not as rabid about Dr. Wood anymore either. I should also count therein the crazy piece that I authored for T&S that was an open letter to Richard Gage and Jonathon Cole about energy requirements. I don't hold to those same views completely anymore, but I was sincere in them at the time and you were nice enough to give me larger megaphone on the subject. No hard feelings on my end that my subsequent work was not the right fit (*way* too long) to merit publishing on T&S.
Under your recent blog, I fear publication on my grateful words could inspire my detractors negatively and derail the honors & praise clearly you deserve and that I echo here. So I won't be using this message to respectfully request a return of my commenting abilities. Testament to your work and the forum you've fostered, I subscribe even from exile.
I purchased one of the A&E packages of A&E 9/11 "Beyond Misinformation" so that I can distribute them, but haven't received them yet. I'm sure I'll be in agreement with 90% of it or more. I'll keep at least one for my 9/11 library.
If you worked on "Beyond Misinformation," would it be possible for you to send me an electronic version? A PDF could work, or even just a text-export from the source files. I don't need the source files, but if it is in a format from a common application, why not? I give you herewith my promise not to abuse or copyright infringe upon the work, or make any look-a-like derivative works. I'm just trying to save myself from having to manually re-type passages from the printed version that I'll get any day now when I want to quote it accurately for fair-use in my future commentary.
Meanwhile, I'm hoping to get over my procrastination soon by authoring a definitive piece on my hobby-horse topic, maybe by 9/11. The research is done, and much can be mined from my previous works. But you know how real-life can get in the way. I've been burned out and disillusioned with 9/11, and calculating the diminishing returns from voicing my deviant 9/11 views when juxtaposed with obtaining employment, managing retirement investments, coaching kids soccer, attending to the needs of the family, and performing lodge work, etc.
I suppose I'm also saddened by your silence in communicating with me, an indication that I might have lost your respect. I apologize for putting you into the position where you had to exercise your editorial control against my comments and participation.
With continuing gratitude to your 9/11 efforts, I thank you for your blog and the discussion venue. As always, I wish you well.
Sincerely,
// Herr der Elf
x187 Maxwell Bridges : proposal isn’t something I want to devote a lot of time to
2015-08-24
Dear Mr. McKee,
Thank your for your nice reply.
You wrote regarding my proposal:
I know you proposed a discussion (debate) about the nuclear theory some time back, and I did think about what that would involve. But for me, the time it would require for research makes it a low priority for me. It’s not that I don’t think it’s worthwhile, it’s that it isn’t something I want to devote a lot of time to.
Would it change your opinion if I've already done the research for you? I've gone to great lengths to format such research for web publication and navigation. Wouldn't take that much time to skim and then find the nuggets worth detailed reading.
As always, I'll be too candid. I've included everything, even those articles that don't completely make my case and suggest that such things are still down the road. Also based on this research, I don't believe traditional lasers (as one form of DEW) could have accomplished 9/11 at the WTC. Not even space-based ones.
I know the towers were blown up, and respect anyone who wants to, and can, enlighten us as to how they were blown up. But that’s not likely to be me. And frankly, I don’t really see the pressing need for the debate. And I see nothing to be gained from people like Fetzer attacking AE as being “thermite sniffers.”
I'm unaware of that particular Fetzer-ism.
Still, AE does have several legitimate avenues for attack that does center around the weight and importance placed on thermite. AE has purposely left out the detailed math that would justify NT meeting the requirements needed for pulverization as well as the duration of hot-spots. NT doesn't add up. The samples given to Dr. Jones are the only ones supposedly containing it. (Can you say, "chain-of-custody issues?") The USGS sampling of the dust was more thorough and reveals probably many elements in the data tables that it probably shouldn't have (which is why no discussion is made of it). Still, that report -- together with the RJ Lee report, Lioy et al., and others -- do no substantiate the NT claim.
If you've read thoroughly any of my evolving articles, you'd know where the whole no-nukes work presented by Dr. Jones also has major holes in it.
Others could say the same as you, but regarding CIT: "I don’t really see the pressing need for the debate." They'd elaborate that we're never going to get any Truth out of the Pentagon or govt agencies, otherwise we'd already have the confiscated videos. You were obviously able to overcome this, explain why it was important, and press-on in support of Pentagon fly-over. (BTW, on this front, I owe you an apologize, and it serves as another area where I've changed my tune. As you recall when it first came up, I was skeptical and was cautioning you against going into it too deeply. I was wrong.)
However, I think the justification for going into the details on the Pentagon and the towers' destruction aren't just parallel, they are re-enforcing of one another. Revelation of these two together could inspire revolution (at the ballot boxes or more).
You wrote:
I would certainly read any essay you posted on your blog, however. Or any debate you might organize with an opponent. And I would find a way to inform readers that you had posted it.
That's wonderful, were it not for the LOL-fact that my would-be debate opponents (HR and AdamR) have proven themselves dishonorable.
You mentioned your hobby horse. And this is where I think things went off track in terms of your participation on TS. I think to participate in discussions on different topics, you have to be willing to set the hobby horse aside and comment on different things.
First of all, my hobby-horse is ~not~ where things went off track. You even said as much yourself (paraphrased): "It isn't the topic itself that is bad, but the bad behavior it creates in some participants." I won't regurgitate the details, because my blog has been documenting my negative treatment pretty well.
Secondly, I have proven my ability to discuss many other subjects, other than my one remaining hobby-horse. Case in point, I read Kevin Ryan's book when HR and ARuff both refused; but that didn't stop them from making disparaging comments. Owing to my naive open-minded nature (and having been a shirt-tail punk), I have readily explored many different sources, even when labeled as disinfo at the onset. On the whole, I discovered why they were labeled disinfo, but also why they still merited study and consideration. September Clues, No Planes, deep underground nukes, Holograms, and Dr. Wood fall into this category.
Thirdly, owing to bad blood from getting pwned so badly by me, it isn't ~what~ I write anymore but ~that~ I write, which will throw my detractors into a tizzy. I've got example after example of HR's first shoot-from-the-hips reply to one of my comments being derogatory and ad hominem.
With me silenced, it is easy to see that I'm not the only one he does this to. It is his nature, if not his agenda.
But it seemed that as things went along you became more concerned with slipping in the nuke topic whenever you thought you could. That became a problem.
Truth is truth, Mr. McKee. It wasn't me slipping in nuclear topics in a valid way relevant to the discussion at hand that became the problem. The problem was with those whose agenda it is to make a scene about it. They could have just easily ignored me, and many times were encouraged to do just that. Had that been heeded, my comments would have been one-hit-wonders for the latter-day lurker readers, and nothing more.
A.Wright, Tamborine Man, and Emmanuel Goldstein are probably far worse in this regards, mostly because their minds will never be changed. Yet they are tolerated, as are the unhinged over-reactions.
And it had a noticeably negative effect on the discussion.
Like I said, it doesn't matter ~what~ I write. I believe that because I was proven to be naively open-minded and intelligent in pursuing evidence and truth, I was targeted and remain so. Does HR have blog entries devoted to any of the three trolls mentioned above? No.
As I’ve mentioned before, you were the one who used to tell me to tell those with their own hobby horses to start their own blogs rather than using mine for that purpose.
Indeed, I've had my website for over a decade, and my blog longer than yours. Different goals and purposes. I've had no issues with my comments being deleted from your blog when you felt they were out of line. I stood behind them and re-purposed them.
What I've had issues with is you not being as heavy-handed with HR and not cutting as deeply into his obnoxious replies.
Also, I've had issues in not letting me post links to my blog. Geez, even today, I read HR posting links to his lame-ass blog as if it were the definitive authority. The links go to blog entries that I have thoroughly trashed. Some recently (today) are in response to a Wood-follower (Roger Gloux).
... And damn if AdamR doesn't out himself as related to HR in some sock fashion!
The thing is, unlike HR and AdamR, I can now debunk Dr. Wood legitimately.
It is well that I remained silenced, though. I don't need the time suck or HR's ~and~ AdamR's circus.
Tell you what, though. Contact Roger Gloux off list with my contact information. I'll be happy to attempt to set him straight off-list and debunk Dr. Wood legitimately.
I have half a mind to encourage you in debate with HR on the Moon Landing Hoax. The parallelisms between your experience and mine will be striking. You'll find him intractable and in capable of changing his mind. He'll be unfaithful in the small things, and thus untrustworthy in general.
The main thing you'll have going in your favor, Mr. McKee, in debating HR will be "kiss-up." In other words, HR needs your blog more than you need his. He has a habit of so provoking others on their own blogs to the point of an inharmonious parting of ways. He won't be doing that to you, owing to his dependence on your blog. And if I am wrong and he does, ... well, I'll be vindicated by you in my assessment of HR.
So that’s where things are now. I’m open to hearing any other thoughts you may have on the subject. I appreciate your ongoing interest and the fact that you found this site before just about anyone else.
In summary, I've done a ton of leg-work. Of all the related articles captured in my research, I can point to maybe two or three sources that really make the case which further reduces your effort, in addition to my shredding of the NT case. Doesn't really mean that I can't still be wrong, but that those who argue one thing (e.g., NT) should be able to support it "the whole 9 yards."
Returning to a point you made up top (regarding research) and to you being open to hear other thoughts from me. For a DEBATE between you and I, your research concerns are well-founded. Even if I give you the totality of my sources, you'll want your own.
But you are a skilled journalist.
I'm sure you've written about many things that you didn't know well, and may have even walked into an interview (totally or even somewhat) ignorant on the subject. To a certain degree, you probably let the interviewee "school you." Your role was to ask interesting, leading questions, and then afterwards to distill this down into a Q&A interview piece. You may be even let the bent of the interviewee persist in the final article, unless there were some aspects to the story that your gut questioned and you felt the need to second-source. Ultimately, what was published may have been flattering to the interviewee, and only subsequent articles and efforts would challenge and take-to-task issues discovered in it later.
My point is: INTERVIEW ME. Maintain your up-front ignorance, but use your interviewing skills to get out of me what needs to be said. You don't have to take sides, and you can even write disclaimers regarding your beliefs.
I've given you my telephone number in the past. I don't mind having some conversations with you on the telephone.. But I would prefer being able to write my responses, because I can put more thought into it. You can set some guidelines regarding response length, etc.
Maybe a legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood's will slip out, which the Truth Movement sorely needs and you'll get accolades for making happen.
Meanwhile, pleasure discoursing with you, Mr. McKee.
//
x188 T&S Participants : the power to flabbergast
2015-08-27
Craig McKee
August 19, 2015 at 11:41 pm
I’m glad I still have the power to flabbergast. I seem to be slipping in so many other areas. I don’t know if I’ll write about this someday. We’ll see. But it’s not a priority just now.
Craig McKee
August 18, 2015 at 11:21 pm
Thanks, Adam. And there’s lots I can relate to in your journey, although you were involved well ahead of me. I was a big Michael Moore fan, and I think you are right when you say that it opened that door a bit even though he doesn’t go nearly far enough. I think Moore has helped a lot of people to open up to the idea that the world portrayed by the mainstream media isn’t the real story. Of course, I wish he’d get into 9/11, but I imagine he is concerned about his career.
Thanks for participating and for your two excellent contributions. Maybe you should start thinking of an idea for number three?
Craig McKee
August 19, 2015 at 10:04 pm
“Minds that dismiss NASA”? Willy, this comment is so far below your usual high standard. Are you sure a “debunker” didn’t slip behind your computer when you weren’t looking?
Craig McKee
August 19, 2015 at 11:44 pm
It doesn’t surprise me, and I have no problem that you take the position you do. I object to the comparison between those who question the Apollo missions and people who believe the Earth is flat. It really sounds more like an ad hominem attack.
hybridrogue1
August 20, 2015 at 9:44 pm
I know you and others here will be insulted by the term “conspiricist” used at the Clavius site. Unfortunately if you want to confront the real science here you are going to have do deal with it.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 20, 2015 at 10:16 pm
I’m not insulted by the term. The term is what debunkers like Jonathan Kay use to attack the messenger while not responding to the message. Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.
hybridrogue1
August 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm
“…to attack the messenger while not responding to the message.”~Craig
But the Clavius site does respond in detail to the ‘message’.
“Anyone who uses the term has no credibility with me.”~Ibid
So you will ignore the science because you don’t like the term ‘conspiracist’ – is that your position Craig?
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 20, 2015 at 11:26 pm
Of course not. But I don’t think we’ve established that your side of the debate represents the scientific view while mine does not.
The term is disinformation, in my opinion. That doesn’t mean it’s always used deliberately to deceive; some people who are honest will fall for this bogus “scientist/conspiracist” contrast. But it’s like people who mock positions by trotting out the “conspiracy theory” label. They might be correct in one statement or another, but an argument that employs these labels is suspect.
hybridrogue1
August 20, 2015 at 11:41 pm
Frankly Craig, I don’t think there is any reason to continue this discussion on this thread.
If the term “debunkers” is acceptable, while the term “Conspiracist” is verboten, then we will simply spin in a vortex of rhetorical semantics.
I am a conspiracy theorist, regardless of the attempt to slur that term. I am not quailed by the term conspiracist. I am not quailed by the term debunker. I am interested in the substance of a proposition or a critique.
So far I have encountered little substance but rather arguments over language on this topic.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 21, 2015 at 12:15 am
Willy, you are not obligated to continue with any thread, of course. That’s your call. What I choose to comment on is my call.
I don’t see the vortex you speak of. I reacted to the term in question (because I believe language is very important, particularly in the “conspiracy” area), and you engaged me on that. And I don’t see the relevance of the comparison with “debunkers.” No one, to my knowledge objects to that term. “Conspiracist” is not verboten; that is not what I said. But it is a made-up word used to take attention off of what is being questioned and onto the person doing the questioning.
hybridrogue1
August 19, 2015 at 11:54 pm
The reason I brought up the flat earth subject is because I came across that site from a YouTube video trying to debunk the new findings on Pluto, that was mainly a full frontal attack on NASA. The person that posted that video is the same as the one with the flat earth site.
Perhaps it is because I was so interested in astronomy as a youngster, and have studied it and space travel from an early age, that I have a fuller understanding of the science involved in this issue. And yes, I was very much interested in science fiction in the same era when growing up. Perhaps that is why I find it easy to distinguish between fact and fiction on these matters.
Some may fault me for “trusting NASA” on this topic. It is not a matter of “trust” it is a matter of basic knowledge of physics, and astronomy. I think there are problems when it comes to NASA revealing what they have found in their space explorations as pertaining to ET’s. I do believe they are hiding what they have actually discovered on the Moon and Mars and perhaps elsewhere.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 20, 2015 at 12:54 am
Is that why no one has left low Earth orbit since 1972?
hybridrogue1
August 20, 2015 at 8:58 am
Quarantined by ET? That would be speculative. I can’t say definitively. I doubt it.
I think it is more to do with funding. War is more profitable to the military industrial complex. Near earth orbit is all that is needed for military control of of the planet (the High Ground).
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 22, 2015 at 5:20 pm
I am like Adam R. in a couple of ways. First, I do not wish to make the time commitment to get into a serious debate about the Moon, at least not at this time. I would not get into it without a complete effort, and I have far too much on my plate these days to do that. But I must also say that I am troubled by your approach to those who do not believe the Apollo missions were what was claimed. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.” That is an indirect attack on those who raise those questions. And it weakens your credibility on the issue, in my opinion.
Were questions about the lack of dust on the legs of the LM or a blast crater below it really “absurd”? Are questions about why no human has travelled more than 400 miles from the Earth’s surface in 43 years absurd? I think it’s a damn good question. And chalking it up to a lack of funding verges on the absurd to me. Is it absurd to question why NASA to this day appears quite concerned with overcoming the dangers of radiation to astronauts who will have to travel through the Van Allen belts to go to Mars?
Is it absurd to wonder about why some shots of the lunar rover appear to missing tire tracks both in front and behind the wheels? And what about the footage that shows an astronaut appearing to be lifted to his feet by some unseen force? No, I’m not getting into making a detailed case for anything just now for reasons already stated, I am just saying that there is a real discussion to be had. You may feel you have logical, “scientific” explanations for all of these, but the questions are, I feel, very reasonable, and serious doubts about this supposedly miraculous event in human history are anything but absurd.
hybridrogue1
August 22, 2015 at 5:38 pm
“but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.”
Craig I make that statement because I don’t find any of the questions or points to be “legitimate”. It is as simple as that. Every one of these “questions & points” I have investigated have turned out to be based on fundamental misunderstandings of science and data.
“supposedly miraculous event in human history”~Craig
No one is framing this event as “miraculous” except those who argue that the lunar landings were impossible. The event was achieved by scientific endeavor, no ‘miracles’ are sighted for the success of the missions.
I am trying very hard to let this issue go here. If you want to discuss it, you have the opportunity to comment on my blog entry on the issue. That is up to you.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 22, 2015 at 5:48 pm
Indeed, it is up to me whether I accept your invitation to debate on your blog, and perhaps I will do that at some point. But it is also my choice whether to comment on anything said on this blog, including your previous comment. When I respond to your characterization of these questions as absurd, you have the choice whether to “let the issue go here” or not.
hybridrogue1
August 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Craig,
If you would rather I will let the issue go here. If you wish no more responses at all, say so. If you want to discuss the issue here on this page, say so.
My sole purpose in trying to disengage here is so that this page is not hijacked by a separate issue from the one you posted this page about.
It is your call.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 22, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Willy,
I don’t want you to do anything in particular. I won’t tell you not to respond, but I did feel it necessary to respond to your use of “absurd.” I’m quite happy to leave it there for the time being. I appreciate your concern about hijacking the thread.
\][//
Craig McKee
August 23, 2015 at 3:26 pm
I actually don’t have a problem with the topic, and I don’t mind you raising this or any other point at all. Personally, I just don’t want to have to commit to an intensive and time-consuming debate on the subject unless I have the time to do it justice. Your point is a good one, I think. The fact that we haven’t left lower Earth orbit since the last Apollo mission is damned odd and hard to explain for those who believe we actually went. I think we might learn a lot more in the next couple of decades about our ability to go to the Moon.
hybridrogue1
August 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm
“I actually don’t have a problem with the topic..”~Craig,
Okay then I will say this much more:
Mr Syed’s point was about lack of funding. I addressed that in the link to comment # 8302 in the link above.
There have been no manned flights beyond lower Earth orbit since the Apollo missions, but radiation has dire effects on electronics as well, and plenty of spacecraft have made it through the Van Allan Belts since that time.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Well, the NASA engineer shown in the video previously linked to specifically says that the Mars Orion craft has shielding to protect the electronics from the “extreme radiation.”
“Shielding will be put to the test as Orion cuts through the waves of radiation.” But he adds that taking humans safely through the belts is something else altogether.
“We must solve these challenges before we take people through this region of space.”
What’s to solve if passing through the belts is safe? Why are they worried about it now when they didn’t appear to be back in 1969?
hybridrogue1
August 23, 2015 at 5:10 pm
I addressed this in a comment to Mr Syed here already Craig.
As you yourself point out the NASA engineer was addressing the Orion project. His comments had nothing to do with the Apollo missions.
If you will read about the shielding used in the Apollo missions you will see they were specifically designed for the time spent in the Belts for those particular flights.
This idea that feet of heavy lead shielding would be necessary is based on ignorance of the different types of radiation encountered in space compared to that used to shield against atomic blasts.
Again The Clavius site has the factual answers to these questions.
\\][//
Sherif Shaalan
August 23, 2015 at 5:36 pm
“Government is a racket” . . . except for NASA?! Say it isn’t so!
Coming from someone so experienced in the study of global platonic theater, your staunch defense of the common knowledge understanding of the Apollo missions is especially perplexing to this student.
Seems to me this example of the language from the Clavius site you refer us to reeks of blatant disinformation:
http://www.clavius.org/why.html
Are you playing a joke on us Willy?
hybridrogue1
August 23, 2015 at 5:43 pm
“Seems to me this example of the language from the Clavius “~Sherif Shaalan
Get over the term “conspiracist” and read the science.
No I am not playing a joke on anyone Sherif. If you don’t want to confront the information that is your choice.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 23, 2015 at 6:31 pm
It’s more than just the term “conspiracist,” that Sherif refers to; it’s a whole page on your favored web site that talks about why there are so many darned conspiracy theorists and how flimsy their evidence usually is. Regardless of the scientific claims (this is a separate point), this is exactly the kind of disinformation so commonly found in the mainstream media.
From the page: “Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It’s more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner’s landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it’s even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.”
I hate arguments like this. And, whether rightly or wrongly, they make me question the site. I will read more from it, however.
Adam Syed
August 23, 2015 at 7:34 pm
The gambit about reality being boring, and how belief in a conspiracy is more exciting, is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that anti-9/11 truth hatchet job pieces lob again 9/11 truth activists and seekers.
Craig McKee
August 23, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Exactly.
Craig McKee
August 23, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Yes, he was commenting about Orion and about the challenge of getting astronauts through this area of extreme radiation. I will certainly explore this further but I’m not sure I see why it would be a greater challenge now than it was for Apollo. And I’m certainly curious to find out why the time spent in the belts by the Apollo astronauts would be not apply to those travelling on Orion. I’ll check to see if your site has these answers.
I will also see if I can find the quotes I remember from at least one of the astronauts that the Apollo crafts had no radiation shielding at all. That NASA engineer in the video also said that unmanned missions would be equipped with sensors so that radiation levels can be studied by scientists. I guess they don’t know everything about the levels, even now.
hybridrogue1
August 23, 2015 at 7:08 pm
“I hate arguments like this. And, whether rightly or wrongly, they make me question the site. I will read more from it, however.”~Craig
I am no more fond of general conspiracy bashing than you are. But there are some goofy “theories” out there. I have pounded on “other conspiracy theorists” that I disagree with, and you have too. We have many differences with people who do not hold the same “conspiratorial view” that we personally hold to.
You know I have had strong disagreements with many people on this site, that the mainstream would lump in with my own views. I distinguish between what I find reasonable arguments and what I find to be spurious arguments. I agree the labels are unproductive. But we can often draw from sources that we have some disagreements with.
The main point I want to make is, you MUST understand your opponents arguments to successfully counter those arguments. Whether we like it or not, the best arguments I have found on space science is found in articles on space science! And to be able to tell the difference from a bogus argument and a rational one is to get grounded in the basics of whatever field you are going to involve yourself with.
As I have indicated, I have been into astronomy and space studies since I was a kid. Out of my own curiosity I dug into this stuff. I know a lot about it now.
Of course one can make the counterargument that I have been “brainwashed” from an early age. But I will counter here and now, that I would not be here on T&S now, if I couldn’t see through such programming. And I am not making a “hey you know me” argument here. I am just trying to explain my perspective and why it is different from so many that are the regulars here.
Lastly let us not be dogmatic and insist that we all maintain the “proper” attitudes of a Truther. We already know that the consensus formed is temporary, that views will inevitably vary from topic to topic. You Craig, have suffered from slurs and defaming remarks by those who disagree with the Pentagon event.
Whether you come to understand my point of view on the moon landings, we will always have Paris.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 23, 2015 at 7:21 pm
I don’t have a problem with anything you’ve written here. And I agree that allegiances will change as the topic changes. But I don’t think it is dogmatic to vigorously criticize trite arguments about what makes conspiracy theorists tick. And I believe we have to have a consistent approach and consistent standards whether we are touting a theory or attempting to debunk it.
Craig McKee
August 24, 2015 at 1:45 am
Dare I drop in to make another comment on language? Yes, let’s throw caution to the wind.
On the subject of the term “conspiracist.”
“The term is used for ease of discourse. What other generic term would you use if you were in his place?”-HR
I would say that it is not necessary to come up with a single word to describe someone who uses research to challenge the official version of an event. Not for ease of discourse or for any other reason. Should we call someone who really likes television a televisionist? The word “conspiracist” is insidious because it implies that there is something different about those who question – perhaps different on a psychological level. This plays right into the dominant mainstream view about those who believe in conspiracy theories. It’s attacking the messenger; it’s a way of marginalizing dissent. Like you, Willy, I think that we believe in theories that are backed by evidence.
Craig McKee
August 24, 2015 at 2:35 pm
This is exactly how I feel. I encourage anyone to do whatever research they wish on the destruction of the towers but it is hardly central to the issue – as you point out.
Roger Gloux
August 26, 2015 at 6:09 pm
When you hear an explosion what makes you think it is a bomb? Did you ever hear a steam tank let go? How about an oxygen bottle the firemen use when the air is toxic. Just because it goes “boom” doesn’t mean it is a bomb.
hybridrogue1
August 26, 2015 at 6:25 pm
There are signature characteristics of various types of explosions. Many of the first responders were very familiar with the characteristic of a bomb blast, and made that point when questioned about it:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 26, 2015 at 6:39 pm
I supposed it’s my fault for allowing the Moon discussion. That’s why people think there’s no problem with switching to Judy Wood. There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there – although I’d be surprised if something can be added that isn’t already there.
But on this thread it’s enough. I’m not blaming anyone for responding to Roger’s points, but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread. Also, no ad hominem insults please. And no fuck offs. Thank you.
P.S. Since it’s my blog, I’ll allow myself this one remark. If we all agree that the towers were intentionally destroyed by other than plane impacts and office fires then is it really worth fighting over how they were brought down? What concerns me is how we can awaken people to the fact that the destruction of the towers was a deception and that it was not achieved by terrorist pilots with excellent aim.
Adam Syed
August 26, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Craig,
Isn’t it “an honor to be the target of the war machine’s disinformation program?”
x189 Maxwell Bridges : very disingenuous
2015-08-26
Dear Mr. McKee,
I'm just lurking in this thread, because I have no permissions to participate. I could set Mr. Gloux straight on what he supports.
Meanwhile, though, your response to the blog discussion was very disingenuous. You wrote:
There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there... but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread.
BULLSHIT, Mr. McKee! Comments are not welcome there, because those discussions have been closed for quite some time. You probably know this, otherwise you could have provided a link.
The Wood discussion was closed for two reasons. (1) They have tons of comments with videos and image baggage that make it slow and unresponsive to render. (2) BAD BEHAVIOR OF PARTICIPANTS, in particular Mr. Rogue.
Shit, I was lobbying you for a long time for a new thread for deviant Wood/nuke discussions, and you declined, mostly from the BAD BEHAVIOR OF PARTICIPANTS.
Because you have NO PLACE for such a discussion, post the link to this blog:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html
I'll be happy to discuss things with Mr. Gloux and Mr. Syed. (As for Mr. Rogue, he is a no-show chicken-shit. As for Mr. Ruff, he's a blow-hard hypocrite.)
Sincerely,
// Herr der Elf
x190 Roger Gloux : what deceptions are we going to talk about
2015-08-26
August 26, 2015 at 8:07 pm
I agree with you Craig McKee 100 % when you said… “the towers were intentionally destroyed by other than plane impacts and office fires” . I didn’t know there was a separate “Judy Wood” thing. I’m only responding to what “the experts” are dishing out. Hard to swallow.
So if Dr.Judy Wood’s forensic information is not allowed what exactly are we discussing. The deception made by Government???? Since this thread is supposed to be on 9/11 if the fires were so hot in the Tower, why is it a woman is standing in the gaping hole of the explosion.
We know it is an explosion because we see the damage, Since there is no proof a plane hit the Towers even when we all see the same picture on every News Channel as if sent by e-mail like you do on this subject when you send it to all of us.
If you want to find information that planes hit the Towers, you can focus just on that subject.
If you want to show only the interviews, you can focus just on that.
If you want to focus just on iron and aluminum in the dust we can talk about that.
I like to know the details if we are going to discuss this subject. What deceptions are we going to talk about, the 2,000 degree heat in the pile of rubble that the firemen are walking on and in the gaping hole where a woman is waving her coat? Like you said, ” it was not achieved by terrorist pilots with excellent aim.”, especially when professional pilots say it is impossible to do.
So that closes the door to any more discussion.
x191 Craig McKee : I don’t believe I closed any doors
2015-08-26
August 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm
I don’t believe I closed any doors. I said we have a Judy Wood thread with more than 500 comments (I think comments may be closed on that because the number of comments was making the page load very slowly) where all the forensic evidence has been discussed at great length.
Just because this thread is about 9/11 does not mean that I want one element of 9/11, especially one so thoroughly dealt with on other threads already, to dominate the current one. When this comes up, it usually ends up being a battle between two people while everyone else tunes out because they have seen the same debate played out many times. I have yet to see a strong argument made for why this debate is of value. I hesitate to automatically call it disinformation, as many have, but I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.
x192 T&S Participants : I find the persistence extraordinary
2015-08-26
hybridrogue1
August 26, 2015 at 11:32 pm
Craig,
All I can say is I find the persistence extraordinary. I thought you were clear on your request, but maybe something has gone over my head here?
\\][//
Roger Gloux
August 27, 2015 at 8:25 am
From the very first day it happened we were deceived into thinking what we saw on TV was what actually happened and slowly people who are specialist in every field come out and say this, that and the other thing is a lie.
Now that’s a deception on a grand scale.
Craig you created this format to find out more “stuff” and you are categorizing things on what can and cannot be talked about. That’s like putting a leg brace on a marathon runner. Can you imagine a cop trying to find out who killed a person but not being able to look at every possibility because it is too volatile to look at? How was the person killed? Not allowed to think the person was killed.
Oh!
You said….. “I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.”
Why do you think the Towers were blown up? You can only say they were destroyed.
Oh!
Besides, no plane hit the towers.
hybridrogue1
August 27, 2015 at 11:44 am
Roger Gloux,
It is disingenuous for you to pretend that you haven’t noticed that this is a 5 year anniversary thread. By that I don’t just mean it is the topic of the thread, I am also pointing out that in those five years there have been countless threads and topic addressed on those threads.
The onus is therefore upon you yourself to go through the titles of past T&S articles and see for yourself how the topics were addressed by Craig’s initial article, and who had what views on the topics, and what the arguments were that have already been hashed out here.
It is a sign of ignorant arrogance for you to come on here as a newbie criticizing Craig for you being allowed to come on and criticize him. It is rude and unacceptable in my personal view.
You Roger, take umbrage at this from Craig:
“I don’t see why it should be a priority for the movement to fight acrimoniously over which means were used to blow up the towers.”
I have a different view myself personally, but it needn’t be made in the combative confrontational way that you use. I disagree with the whole concept of ‘consensus’, and the idea that there will be one central dogma that ALL TRUTHERS will come together on.
I study the issues to find out the truth of what happened in every aspect of the events of 9/11.
I don’t think a “Truth Movement” is ever going to convince the bewildered herd to give a damn about the truth. All they want is bread and circuses.
Now you have come on here with hard nosed bluster about your views, which I personally find to be a product of scurrilous speculation and rhetorical nonsense, and you have now added to the anti another of these screwball ideas that have been argued to death on these pages; the –No-Planes gambit–, which then leads into the Video Fakery nonsense, and even the lunatic Holograms fairytale. You seem to come bearing the whole bag of tricks manufactured by some central scrip office.
These pages on my own blog address some of these issues:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
And of course there are countless articles right here on T&S to go through.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 27, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Willy,
I agree that we don’t want a 9/11 dogma that all must follow. I also agree that anyone should feel free to pursue the truth wherever it leads. And I don’t think I was suggesting we must reach consensus on everything and toss out our best information. I said I didn’t see the value in fighting ACRIMONIOUSLY over something that virtually everyone in the Truth Movement agrees on – that the towers were blown up in some fashion and that the issue of planes was a trick to fool us into thinking that terrorists brought down the buildings.
I am more optimistic than you are about getting to the masses with the truth. I couldn’t do this if I didn’t have hope it would lead to something. Otherwise, it’s just a hobby. If I am talking to a newbie (in the event that they are willing to listen for more than 10 seconds – a rarity) then I don’t say that we have lots of theories about the towers: thermite, nukes, directed energy weapons, and lots more, and we just can’t decide what the truth is. How would that help to open that person’s mind to the possibility that they’ve been lied to? I would point to the massive amount of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers. I don’t know what kind, although I do know that there is conclusive evidence that thermite or nanothermite was part of the equation. But even Niels Harrit makes it clear that this was a small part of what brought the towers down. Even he does not claim to know what type of explosive did most of the work.
I don’t agree with the consensus approach when it means that we accept the lowest common denominator and toss out all the best information. That’s why I oppose this approach as it pertains to the Pentagon. The 9/11 Consensus Panel has failed to come up with the “best evidence” on the Pentagon, in my opinion. But with the towers, we have incontrovertible evidence that the buildings were blown up by other than planes and fires. Therefore, for me, it’s not the best use of my time to look for ways to undermine that evidence. That doesn’t mean that weaknesses should not be pointed out and that opposing views should be censored, but I always ask myself whether a looking at a particular subject might lead to increased understanding within the movement that might be used to raise awareness outside the movement. If not, then I choose to focus my energies elsewhere.
Imagine if the vast majority of the movement that understands that an airliner did NOT hit the Pentagon spent all their time fighting over whether the plane that flew over the building was white or silver. Would that be worth the acrimony? Would that advance the cause in any way? I would say no.
hybridrogue1
August 27, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Thank you for your well considered reply Craig,
I understand and have a great appreciation for your point of view.
I don’t consider my position as that of a “hobbyist”, I think history is important for all of us to grasp, and I think a detailed and full an understanding of that history is essential. But in saying that, I also recognize that most people are not going to study history beyond what is fed to them on the plate of the “Official Narrative” — so alternative histories must be made available and maintained as long as they can be in this era of grand deceit.
Whether our dissident views will last, or be wiped away by official censors is something only to be seen in the future. Until then I can only call it as I see it. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as far as I can determine it to be.
As far as the greatest danger, I see it as autonomous technology. That is Technology as a self directed entity beyond human control.
See both Ellul, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, and Kaczynski, TECHNOLOGICAL SLAVERY. Also David Skrbina, The METAPHYSIC of TECHNOLOGY.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 27, 2015 at 1:50 pm
Roger, I have to agree with Hybridrogue1 that you are being disingenuous. No one is stopping you from looking into anything you want to. You can do as I did and start your own blog for the purpose, if you wish. Or you can come here and participate in discussions that are already underway. There are many to choose from.
I actually don’t have a problem with any subject as long as I believe the person bringing it to our attention is doing so sincerely and they are not trying to hijack a discussion that is otherwise moving along productively. Would you think you could go over to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and join a discussion about the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder and then bring up directed energy weapons?
Unfortunately, past discussions about Judy Wood and no planes always end up obliterating whatever else was being discussed. If I say no more on this thread, somebody will cry “censorship!” If I don’t, then others will question why I am allowing disinformation to be discussed or why I am allowing something that is off topic.
This site is different from a general forum where you can start your own discussion thread. This is a blog where comments are allowed under each article. The idea is for people to discuss the actual topic addressed in the article. I do allow a lot of leeway, particularly if I find a side topic to be interesting. I guess that’s where it’s good to be king.
So, to be clear, I did not create this format “to find out more stuff,” exactly, although I certainly do want all of us to learn from the experience. I created it in the hope that awareness would be raised about the most destructive deceptions that occur – like 9/11 – and the Matrix-like dream world that keeps us from seeing through those deceptions. I hope we all learn something. I know I have learned a tremendous amount, as I indicate in the article. But the articles must be more than just an excuse to bring up your preferred 9/11 subject.
You’ve had an opportunity to express your views very freely, but I don’t want to continue down this road on this thread.
Thank you.
x193 T&S Participants : Outing of Agent W.
2015-08-27
hybridrogue1
August 27, 2015 at 7:34 pm
Does the name Colin Doran ring any bells for you Agent Wright? Dunkin’ Donuts? Lol
\\][//
Adam Syed
August 27, 2015 at 10:45 pm
I know that name from FB. I believe I banned him from one group as I found him to be a troll.
hybridrogue1
August 27, 2015 at 10:50 pm
Agent Smith is a nom de plume of Colin Duran \, who is a manager at Dunkin’ Donuts in a small country in Central America. Supposedly this character was born in Moscow.
\\][//
x194 Maxwell Bridges : the honorably thing to do
2015-08-27
{mcb: Some in the 9/11 Truth community believe Osama bin Laden died in 2002 or so. Thus, the Obama Administration orchestrated a farse in recent years with the operation to capture Osama bin Laden, kill him, bury him at sea, etc.
In a similar vein of false cues, if A.Wright is a sockpuppet of Mr. Rogue, then outing Mr. A.Wright is an orchestration to deflect attention.}
Dear Mr. McKee,
Whether or not Mr. Rogue has hit paydirt with his naming of Mr. A.Wright, I believe the honorably thing for you to do is:
(1) Purge the unethical outing comments and
(2) Reprimand Mr. Rogue for his immoral actions.
If Mr. Rogue wants to out Mr. A.Wright, let him use his blog for that endeavor.
Alas, at the moment, Mr. Rogue has no place to do that. Despite literally hundreds of comments over the years aimed at Mr. A.Wright to get the carousel cranking, Mr. A.Wright has never risen to the level of being a blog article that could then neatly contain comments underneath.
Part of me still believes that A.Wright is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, in which case Mr. Rogue is playing a game with a faux-outing.
But given that I could be wrong on the sock-puppet suspicions, then Mr. Rogue might be revealing some real and hurtful information to a real individual...
In either event, it shouldn't be transpiring on your blog, and it reveals some underlying ethical and moral flaws in Mr. Rogue.
P.S. Your participation on the thread has been refreshing.
// Herr der Elf
x195 Philip Joy : FB grassroots primary researchers
2015-08-29
Hi Maxwell, hope you are well. I am considering setting up a sort of shopfront FB group which allows grassroots primary researchers and bloggers such as yourself to share their latest in an ongoing way, and where joe public can come and read, sample, and if desired go over to the source URL. Of course there will be fireworks where views collide, but unlike some I'm not afraid of that kind of heated debate. Interested?
x196 Maxwell Bridges : rather coincidental the grassroots primary
2015-08-31
FB mail
Dear Mr. Joy,
Rather coincidental your flattering invitation to join a new FB group, as I tried recently two attempts at another avenue for a reasoned interview piece and was meeting with silence.
You wrote: "[I am setting up...] a shopfront FB group which allows grassroots primary researchers and bloggers such as yourself to share their latest in an ongoing way, and where joe public can come and read, sample, and if desired go over to the source URL."
I don't think you can achieve what you desire if FB is your only tool. FB completely sucks as a venue for serious discussion. What you see is ~not~ what anyone else will see, in terms of postings, owing to the "organization by algorithm." When you make a comment to a posting, subsequent comments trigger that posting to appear where you see it in your feed. However, those who have never commented may never see that posting "rank high" in the news feed, because the algorithm pushed it out of view.
The above hints at one way in which FB can be juked. Namely, if a given posting does have a lively, worthy discussion, making a few throw-away postings can effectively push the important posting down, down, down, such that it may never get on Joe Public's radar.
Another way that FB can be juked is with the automatic collapsing of comments to the last three or four, hiding the rest behind "more comments" links. I've experience trolls doing precisely this. They put three or four comments in a row -- regardless of what the comments actually were [ad hominem or fluff] --, then the rest of the discussion gets buried particularly for Joe Public who is scrolling through and scanning the postings & the few exposed comments at the top level.
Other than at your trial what the FBI/CIA will pull out extensively organized and categorized (by FB itself), FB has no permanence. Notifications by email are about the only way to snag a permanent URL to a posting and its comments. FB has no overlay to organize postings by date, theme, or other criteria. This contributes to FB being a time-sucking memory hole, and a very repetitive one at that, because postings that might have covered a theme are difficult to locate directly, difficult to acquire the URL, and thus difficult to put the URL within new discussions to shut down another spin on the carousel.
For the above reasons, serious commenters need to preserve their words themselves. Otherwise, they're just throwing them away on FB. If they get banned from a group, they can't even lurk, let alone retro-actively save their efforts.
Furthermore, FB requires you to log in. No lurkers. No google indexing.
If you are serious about your endeavor, then establishing for free a blog on WordPress or Blogger will get you much farther. FB would only be used secondarily and infrequently to advertise what is on your blog. A good example is Craig McKee who has the blog "Truth & Shadows."
I wish you well in your endeavor. When I get over my procrastination and have a new output article to my latest research, I might be inclined to throw some tidbits into your FB group. Owing to FB's time-sucking nature, I've been extremely limiting the number of times a week and the amount of time that I'm logged into FB. It is well so.
All the best,
// Maxwell C. Bridges
x197 hybridrogue1 : scurrilous allegations against me
2015-08-31
August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm
"In the [Dr. Wood's] Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth."~Roger Gloux
In fact pages 188 and 189 show scenes from under buildings 4 and 5, not under either tower. You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.
\\][//
x198 Maxwell Bridges : Patience is a virtue
2015-08-31
Patience is a virtue. Lying is not.
How is it that Mr. Rogue knows what pages 188 and 189 show in Dr. Wood's book? Such a stellar memory, he does not have. If his memory were really that good, he wouldn't have been caught in so many "misstatements" in our discussions in the past.
Therefore, the memory aid in use must be the book itself, the very one that Mr. Rogue repeatedly claimed that he physically destroyed with his own two hand in order to line his bird cage. Why? To avoid the assignment of reading the book with an expressed purpose of identifying the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I should get major-league kudos for my restraint in the discussions with Mr. Gloux. I could certainly set him straight on his Woodsian beliefs that don't quite hit the mark.
I'll be damned if Mr. Gloux didn't make an interesting point aimed at Mr. Rogue:
"You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth."
Instead of links to Mr. Rogue's lame blog entries whose commentary cannot make up its mind on what it wants to be, use this link.
Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices
Its whole purpose was for off-list discussions relating specifically to Dr. Wood and other fringe topics. Mr. Ruff is familiar with it, and Mr. Rogue was invited (but has been a no-show.)
Win-win-win for all the things that it spares T&S of. Yep, send Mr. Gloux my way.
Yep, I knew if I was patient enough, Mr. Rogue would pwn himself with Dr. Wood's book. El-Oh-El.
//
x199 Maxwell Bridges : Take me off your mailing list, nut case
2015-08-31
Adam Ruff wrote 2015-08-31 10:01 PM
+++begin
Take me off your mailing list, nut case. Wood is full of shit and so are you.
+++end
Dear Mr. Ruff,
You seem a little touchy. You wrote:
"Wood is full of shit and so are you."
I honestly do not know how you could come up with such an assessment, because you have never provided any substantiation for either, despite your blow-hard bragging. Seems to be a re-occurring theme with you [1] [2]. Not that I won't ultimately agree with certain points, it is just that you are a no-show and fumbler.
After much weaseling, I finally got you to agree to the playing field of fourth generation nuclear devices. How is your assessment of that document going? And how does its detailed analysis then by extrapolation related back to Dr. Wood? This is important, because it illuminates where she was wrong and right.
Here is a great link from March 7, 2013 addressed to you. You should read the whole comment, but particularly the P.S. which has major significance today in light of Mr. Rogue's recent detailed knowledge of various pages in Dr. Wood's book.
+++ begin
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.
+++ end
With regards to your assessment of me being a nut case, I plead guilty. The very definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. For literally years, I've been trying to have a reasoned, rational, researched discussion with you (and Mr. Rogue) about my hobby-horse (fourth generation nuclear devices). You can imagine my disappointment to learn that you both are incapable of such.
//
x200 T&S Participants : commentary far afield
2015-08-24
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 10:35 am
Roger Gloux,
This thread has already been waylaid by a complex topic that has led the commentary far afield from the topic Craig posted his article about.
If you want to celebrate the pseudoscience of Judy Wood, be my guest. I have burnt out on the topic after so many years. But I will offer this article by a qualified physicist that you might perhaps at least attempt to understand:
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, February 2007
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
Good luck Roger. I will give you a break and save actually saying, “kiss off” until you have adequately provoked me.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 10:47 am
Roger, I am posting these links in seperated comments so that the comment isn’t held up in moderation.
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, October 2007
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
\\][//
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 10:58 am
And when you’ve finished reading that, bring in the dog and put out the cat.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 11:56 am
“It couldn’t be controlled demolition because the evidence is not there.”~Roger Gloux
Au contraire Monsieur Gloux;
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
ruffadam
August 24, 2015 at 2:20 pm
Roger,
Judy Woods theory has been thoroughly debunked and two links were provided above by HR1 to a small sampling of those debunks. I will add to that however by pointing out a false belief you have expressed here twice already. You insist that controlled demolitions would have to employ miles of wire to set off the charges when that has been proven false. Radio controlled remote detonators not requiring any wiring could have been used and were available in 2001. This has long been known yet years after this was proved here you are still pushing the misinformation that the explosives all had to be wired. This is also the problem with Judy Wood supporters they continue to repeat misinformation years after it has been exposed as such. It becomes an endless merry go round where Wood supporters repeat again and again long debunked material.
For example: If a DEW were to have destroyed the towers how could the particle beam or energy beam or whatever kind of beam NOT destroy the top floor first and instead skip 20+ floors and destroy it from the middle? (Provided it was a space based DEW) Same question applies if it was a ground based DEW except the question becomes how could the DEW destroy all four sides simultaneously instead of first slicing through or disintegrating the closest side first and blasting through to the other side? A beam is a beam after all and it cannot pass through some material while destroying the same kind of material behind it. It cannot logically work no matter how you look at it.
Greg Jenkins also exposes another massive issue with the DEW theory which no one has ever addressed to my knowledge and that is the massive power requirements for such a weapon. Where did the enormous energy needed to power such a weapon come from? Especially if it was a space based weapon, where did the power come from? Do you have any idea how much power would have to be pumped through such a weapon in order to “dustify”(not a real word I know but Wood uses it) the towers? Too much! and neither Wood nor you have any explanation for what provided the power to such a weapon. On and on the issues with the DEW theory pile up and Wood supporters never address them but rather just keep coming back again and again repeating the same claims and never addressing the problems with the theory.
By the way just saying “Hutcheson effect and hurricane” does not address the question of where the energy came from to power the supposed DEW that Wood claims destroyed the WTC. That is a bogus argument since she cannot and does not explain what the “Hutcheson effect” is or how it works.
Craig McKee
August 24, 2015 at 2:35 pm
This is exactly how I feel. I encourage anyone to do whatever research they wish on the destruction of the towers but it is hardly central to the issue – as you point out.
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm
Roger Gloux,
I have the BOOK. I have read every article on her web site, I understand the case Wood makes. Her proposition of a directed energy device as the mechanism of destruction is bogus.
That is what “pseudoscience” is, bogus science.
While there are many outright falsehoods you repeat here, I will not address them again. I have been at this for at least 8 years of counter argument. If all you want to read is things that reinforce your biases, then by all means handwave Dr Jenkins, Dr Jones, Dr Niels Harrit, and many other physicists. By all means ignore my page on the demise of the WTC. Because frankly I don’t care what people like you think.
So to close, you charge: “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.” Is not so, I have looked, and my opinions are formed by knowing the argument Wood makes, and my counterarguments reflect that. If you aren’t going to actually read my counter argument, then don’t fuss with me here. I have said what I have to say in print, in public, on view at my blog. I refuse to repeat it here.
\\][//
ruffadam
August 24, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Roger you are making all sorts of false claims in your post. Here are some of them:
“Whatever the energy is, it was obviously under control because it turned steel into dust” – False the steal was NOT turned to dust.
“It didn’t bust the tub the complex was in. It is 70 feet under the Hudson River yet it wasn’t damaged at all. Not even a crack.” – False the bathtub was damaged.
“None of the buildings speared down into the basement.” – False much of the basement was filled in with debris from the towers.
“just the steel alone is such a big pile of metal and all supposedly cut, yet it isn’t there.” – False the steel is there both in and around the WTC complex.
This is why it is so difficult to deal with Wood supporters because they make so many false statements about what actually happened that to address those alone would take an entire discussion unto itself. Nothing “dustified” at the WTC it was simply blown up and much of the softer material were blown into small particles we call dust just like in ANY controlled demolition.
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Very succinct comment Mr Ruff. You have put the problem with Wood and her supporters in a nutshell.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
August 26, 2015 at 5:43 pm
COMMENT REMOVED
{mcb: retrieved from email}
How about fuck off Roger, does that suit you better?
\\][//
x201 T&S Participants : Caught in a Bird Cage: Then and Now {repeats}
2013-03-04 and 2015-08-31
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm
But seriously folks…if I can maintain ‘serious’ for any length of time after the latest from el Sinyor Grande Plops…ahem.
Okay, the actual truth of the matter is I told Sinyor I would send his stupid book back to him. Sinyor refused. I supposed at the time that it had to do with his paranoia, that he didn’t want me to know his address.
Well, the shelf life of even this offer has expired. I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.
Speaking of papers…shouldn’t you be grading your student’s work rather than making up stupid bullshit here on the forum Sinyor Sheetfarts?
\\][//
Señor El Once
March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Agent Rogue wrote yesterday:
I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages.
My money is betting that the above is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, so for today let’s assume that it’s true.
Señor El Once
March 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Mr. Rogue admits to not having finished reading Dr. Wood’s textbook. In fact, he admits to violently defacing the contents of this hardcover book so that his bird could have pretty, high quality pictures for the bottom of his cage.
ruffadam
March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am
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.
Señor El Once
March 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm
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.
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.
//
hybridrogue1
August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm
Roger Gloux,
I have the BOOK. I have read every article on her web site, I understand the case Wood makes. Her proposition of a directed energy device as the mechanism of destruction is bogus.
That is what “pseudoscience” is, bogus science.
While there are many outright falsehoods you repeat here, I will not address them again. I have been at this for at least 8 years of counter argument. If all you want to read is things that reinforce your biases, then by all means handwave Dr Jenkins, Dr Jones, Dr Niels Harrit, and many other physicists. By all means ignore my page on the demise of the WTC. Because frankly I don’t care what people like you think.
So to close, you charge: “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.” Is not so, I have looked, and my opinions are formed by knowing the argument Wood makes, and my counterarguments reflect that. If you aren’t going to actually read my counter argument, then don’t fuss with me here. I have said what I have to say in print, in public, on view at my blog. I refuse to repeat it here.
\\][//
Craig McKee
August 26, 2015 at 6:39 pm
I supposed it’s my fault for allowing the Moon discussion. That’s why people think there’s no problem with switching to Judy Wood. There is a Judy Wood thread, and comments on the subject are welcome there – although I’d be surprised if something can be added that isn’t already there.
But on this thread it’s enough. I’m not blaming anyone for responding to Roger’s points, but I’m asking all to either drop the subject or move the discussion over to the other thread. Also, no ad hominem insults please. And no fuck offs. Thank you.
Craig McKee
August 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm
I don’t believe I closed any doors. I said we have a Judy Wood thread with more than 500 comments (I think comments may be closed on that because the number of comments was making the page load very slowly) where all the forensic evidence has been discussed at great length.
Roger Gloux
August 30, 2015 at 11:31 pm
It is as clear as mud for anyone to say this was controlled demolition when you look at this one photo on page 114 and Figure #109 in her [Dr. Judy Wood's book.
Roger Gloux
August 31, 2015 at 1:08 pm
In the Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth.
hybridrogue1
August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm
“In the Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth.”~Roger Gloux
In fact pages 188 and 189 show scenes from under buildings 4 and 5, not under either tower. You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.
\\][//
x202 Maxwell Bridges : Facebook: Dr. Wood
2015-09-01
https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F965700833469284%2Fpermalink%2F966888853350482%2F
Steve Grage
Please be advised, Any serious researcher needs to review the content of the 500 page book "Where did the Towers Go". The author is not important as the book is a scholarly presentation of evidence complete with references. Naturally, if one hasn't read this book, ones opinion as to its content is of little value. I am not aware of any evidence in this book ever being false or misleading. Is there any serious researcher (defined as must of read "Where did the Towers Go") that can reference any false or misleading statement (page#). If not, this book should be the basis of knowledge of what happened (to WTC complex).
+++
Maxwell Bridges Regarding Steve Grage's posting. I agree that WDTG is worth reading. However, I have found several instances of its content being false or misleading. (One example is the "torching of cars at the bridge." The cars were torched elsewhere and then towed to the bridge. Still an anomaly for how they got zapped where they were originally parked, but not the gross one that Dr. Wood implies had happened at the bridge. Pictures are available of the torched police car 2346 (?) parked elsewhere.)
Dr. Wood doesn't go into details about the energy source for her speculations, let alone make or model number. She doesn't connect a lot of things, on purpose. Some shoddy research she exhibits into nuclear methods. (Hell, she doesn't even address in her 2010 book the valid 2007 criticism by Dr. Jenkins, which also has invalid points.)
This PDF from 2005 (and earlier books by the author from 1999) into Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices will enlighten you as to the areas where Dr. Wood got it right and wrong.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
++++
Maxwell Bridges If you'd like other instances, Dr. Wood accepts the satellite images unchallenged regarding hot-spots. All it would take is someone in the original report putting the wrong date on the 2nd image to imply how there weren't hot-spots, or that they cooled before September was over. Many accounts contradict that assumption from Dr. Wood of there being no hot-spots. The last ones were not put out until December.
As already mentioned, she did shitty research into nuclear devices. For example, she makes no study into the types of such weapons, even though much is publicly available. Her dirt analysis -- although wonderful -- stops short of nuclear conclusions, although those are classic radiation mitigation techniques.
USGS samples of the dust (see Jeff Prager) prove nuclear hijinx. The tritium report proves nuclear hijinx (and efforts to cover-up). The delays in taking samples and not being thorough are other indications of nuclear means. Refer also to Professor Cahill's air sampling.
Dr. Wood also states there was no damage to the bathtub. Actually there were cracks that needed repair. Dr. Wood misleads us with information about the power stations that were destroyed, implying that an energy weapon did it.
+++
Maxwell Bridges I agree partly that Hutchison is misleading in Dr. Wood's work. However, when you study fourth generation nuclear devices [FGND] (as given in the PDF), that's when you learn about what might be possible.
Nuclear energy is much easier to come by than Tesla energy from space (or any notion that space beams were involved.) In fact, any DEW devices not co-located within the towers would have a hard time delivering the requisite energy needed for destruction.
FGND are about channeling specific wavelengths of the nuclear output, which in turn reduces many side-effects of your "standard" nuclear devices (e.g., blast wave, heat wave, EMP). Even aiming the neutrons of a neutron bomb upwards would scale back energy; call this using a device in an application different from design or the PR.
At any rate, if the wavelengths of energy are on the scale of the molecular distances of materials, in a very Hutchison sort of way, materials truly could be disassociated and "dustified" to appearances.
But there would still be those aforementioned side effects, like the intense instantaneous heat at ignition which would account for the bent and twisted beams. EMP slipping through window slits could explain some of the cars catching fires. EMP generates Eddy currents in metal it hits line-of-sight; large Eddy currents in the metal can cause things on the metal, like paint, plastic door handles, rubber seals, to ignite.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
+++
Maxwell Bridges Ms. Grable, I have researched cold fusion. It isn't quite real world to the extent that would have been required for 9/11. Not even today. That is a red-herring.
Fission-triggered fusion FGND are what the evidence points to, particularly the tritium and the song-and-dance to explain away tritium as "air plane exit signs, sights on weapons, personal time-pieces.") Such shoddy measurements of it, too. And even then it slips out and required them to re-define trace levels of tritium to be 55 times larger than expected.
Evidence in the dust sampled extensively by USGS and put into their data tables proves minor fission involvement due to the correlated quantities of certain elements. Although in the data tables, they don't explain those elements' presence, or that they are sample-to-sample in correlated quantities, or that they are remnants of nuclear recipes. Refer to Jeff Prager's work.
x203 Maxwell Bridges : many birds with one stone
2015-08-28
Dear Mr. Syed,
Just refreshing your memory that you also know me as "Señor El Once" on Truth & Shadows, although "Herr der Elf" will probably be my new alias when I start commenting again.
On August 18, 2015 at 11:10 pm, you praised the work of Craig McKee. I sent my kudos to Mr. McKee off-list. It doesn't seem to matter ~WHAT~ I post; the fact ~THAT~ I post will inspire my detractors -- Adam Ruff and hybridrogue1 -- to come unglued and exhibit bad behavior [not unlike Mike Collins.] So I lurk. I've had plenty of concerns in my personal life, so I've been enjoying my break.
In response on August 18, 2015 at 11:21 pm, Mr. McKee gave you praise right back: "Thanks for participating and for your two excellent contributions. Maybe you should start thinking of an idea for number three?"
Your reply on August 19, 2015 at 8:23 pm was: "I’ll be delighted to write a third piece for you, Craig."
If you do one article, right there you've knocked down two birds: Mr. McKee's need for content and your need to publish.
What if that were turned into an opportunity to knock down with the same stone, two-three-or-four more birds: big birds, at that, labeled "turkey, goose, or fowl/foul" (play on words) by some, but sorely needing to be legitimately addressed for the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world?
Would you be interested? Depends on the birds, right?
The bird up on trial and hanging over a vat of hot oil will be fourth generation nuclear devices. My task in our rational and intelligent exchanges will be to convince you of its viability to 9/11. Of course, I want it exonerated and spared of getting its goose cooked. Regardless of that outcome as more of a side-effect, though, the generic micronuke premise and Dr. Wood DEW would get their carcass cooked ~legitimately~. Also, Nano-Thermite would get its feathers plucked.
You wrote to Mr. Rogue about yourself on August 20, 2015 at 10:31 pm: "[I have] no expertise in science in general, and certainly not radiation in particular."
I can teach you what you need to know. I have already done extensive research, collected information, and formatted it to be web-friendly that I will make available to you (before generally publishing it.) I've got hundreds of references with abstracts, if not entire articles, that you can skim through to come up to speed. Only two or three of them really require extensive study.
The format of the article could be you asking intelligent questions and me responding. Send me a batch of questions; give me time to draft my responses; another batch of questions; another set of responses; etc.
I'll also give you full disclosure regarding me (maybe even send you my current resume) as a token of my sincerity. I trust you not to reveal my identity and will secure your word before I impart it. When I retire or when I'm dead, those are the dates I'm aiming for to unmask myself. Any unveiling prior to that is more than likely unethical and immoral, and will backfire on the revealer. Mr. McKee has known who I am; so does Dr. Fetzer, because he was considering me for a radio interview or a conference; but that isn't the lime-light I seek. Mr. Rogue does ~not~ know (or acts like he does not), and he wouldn't act responsibly with the information if he had it; Mr. AWright is recent proof of Mr. Rogue's ethics. (My identity really isn't that deeply hidden.) I do stand behind my words, but have very good personal reasons for not outing myself today.
At any rate, I'd be willing to have some telephone conversations with you (if you agree to conditions), but would prefer writing my responses because it affords me more time to think about it and write something worthy.
My three main conditions are: (1) My pen-name or its alias is used. (2) I author my responese -- subject to trimming by you. (3) I reserve the write to preserve and publish what I deem fit from our raw exchanges. I fully expect us to generate more content than what Mr. McKee will allow.
You can choose how we communicate. We both have under-utilized WordPress blogs; it has the advantage that a blog entry and its discussion could be made password protected and private between just you and me (or who has the password) until you remove the password. (My public Blogger blog does not have that feature.) Email is my recommendation. (Facebook, no way. It completely sucks.)
At the end, you mine our discussion for the salient information and produce your article for Mr. McKee.
Maybe I don't convince you. But a rational discussion will be had that will advance the understanding of the 9/11 Truth Movement, because legitimately Wood and generic nukes will be taken down.
As part of my full disclosure, let me give you my assessment of certain players. The alias Mr. Rogue may have been NSA's infiltrator to T&S: target me and my wild-ass ideas. Although Mr. Rogue seemed to out the identity of Mr. AWright recently -- a very unethical act regardless of its accuracy [he's been inaccurate trying to out me] --, I suspect that Mr. AWright is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet. [I've asked Mr. McKee to remove that outing info; uncalled for and immoral.] Mr. Rogue is one of the few who regularly engage Mr. AWright; Mr. Rogue has invested hundreds of comments addressing Mr. AWright; yet Mr. Rogue has never re-purposed these exchanges on his blog and doesn't have anything dedicated to Mr. AWright. [Plus, Mr. Rogue's mother's middle initial and last name are "A.Wright".] I can legitimately call Mr. Rogue "a liar, a cheat, and a weasel" based on my experience with him, and can substantiate it.
The problem with alias-ASS-ociating one participant to another is that you never know when to stop your suspicions. Although I think of Mr. Rogue as one person, I have much weaker suspicions of Mr. Rogue being Mr. Adam Ruff's sock-puppet and thereby also related to Mr. AWright. They're so weak, I could be wrong; just lots of subtle clues.
It shouldn't surprise either of us if the NSA infiltrator was using Persona Management Software. Not all personas would be back-slapping in agreement. In fact, conflict breeds interest. Manufactured conflict allows a discussion to controlled and pre-ordained (like a WWF match), and gives truther street-cred to those (Ruff/Rogue) who engage the manufactured troll (AWright).
Whatever, let's set this aside.
What you need to know is that I recently pwned Mr. Ruff in a major way. You'll see that it didn't happen all at once. But when our interactions over years are compiled into one, the disengenuous nature of Mr. Ruff becomes apparent.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-one-discredits-himself.html
I can legitimately call Mr. Ruff "a blow-hard hypocrite" if not what I call Mr. Rogue "liar, cheat, and weasel." Those outcomes were not my intent. Didn't have to be that way, if they just would have taken the assignment more seriously.
Should you be worried, Mr. Syed? No, because you have a truth agenda and more ethics than either of those two. (Geez, neither could be bothered to even read Mr. Kevin Ryan's book or Dr. Wood's book before issuing their disparaging remarks.)
I don't know all about you, but what FB reveals and your words on T&S. Reasonable. After all this time, I can not recall a single point of contention between us... except your unwillingness to wade into nuclear topics based on your weaker science background.
Are you going to get pwned?
I am a respectful discussion partner. My goal is to reveal truth, or to have my understanding enlightened and altered on what I previously believed was truth. I don't like being damn near the only duped useful idiot on my hobby-horse (that deviates from generic nukes and Dr. Wood, because they have disinformation.) I want to be set straight.
Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue ran into problems, because they have "cognitive dissonance" from the other side. The Truth Movement was infiltrated, and NT is a limited hangout (to be proven in our exchanges). Just like the general masses have cognitive dissonance regarding any beliefs that the government had a hand in 9/11, the two Mr. R.'s have cognitive dissonance regarding any beliefs that PhD's in the 9/11 Truth Movement could have led us astray (with NT). My nuclear premises (to be proven in our exchanges) are why.
I don't believe that you will get pwned, Mr. Syed, because you are not the Mr. R.'s with their stilted agendas, their belligerent ignorance, and unwillingness to admit where holes exist in their arguments necessitating re-evaluation of previously held beliefs. They won't go there.
It has happened to me in the past that when arguing something, I discover an error in my premise that together with other weak elements has me change my mind. I am not a no-planer at the WTC anymore; I've been convinced otherwise. I wasn't in the CIT camp until Mr. OSS's discussions on T&S. Video faker did happen (that even Mr. Rogue admitted instances of, to his chagrin), just not to the over-blown and unrealistic extent that September Clues and Let's Roll Forums hype it; so I don't promote it like I once did, except in those valid instances of it. I could have been suckered into holograms, but the case was never sufficiently made nor proven to convince me; worse, it relied on blatantly and disingenuously false interpretations of the radar data. I used to believe that NT was the primary cause of destruction, until the math and science proved it coming up short.
The point is, I do change my mind when facts warrant a re-evaluation. Could even happen on my hobby-horse topic.
Whichever way the discussion goes, it will be win-win for the 9/11 Truth Movement and the world. And could be done under your byline.
Tell me of your willingness to take this on, or your concerns for such an endeavor.
All the best.
P.S. FB can be an addiction and time-suck that I don't need. I try to limit my entrances. Email is better.
//
x204 T&S Participants : Ruff Gets Wood
2015-09-01
ruffadam
September 1, 2015 at 10:19 pm
I echo your words here about the CIT response devastating Chandler and Cole’s sloppy paper. I agree 100% that their complete lack of response to it speaks volumes! What amazes me is that Chandler is still apparently respected by many even though he has CLEARLY lost the debate about the pentagon due to forfeit. He made his points in his paper, CIT smashed them utterly and decisively and now Chandler and Cole haven’t a word to say about it but rather flee from any and all debate. David Ray Griffin and the consensus panel should really consider long and hard if someone like Chandler belongs on the panel at all. He refuses to acknowledge the truth so what is he doing on a 9/11 truth panel huh?
I’ll tell you what he is doing he is black balling the pentagon evidence which in my book is about the worst thing a truther can do. He needs to grow the hell up and acknowledge that his position on the pentagon is untenable and CIT debunked it with authority.
So think about what Chandler has really done here, or better yet I will offer this analogy to what he has done.
Suppose I disputed Chandlers calculations on the free fall of WTC 7 and I said well X, Y, and Z, clearly show that WTC 7 did not come down at free fall. Next Chandler writes a detailed response debunking all three of my points decisively. He shows my contention X to be false, he shows my contention Y to be false, and then he shows my contention Z to be false. Now how about if I refuse to acknowledge that he proved my contentions false and instead go on a truth tour giving presentations about how true X, Y, and Z are while the whole time pretending he never debunked them?
Well THAT is exactly what Chandler is doing and I think it is despicable to the extreme. DRG tolerating this so called truther on the consensus panel really irks me to no end. If Chandler was a truther he could debate the pentagon in the open like a man.
hybridrogue1
September 1, 2015 at 10:26 pm
“DRG tolerating this so called truther on the consensus panel really irks me to no end. If Chandler was a truther he could debate the pentagon in the open like a man.”~Adam Ruff
I am afraid that i have to agree to your point about DRG as well. As I have previously argued, I think that the idea of “consensus” itself is flawed. I won’t repeat my argument here as I have done so many times in the past; other than the central point: Consensus is by its very nature temporary and fleeting.
\\][//
ruffadam
September 1, 2015 at 11:15 pm
Yes the whole idea of a consensus panel is essentially a popularity contest and an appeal to authority about truth. Truth is still truth even if the consensus panel votes against it.
ruffadam
September 1, 2015 at 10:46 pm
Roger here is the problem with your selective picture analysis. Tell us where exactly “under the complex” this “loading platform” is. Be precise. Also how long after 9/11 was the picture taken? Be precise. Was it a month after? Did work crews have time to remove debris and clean up the area?
I am betting the area depicted in that photograph was NOT in a spot hit by a particularly large amount of falling debris OR it was protected from damage by structures above it that survived complete destruction. Or both. This picture proves NOTHING other than that this particular spot didn’t cave in or get filled with debris.
This is the whole issue with Wood herself, she makes claims based on nebulous information and guess work. Her work and unfortunately yours is full of logical fallacies. For instance, it is a fallacy to suggest that because the area depicted in your picture above did not cave in or get filled with debris that the entire basement of the WTC complex therefore did not suffer cave ins or get filled with debris. Even though it is clearly false logic you are using here you keep on doing it as though it isn’t. It is really tiresome to keep pointing this stuff out to Wood supporters over and over again.
Your logic goes something like this: Well because William Rodriguez survived even though he got out of the towers after people who perished he must have been in on the whole thing and had a special hideout purpose built to protect him. It is ridiculous.
I expect you to either acknowledge my points here Roger or drop it completely because I am NOT getting on the merry go round again where you simply ignore valid counter arguments and just keep on spouting logical fallacies on and on and on.
ruffadam
September 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely. I notice A.Wright and other trolls refuse to answer direct questions, they simply deflect, ignore or redirect the conversation so that they ask all the questions and answer none from others.
Direct questions for Roger:
1. Where did the energy to power the supposed DEW which Wood contends destroyed the towers come from?
2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.
x205 hybridrogue1 : Just Another Stooge Marinated In Statist Indoctrination
2015-09-04
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 9:17 am
Just Another Stooge Marinated In Statist Indoctrination
The Legend: ‘Simpleton’ Template (Subtle)
Operative: Roger the Dodger
School: Sunstein
Team Leaders: James Fetzer, Maxwell Bridges
Operative Cover Name: Roger Gloux
Site of Engagement: Truth & Shadows
Profile Clue: “Back to 9/11 and all the expertise everybody is expending. I’m just a truck driver”~Gloux – August 23, 2015 at 7:18 pm
Clue # 1. “I stopped getting involved. That is until I saw what Willy Whitten was saying.”~Gloux
Aggression Level: High, and revealed in very first comment: “All this crap about absurd and all the fine language letting on you are smart, explain some of these problems”
Note; This is directed at me personally although Roger only hints at this by the mention of the term “absurd” (“but I fail to see why legitimate questions and legitimate points must be described as “absurd.”~Craig McKee) – so Roger subtly ingratiates himself with the site owner, and calls me out in the same subtle fashion.
Progressing snippets of Gloux’s nomenclature:
August 24, 2015 at 10:04 am:
> “That sounds like a politician answering with a non-answer.”
> “Your “kiss off” reveals you are stumped as to what I said in my previous post.”
(I never told Gloux to ‘kiss off’)
> “What are you smoking?”
> “Your reply is foolish or you can’t reply because you have no clue.”
. . . .
> “Well buddy I’m provoking you, buy the book and look at the pictures. If your broke borrow it from Craig.”
> “Why is it pseudoscience? Did you read the book? Your burnt out in more ways then one because you spout off as if your an expert and when you look at it more closely your like a politician answering with non answers.”
> “I know you are not going to look because you are a glib armchair expert and got it all figured out.”
> “Now I’m just a simple truck driver who hauled all sorts of steel..”
> “You need to get the book. Buy the book.”
> “Besides, no plane hit the towers.”
> “I haven’t read all the posts since the inception of this site but I can see who dominates in this last part. The part I decide to step into the fray. Articulate verbal…. errrr expressions may intimidate some people but it don’t have that effect on me.”
. . . . .
August 31, 2015 at 1:08 pm:
> “hybridrogue1 Well Mr. William Rodriguez you have everything to say about everything else yet one photo that shows there isn’t anything at ground level with an undamaged ambulance right outside where the front doors used to be and a fireman walking on the street reveals there is no material to say it was a controlled demolition using explosives.
That leaves you speachless? You figure your a true believer. You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.
Again you tell an un-truth.”
> “hybridrogue1: Mr. William Rodriguez…”
> “But now your back tracking because you see absolutely no damage under Building 4 and 5.”
> “I look past your articulation and see a guy who wants to be important and figures he can pull it off. I don’t buy it.”
> ” You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth.”
> “Only a spook would say the opposite of what these pictures say.”
> “Either your blind or your a spook. Or maybe your to caught up with yourself and your sophistication.”
> “I agree and that’s what your doing with your glib articulation. Considering all the people you choose as experts the list reveals your much like a spook who is trying to deflect any information that has truth in it.”
> “I know you got the book … Only a spook would say this is full of debris when you can see all the floors except half of the first floor. All I can say to these folks is buy the Book and see what this spook Willy Whitten is saying.”
> “So far you have been backtracking because you can’t explain why there isn’t the evidence you say there is, when the pictures are saying the opposite of what you say.”
_____________________________________________________________
Okay, enough of these quotes by Roger the Dodger for the moment. I will leave it to the beancounter Maxitwat to count how many times the Dodger calls me ‘a spook”. I wanted to clarify that what Gloux calls “backtracking” are my attempts to clarify his seeming misinterpretations of what I have said. I never backtracked once in our conversation. And it was at this point I began to realize that Gloux is only playing at being a simpleton “truck driver”.
But when he said this; “You better read the Book Willy. You got it for nothing so make sure what you present doesn’t make you look like a fool,” it occurred to me that a needling suspicion I had that Maxifuckanus could be involved in the background sprung more forward into my thinking.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Almost everything Roger Gloux writes is, ad verecundiam and appeal to authority. And the worst part of that is this appeal is to a fucking lunatic, Judy Wood.
\\][//
x206 Maxwell Bridges : Three items were I a team leader
Three items:
[Item 1]
Dearest Mr. Rogue should stop polluting ~my~ thread on his ~stellar~ -- *cough* *cough* *hack* *choke* *wheeze* -- blog with items and people that are not associated with me. I have denied such associations multiple times. His continuance in this foolery only makes him look stupid, stubborn, and vindictive. He'll know when I have an active role, because I take responsibility & credit for my work and all my aliases.
Mr. Rogue should establish new threads to smear debate opponents individually.
While we are on the subject of debate opponents and dedicated threads, where is Mr. Rogue's smear job for Mr. AWright? Mr. Rogue been debating him since 2012 as well, has amassed a ton of verbiage related to his carousel spins alone, and continues to drool related spittle. His total output dedicated to AWright is second probably only to output aimed at me. What gives? Is none of his effort taking down AWright worthy of preservation? For all the times Mr. Rogue has bemoaned renewed cranks on AWright's merry-go-round, had he been writing worthy entries and preserving his efforts together with source links, Mr. Rogue could have stopped those spin-cycles early in their revolutions with a link and quotation from his legacy.
[Item 2]
Were I a team leader for Mr. Roger Gloux or in any way in communication with him, I would set him straignt on Dr. Wood's work and disinformation contained therein. I find it worthy of study, but it was never the end station and never championed by me as such.
This is brought to light more clearly by my new 9/11 hero, Mr. Andre Gsponer, who has never mentioned 9/11 in his work that I'm aware of.
I've never read his book Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, which was in its fifth edition in March 1999. But by golly, Dr. Jones, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Wood, et al should have!
The Executive Summary states:
The fourth chapter is devoted to fourth generation nuclear weapons. These new fission or fusion explosives could have yields in the range of 1 to 100 ton equivalents of TNT, i.e., in the gap which today separates conventional weapons from nuclear weapons. These relatively low-yield nuclear explosives would not qualify as weapons of {mass} destruction. Seven physical processes which could be used to make such low-yield nuclear weapons, or to make compact non-fission triggers for large scale thermonuclear explosions, are investigated in detail: subcritical fission-burn, magnetic compression, superheavy elements, antimatter, nuclear isomers, metallic hydrogen and superlasers (i.e., ultrapowerful lasers with intensities higher than 1019 W/cm2).
Even Mr. Gsponer's more accessible 2005 PDF Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects would have given tons of insight. This pre-dates much of Dr. Wood's website and certainly Dr. Wood's book [2010], but also Dr. Jones' Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers [2007].
As coincidence would have it, Mr. Rogue has never waded into this 54 page PDF file from Mr. Gsponer. Neither has Mr. Ruff who was challenged directly to do so in order to spare him a lashing to his integrity that his anticipated lame debunking of Dr. Wood's work would serve up. Debunking legitimately Mr. Gsponer's work would have been a two-fer with regards to debunking Dr. Wood! Mr. Ruff agreed, but then became a no-show... except for his pogo-horse romps on T&S chasing Dr. Wood's supporter, Mr. Gloux.
Mr. Rogue wrote September 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm:
My opinion is that it is well established that the DEW issue is bogus, and is meant as a distraction as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.
Mr. Lilaleo gave a witty response September 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm:
Well, it is working quite well then, this distraction, isn’t it? ;-}]
Indeed. Indeed.
[Item 3]
Were I a team leader for Mr. Roger Gloux or in any way in communication with him, I would him give him a silver bullet to fatally pierce Mr. Rogue's integrity in the perceptions of the thinking readers.
Mr. McKee referred Mr. Gloux to the closed T&S blogs dedicated to Dr. Wood, where Mr. Gloux undoubtedly learned that, after much cajoling, Mr. Rogue received Dr. Wood's book for free [only in the monetary sense, el-oh-el.] The agreed barter exchange were that Mr. Rogue read the book cover-to-cover; provide an objective good, bad, ugly review; and in the end pass-it-along or pay-it-forward. No need to belabor this comment with specifics on how Mr. Rogue ran out the clock and spectacularly failed the three simple conditions.
However, what is extremely noteworthy is how Mr. Rogue shut down further attempts at a rational discussion and legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood. On March 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm Mr. Rogue wrote:
I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book [by Dr. Judy Wood] and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.
For almost 2-1/2 years, this has been the official position of Mr. Rogue: he supposedly didn't have the book any more. A weasel move to avoid addressing specifics in the book. Even when his violent defacement of the book was mocked, Mr. Rogue never corrected the record. Until I go on a T&S vacation, that is. On August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm, Mr. Rogue writes to Mr. Gloux:
I have the BOOK [from Dr. Judy Wood].
As proof that he has the book, other comments from Mr. Rogue in August 2015 reference specific pages and images to address certain points from Mr. Gloux.
Whereas Dr. Wood's book is a distraction (from Mr. Gsponer and FGNW), it has served very well as an objectivity test and an integrity test that continues to bloody noses even today!
The above blatant ~LIE~ from Mr. Rogue that he dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years in lieu of acknowledging any good in Dr. Wood's book?!!
The silver bullet fatally pierces Mr. Rogue's integrity and character. "Unfaithful in the small things..."
I wrote on March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm
My money is betting that the above [destruction of Dr. Wood's book for bird cage liner] is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, ...
Jackpot! Bingo! Full-house! Pay day! Woo-hoo!
... And what a long strange trip it has been!
//
x207 hybridrogue1 : Oh yes, I still have the Book! the jokes on you
2015-09-04
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Lol, Maxitwat! How you spin your wheels responding to this blog when you know you will never ever EVER be published here. But I love smelling the desperate aggravation and frustration in your blathering rants!
Fuck off monkeyboy, the jokes on you…the joke has always been on you! Hahahahahahah!!!
Oh yes, I still have the Book! It would be stupid to destroy it, I told you that fib because I knew it would steam your stinking ass more than anything. Others know that I didn’t rip the pages out for cage liners as well – yea it was a joke on you, you stupid shit! I offered you the damned thing back and you refused, you have NOTHING to say about it beyond that point. Now stew in your own juice.
\\][//
x208 Maxwell Bridges : a joke on your character
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You may think that the joke has been on me. From any outsider's objective opinion, it was a joke on your character: unfaithful in the small things...
Your attempt at a joke didn't affect me except to give me many opportunities to mock you for your alleged actions, if true, and you had take it, fool. I suspected from the onset it was a lie (with March 2013 comments that prove this), because destroying the book would have been indeed stupid. But you made that bed, so I made you lie in it. I knew your fib would be exposed one day. Until it was, you were punked and pwned on the theme and had to take it.
The joke is on you that you thought/think your ~lie~ ever presented you in a favorable light to those in on the joke or those ignorant thereof. Even more so when it was all about you weaseling out of a good, bad, and ugly section-by-section assessment of Dr. Wood. Could have been your opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood and achieved fame and stardom in the 9/11 Truth Movement. You flumuxed that one in a major way. It isn't as if I would have been in disagreement with your assessments of the bad or the work as a whole. Quite the contrary, I would have been strengthening and supporting you. Alas, the issue would always have been the remaining good that you avoid like the plague -- or an agent with an agenda. With exposure of this fib as the cherry on top, we don't have to entertain any notions of you being a sincere seeker of truth.
I already have a copy of the book, so sending it back to me would not have benefited the larger discussion. This was why it was never one of the initial options in the conditions. You could have sent it (or paid-it-forward) to Dr. Jones or Mr. Ruff or others and gotten this monkeyboy off your back. You refused. The record shows that your refusal to do any good-faith efforts into fulfilling the conditions of the agreement came first.
What makes it funnier from my perspective, is that you knew before the offer was extended how I was using Dr. Wood's book as an objectivity test and how it would play against you if you defaulted. Who's the dumb-fuck, Mr. Autodictat Genius? El-oh-el.
Instead, you stew in your juices about how all aspects of this long-play "joke" supposedly on me is really the epitomy of the depravity of your integrity. You have none. You discredit yourself.
Meanwhile, if I so desire (but don't), I can cyber-stalk you all over the internet where ever you play and legitimately label you "a liar, a cheat, and weasel" ... complete with supporting links that now includes your admission here.
I thank you for being my debate opponent. You helped me hone my arguments, improve my research, and build up my case. Too bad you didn't use the opportunity for the same.
Have not only a great weekend but also life! And stop re-animating me.
//
x209 hybridrogue1 : shown to be blathering
2015-09-04
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Again aye Bridges? You are farting in the wind sending me your bullshit.
The problem with your complaint and allegations that I “lied” about the book are shown to be blather, as you yourself admitted there is NOTHING of substance in the BOOK, that was not previously found on Wood’s web site. You conned me into accepting that Book. Well one con deserves another counter con.
On top of that I offered to send you that Book back in pristine condition, you refused, hoping to con me into fulfilling a promise to review said book even though I discovered you pawned it off on me under false pretenses. This is all in the public record, in fact the quotes by yourself admitting the book had nothing of substance over the web site are somewhere in the stack of comments above. You claimed that even though there really wasn’t a spit worth of difference from the site to the book, that the plastic card with the layout of the WTC that came with the book was worth the price. Am I jogging your faulty memory monkeyboy?
You call me a liar and a cheat and a weasel throughout your spurious slurs against me at any rate. You are the one that lied, and started this entire tempest in a thimble. I have proved that by quoting your own words.
Now, it makes no difference to me if you rant and rave, scream and stamp your feet, because it is futile here. You will NEVER be given a voice on this blog because indeed it is you who are the depraved liar, and cheat and weasel.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 8:26 pm
“The record shows that your refusal to do any good-faith efforts into fulfilling the conditions of the agreement came first.”~Maxitwat
The record shows that the “agreement” was made under your false assertions that the book was different than the website. That annuls any agreement as it was false advertising and a con. I owe you no “good-faith efforts”, because you made bad faith efforts to con me into accepting that book.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 8:47 pm
”The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22668
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22708
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22709
. . . . .
I hereby reiterate and reaffirm that I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, and the entity still hasn’t proven a single one.
Señor boasts:
— “Not impossible; already done; link provided to more than one.”
And then continues with:
— “The lie that Mr. Rogue promoted was him (or other sources) having completely and entirely debunked Dr. Wood’s work, whether it is framed as her book or her website.”
And here is the crux of the matter, the entity calling itself Señor is making a subjective case as to what a “lie” is. He defines a “lie” as that which he disagrees with. Whether Dr. Wood’s work is “debunked” entirely, in great part, for the most part, or not at all is OPINION.
The entity obviously puts a great deal of faith in his own OPINION, in fact to the point of hubris, that vanity that blinds the senses and causes delusion.
It is so obvious on inspection that the entity is just a context-shifting word twisting-shill.
Example, the entity already did its Beancounter slink, numbering my comments of yesterday’s compared to his/her/its; but what is missing there? CONTEXT, the entity spewed how many thousands of words on the page yesterday? I am loath to even attempt a count, but one certain thing is that they overwhelm my word-count by a vast margin.
And his every point is veiled in the same stinking cheesecloth. Just rhetorical spin jive bullshit. ARGUMENTUM VERBOSIUM to the max.
Wood’s BOOK v Wood’s website according to the Señor entity:
— “The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor
Parse this closely and what is really found in this spin?
– “Many errors from the website were fixed in the book,” Well, which errors?
Well deconstruct this:
– “The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood …[BUT]… This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts.”
That’s it; the most definitive statements are few and far between … WTF?
The entity doesn’t say what is in the book that was left off the website that was “under construction”. He makes no mention of what is new of substance. The only thing Once can come up with here is, – “The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”.
Is it? Part of what the entity refers to here is a plastic card, pretty durable, that has the layout of WTC as an areal view, with all the buildings numbered and the names of the streets. Is this “worth the price alone”? Preposterous. The card is handy no doubt, but the rest is more hyperbole. And I reiterate again; the entity cannot think of WHAT it is of substance that is revealed in the book, but missing from the website – he merely asserts that there is, and then offers these expansive remarks about a card with the Legend to the buildings seen from above.
Can I say, ‘Whoopty-fuckin-doo’?
Or should that read, ‘Whoopty-fuckin-DEW’? Lol
\\][//
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22716
hybridrogue1
September 4, 2015 at 9:24 pm
hybridrogue1 – May 14, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Seenyor Once lied when he claimed there was a substantial difference between Judy Wood’s website and the BOOK. This becomes a ‘Damned Lie’ in that he continues to promote this falsehood despite clear prima facea evidence to the contrary.
This is compounded by the fact that he uses this lie to make further lies concerning my honesty and character; slurs and defamation by false witness and perjury.
Each and everyone of these false assertions are “Counts” – ones that Seenyor, being the beancounter that he is; should tally one day to illustrate what a lying cheating scoundrel he truly is.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/#comment-22830
\\][//
x210 hybridrogue1 : why hasn’t he just posted his complaints directly on Truth & Shadows?
2015-09-06
hybridrogue1
September 5, 2015 at 4:05 pm
Maxitwat is squawking to Adam Ruff via email and me here, and likely tweeting blather all over the social sites, why hasn’t he just posted his complaints directly on Truth & Shadows? Why does he pen these verbose woeful harangues and send them here where he KNOWS DAMNED WELL they will never see the light of day?
Why does he claim that I “reanimate” him, when I don’t even let him speak here? Why doesn’t the asshole just disappear completely rather than haunting the HR1blog like some spook? Lol… because he has been a spook all along! — “Señor El Caspar the Fiendish Ghost”! Hahahahahaha!!!!!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 6, 2015 at 3:45 am
“DEW DEW DEW bla bla bla it’s all a bunch of ca ca ca”~The Police
\\][//
x211 ruffadam : {repeat} those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely
2015-09-01
ruffadam
September 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Those who refuse to answer direct questions should be scrutinized closely. I notice A.Wright and other trolls refuse to answer direct questions, they simply deflect, ignore or redirect the conversation so that they ask all the questions and answer none from others.
Direct questions for Roger:
1. Where did the energy to power the supposed DEW which Wood contends destroyed the towers come from?
2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.
ruffadam
September 3, 2015 at 1:24 am
May I point out here at this time that Roger has not answered the following direct question from my previous post:
“2. How did Wood measure (quantify) the amount of debris left in and around the WTC complex in order to come to the conclusion that steel and other debris was “missing” that should have been there? Please explain how she accurately accounted for all the debris? Explain how much is “missing”.”
This is an ongoing theme with Wood and her supporters, they make unsubstantiated claims such as there is material “missing” yet they refuse to answer as to how they know that and how they measured the material that is there and how much is “missing”. The whole basis of their flim flam is that there is something “missing”. So answer the above question or quit bothering us with unsupported (by evidence) claims. When you can prove there is a large amount of material “missing” I will reconsider your DEW theory. Until then it is pure BS based on speculation that isn’t even grounded in reality. I am tired of it frankly.
ruffadam
September 4, 2015 at 8:35 pm
My purpose for entering into the DEW discussion is twofold.
1. To expose the fact that Wood’s DEW theory is a bogus theory based on speculation and very poor analysis of the evidence and to make sure that people reading this discussion can see that some of us in the truth movement are exposing it as such. Mainly I am concerned about this aspect for people new to the truth movement who may be drawn in by Wood’s baffling buffoonery as Jesse Ventura unfortunately was. I want to nip that in the bud and prevent future truthers from falling prey to this misinformation. I consider it very likely but not 100% certain that the whole DEW meme is intention disinformation put out by professionals for the express purpose of weakening, dividing, and confusing the truth movement. From that standpoint I think it does help the truth movement to some degree to have people like myself and Willy counter this crap when it comes up. At least it is in print that we countered the spin. At least I challenged the basis for the whole thing which is the supposed “missing” steel. There is a danger though that engaging with disinformationists may accomplish one of their peripheral goals which is to derail productive discussions and slow progress in other areas. This has happened many times and is difficult to avoid because to do so we must necessarily allow the disinformationists the last word because they will not stop until they get it.
2. I like to allow for the possibility that people like Roger are genuine truth seekers who have simply been sucked in by clever disinformation. He may “come around” and see it for the disinformation that it really is if my points are made well enough. I admit this is a remote possibility though and I am probably pissing in the wind. So the “benefit” of continuing these discussions may be little to none, you will have to judge that for yourself Craig. Sometimes I doubt the “benefit” myself as I do in this case with Roger. I seriously wonder in Roger’s case if he is a genuine truth seeker or not. When I see the characteristics of an OCD personality show up out of the blue and start down the DEW path I have to wonder if this is just another identity for someone like Senior El Once still attempting to accomplish his/her/its mission of diluting the quality of T+S.
I am loth to censor anyone unless I am absolutely convinced they are NOT genuine truth seekers. In my own way I am trying to develop a test of sorts to identify the genuine people and expose the operatives. In the case of the DEW disinformation the test I have come up with is the question/challenge about the “missing” material. How a person responds to that speaks volumes about their authenticity. An honest truth seeker when asked that question about quantifying the “missing” material would have to respond that it is impossible to quantify how much material is in and around the WTC site and it is therefore impossible to say that any material is missing. A dishonest person or an operative will not admit that fact because it goes to the very hart of the entire disinformation meme. In other words admitting that truth that they have no way of quantifying the material that is there destroys their whole meme. An operative will not allow that to happen and CANNOT admit that fact. A genuine truth seeker can admit it. So my question is a litmus test of sorts. It is a way to identify the bad guys while not resorting to overt censorship which I detest. See now we can press Roger to answer the question OR admit that he has no idea how much if any material is “missing”. Once he admits it the DEW meme is destroyed. If he refuses to admit it there is a basis to remove him from T+S that is fair because he is then being disingenuous and not debating in good faith.
x212 T&S Participants : sounds of explosions
2015-09-07
Star Member William Seger (6,546 posts)
Mon Aug 24, 2015, 01:28 AM
5. I can show you plenty of evidence
... that you don't need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it's indefensible.
This is why the "truth movement" died, wildbill.
+++
Jimbo
September 7, 2015 at 7:46 am
Over on the Democratic Underground site there is a segregated comment site in their “basement” called Creative Speculation where 9/11 truth views are welcome. One guy Wildbilling (?) puts up a good fight for our side but there is a Wright-type of guy, Segar (I think) who is a formidable foe. A big part of his skepticism is derived from the no explosive sounds indicative of a controlled demolition were heard on 9/11. Wildbilling has reached out to other sites asking for a good counter argument for this dearth of the typical boom boom boom boom of controlled demolitions. As Graham McQueen has showed us there are many witnesses who heard explosions but very few, if any heard the the typical controlled demolition sound. Since we seem to insist it was a controlled demolition Segar says no it wasn’t. This is where a Judy Wood or the nuke argument would help. I would speculate that there was some exotic device used that day.
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 8:57 am
It is not true that there is a dearth of evidence for the sounds of explosions during the demolitions. In fact it has been shown that NIST edited the sound out of the videos that did have clear soundtracks of explosions. Further NIST made this spurious statement in the faq on Questions and Answers: “In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.” — The fact is that the sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB would be at the source of the explosion and wound fall off substantially at half a mile from that source.
225 decibels — Deafening — 12? Cannon @ 12' in front and below
Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
A. Dead people. They are always deaf.
140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire
–”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
–The conclusion from NIST
This is nonsense; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’
–“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges
This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12? Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast.Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.[*]
The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.
–“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.
The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.
“Intensity and Distance
• Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
• Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
the distance
• Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.
Summary
• Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
• Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
– logarithmic ratio scale
– with a reference at the threshold of hearing
– which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording. One can only measure the decibels of a live sound. Anyone that doesn’t get this is simply ignorant of the mechanics of sound recording.
It is in the nature of any recorded medium, that it is in fact an artifact, it is not the thing itself. This artifact has only the relations to other artifacts contained in the medium the record was made in.
With a sound recording these relationships are set and cannot be separated. The loudness or dB will then depend solely on the playback mechanism, the VU meter registering the settings on the playback. In a studio recording gleaning the true loudness of the drums compared to a guitar is impossible once the recording is mixed. One would have to then refer to the premix recording to adjust the levels.
In a field recording where there is only the mix created by the circumstance of the set relationships at hand at the moment a recording is made, there is nothing but a mix recording to refer to, the levels are set and the dB of the entire recording is set in those relationships.
One more thing about sound recording; those who have seen the films, ‘The Conversation’ or ‘The Good Shepherd’, may have seen the way EQ can be used to play with frequencies in a sound recording to mask or enhance a sound in a recording. These tricks are available to a talented recording artist. But it must be understood that
‘frequencies’ and ‘decibels’ are separate issues. Thus, assuming that the dB is somehow being manipulated by such techniques in in error, what is manipulated is the frequencies.
Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording.
\\][//
Nikogriego
September 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm
HybridRogue1 why not go over to that forum and lend your expertise to counter Seger’s nonsense? He states he can show many films of controlled demolitions that have explosive sounds. He is a committed agent.
” William Seger (6,546 posts)
5. I can show you plenty of evidence
… that you don’t need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it’s indefensible.
This is why the “truth movement” died, wildbill.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510486
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am
“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
Daniel Noel
September 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm
That Segar is a formidable foe only to those who let her/him. With no offense meant, 9/11 activists will make little progress until they factually accept the background of 9/11’s teaching:
* The Master 9/11 conspirators’ most formidable accomplishment is neither the technical prowess of the World Trade Center’s controlled demolition, nor the remarkable inter-agency cooperation into a complicated but transparent cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s air show and fraudulent reports. It is the poorly acknowledged process that has convinced the Syrian TV, the Russian professors of metallurgy, CodePink, the OathKeepers, etc., etc., to live the official 9/11 myth as an axiom.
* As such, 9/11 Truth’s acceptance comes with the uncomfortable corollary of the commitment to the 9/11 censorship of just about all sources of information one has trusted. This is the unspoken meaning of the simplistic “but someone would have talked” argument.
* Therefore, skeptics will be extremely reluctant to accept 9/11 Truth. They will–usually unconsciously and desperately–seek and cling to any reason to reject it.
* 9/11 censors understand the above. So do 9/11 fanatics, albeit to a lesser extent. Accordingly, they try to debate 9/11 on topics where they can confuse the audience out of studying 9/11. Hence their obsession with secondary evidence like the acoustic noise.
There may be a way to demonstrate the controlled demolitions based on the study of the acoustic noise alone. But even assuming that this is the case, the demonstration will be much too complex to be teachable in the midst of the 9/11 censors and the 9/11 fanatics, who hold all the bully pulpits denied to 9/11 scholars. It is usually an error to entertain an argument on this topic. Much more effective is to decline to enter it unless the other party has completed a cursory analysis of the video record, which inevitably yields overwhelming evidence to accept the criminal controlled demolition and reject the accidental destruction. At this point, the purpose of the noise analysis is to simply look for a compelling way to doubt the controlled demolition, along these ideas:
* If it was a criminal controlled demolition, there would be thousands of explosions over the 10 seconds or so of destruction.
* These thousands of explosions would yield explosive noises.
* The demolition engineers may have taken some unusual–and presumably expensive–precautions to muffle these noises to some extent.
* TV may have taken precautions to attenuate these noises in their records.
* Witnesses may have been “convinced” to not spread their recollection of the noises.
* Still, there would be some trace of these noises. A detailed analysis of sound records or a review of witness statements shortly after the buildings’ destruction would hint at explosions.
* Therefore, if we find that the analysis of audio records shows no trace of explosive sounds and that almost all witnesses affirm in unison the absence of explosions, we will have, at last, a reason to doubt the controlled demolition. This would not disprove the controlled demolition, but call for a more detailed analysis.
* The rest is straightforward.
Love,
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Daniel Noel,
It is already straight forward, right above you have a video with the actual sounds of explosions, you have videos of Firemen saying they witnessed explosions. At my blog I have page after page of hundreds of reports of explosions by ear witnesses, firemen, policemen, reporters and civilians near the site.
\\][//
Jimbo
September 7, 2015 at 8:50 pm
Explosions are one thing, and your site shows that there were plenty which right there exposes the lie that it was only the planes and fire but if you look at a Las Vegas hotel going down you hear a staccato of boom-cracks which so far I have not heard on any 9/11 video. The firefighters in the video above talk of “floors popping out” and the “boom boom boom” a guy does mention seems more like the sound of floors coming down in a staccato way but no Las Vegas boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack. The nano thermite found in the dust makes me think that there were these charges set at critical joints to fizz away with super-heat and super-speed rather than go boom. The random explosions we can hear in the video above maybe only aid in the destruction like William Rodriquez’s actual WTC basement explosion and the firefighters’ explosions in the lobby. In other words it looks like a typical controlled demolition but it doesn’t sound like one. And by no means would that deter me from believing it was a controlled demolition but the evidence tells me it was just not a typical one. It is too bad we don’t know for sure.
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 9:07 pm
Fine Jimbo, if it helps, wallow in uncertainty for the next 14 years as well.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 8, 2015 at 1:03 am
Let me add Jimbo, that on the Controlled Demolition Inc. web site there is – or was, an explanation of how the company produced videos of their demolition, both for records, and as promotional materials.
These productions are designed to present a totally professional presentation. The camera’s are set up at various distances and angles, with zoom and telephoto capabilities. The sound is produced separately using special shotgun mics that can be calibrated to capture a clear and finely equalized signal, so that every sonic detail is captured. The video and sound is edited together all synced to a time code for a pro production.
And it is this difference in quality that makes the difference in what you here from news camera’s that are mainly designed to capture the dialog of the newsman on the scene. he is close to the mike and it is set to pick up his voice at conversational levels. the mics for such productions are attenuated to protect the diaphragm, and unexpected loud noises will drop out for the purpose of not causing diaphragm damage. Most commercial mics are set at a range of attenuation circuitry that drops out automatically when there are strong spikes in dB levels. This is why capturing the sound of thunderstorms can be difficult without specially attenuated mics.
I used to do field recording when I was doing sound design to go with ambient music. I had spotty successes, ones that could be used with editing together the sounds and cutting out the dropouts when a surprise strike of lightning would hit nearby. It would take several seconds for the sound to fade back in after such events.
And the point of this ‘tutorial’ (of sorts), is that it is not surprising that the sound in the videos from 9/11 have picked up spotty sound tracks during the bomb events. Many shots were from fairly good distances and would only pick up the reflected sounds produced in the “canyons” of buildings and streets. At great distances using telephoto lenses, very little to nothing would be picked up. At mid distances, fairly distinct sounds could be captured. At closer distances, the attenuation situation would occur and dropouts would be present.
There are however several videos that were just at the right distance and settings that picked up good clear recordings of the explosions. On of them is posted on this page. Another is of a female reporter talking about secondary explosions on camera and they can be heart distintcly in the background. There is of course the video of the firemen at a phone booth making calls to their homes, when there are suddenly booms that totally freak them out.
All together, with these recordings, plus the hundreds of ear witness testimonies, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that explosions are what took down the towers and #7.
You may still have doubts Jimbo, you have the right to your own opinion just like anyone else does.
\\][//
Jimbo
September 8, 2015 at 3:51 am
Unless it was space rays or a nuke, as has been proposed by some in the movement, I will agree that explosions are a good bet on what brought down the buildings but until we can find the smoking whatever, as long as we insist it was a “controlled demolition” we will be derided by skeptics. For if, as we like to say, a steel frame building has never been brought down by fire, Mr. Segar will counter and say that there has never been a more silent controlled demolition. Could it be that the buildings were brought down by some “secret weapon?” I know that sounds conspiracy-nutty but there are secret weapons are there not? My Navy SEAL friend confirmed this. Yes, turn the sound off and you get a reaction like that Dutch demolition expert Danny something who with one look knew it was a controlled demolition. Sound on and we hear deep rumbling and screams but no boom-crack. Maybe the typical controlled demolition sounds are muffled beneath the deep rumbling , hard to mike on an average video camera as you say, Hell we can see those squibs David Chandler shows in a video, the ones running down the edge of the building but do they have sound? Until we can isolate that sound then the skeptics will continue to say they’re air blasts.
Indeed, just about all the sound from 9/11 sucks. (Turn your ear buds up for this.) So you could be right and the crack crack crack controlled demolition sound was wasted on the randomly placed lo-fi mikes.
I don’t mean to be contrary but every time I go to that Democratic Underground site which is loaded with good American liberals (who locked me out ages ago) who should but don’t buy the 9/11 truth line, this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb, especially when it comes to the demolition of the buildings. Arguing that mikes were not placed well enough to hear every sound probably won’t cut it with him and his followers. Frankly, I get your point and maybe the demolition sound was lost, but I would need a stronger argument than this to confront Segar (if the bastards ever let me back in).
hybridrogue1
September 8, 2015 at 9:54 am
“this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb..”~Jimbo
Well maybe that is not entirely Segar’s doing.
\\][//
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
September 8, 2015 at 11:57 am
That “Donny something” was one of the leading experts of large scale controlled demolitions in the whole wide world. You, or I, or the millions of ignorant (for the most part) “truthers” like us could not even begin to comprehend what Mr. Something was seeing in that “one look”. I doubt that anything this segar person can say could possibly trump that observation, especially in the absence of a similarly qualified CT expert who has come out and officially stated that it was NOT a CT.
Sadly, Donny Jowenko’s expertise is now in the past tense, as he was killed when his car collided head on to a tree on his way back from church. He was a brave an honest man , who simply could not and would not stay quite when he saw what he saw, while many out there were (and still are) silenced simply with a threatening phone call or a quick visit to let them know what would happen to them and their loved ones if they keep talking.
Please provide links for some examples of Segar’s arguments. I’d be very interested in reading a few.
hybridrogue1
September 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Nikogriego,
Thanks for the link to the democraticunderground site. I attempted to sign up, and as is usual, there is interference with this process that has something to do with my prior accounts in my name, that have my old email address. And I can’t get over that technical hurdle.
Perhaps Jimbo could persuade the amazing William Seger to join us on Truth & Shadows.
What I read of that thread, and Segar’s remarks there didn’t impress me as having much substance whatsoever. He says “I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns” And then those few words are:
“because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound.” ~WS
Well this is elementary, but what does it prove as far as the specific explosions that took down the towers?
Mr Magical Debater then goes on to say: ” If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it.”
And that is pure hyperbolic bullshit. As anyone who has taken the time to read the my blog page knows, there were hundreds of ear witnesses who reported hearing explosions.
Again: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
It is obvious to me that Mr Seger is an amateur in the topic of sound recording. He is mainly a fair rhetorician, but certainly not an expert in argumentation either. He may be able to talk circles around amateurs, but I see nothing particularly formidable in his arguments. Some, like Jimbo may have a bias that makes it easy for them to conclude that Seger has more than he actually has in his arguments.
Now, like Wright hyperventilating on “angle cut beams”, other issues must be included in any discussion of the destruction of the towers; the other conclusive evidences of explosive demolition.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am
“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
x213 Nikogriego : exercise your rhetorical skills on a FB group called "911 Debates
2015-09-08
Nikogriego
September 8, 2015 at 3:13 pm
Agreed. He is used to having his way with people who don’t have all the facts at their fingertips and can’t argue convincingly therefore.
Another place you may want to exercise your rhetorical skills, and where they are needed, is on a FB group called “911 Debates”:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/
There are those on that group who are just intellectually dishonest and painfully limited in their thinking, but convinced of their righteousness. I gave up over a year ago. Watch out for Elizabeth Tague, Keoki (now Torres, but before something else), Sam Haschets, Ron Morales “Ron Morales- Silent explosions is a contradiction in terms. Explosions involve the rapid expansion of gasses, which subsequently push air away quickly, which subsequently causes loud sounds.” and a few others.
One of the good guys who is really creating problems for them is Michael Woon.
You will have lots of fun as long as you don’t use insults, as they are very thin skinned.
x214 Herr der Elf : Excellent advice for Mr. Rogue
Dear Mr. Nikogriego,
Excellent advice for Mr. Rogue. Indeed, I found Elizabeth Tague, Keoki, and Ron Morales to be highly disingenuous.
They did not like being held up to their own rules. Moreover, they needed some new rules to prevent the spamming that Keoki and Elizabeth Tague liked to perform.
//
x215 T&S Participants : virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds
2015-09-08
Star Member William Seger (6,546 posts)
Mon Aug 24, 2015, 01:28 AM
5. I can show you plenty of evidence
... that you don't need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it's indefensible.
This is why the "truth movement" died, wildbill.
+++
Jimbo
September 7, 2015 at 7:46 am
Over on the Democratic Underground site there is a segregated comment site in their “basement” called Creative Speculation where 9/11 truth views are welcome. One guy Wildbilling (?) puts up a good fight for our side but there is a Wright-type of guy, Segar (I think) who is a formidable foe. A big part of his skepticism is derived from the no explosive sounds indicative of a controlled demolition were heard on 9/11. Wildbilling has reached out to other sites asking for a good counter argument for this dearth of the typical boom boom boom boom of controlled demolitions. As Graham McQueen has showed us there are many witnesses who heard explosions but very few, if any heard the the typical controlled demolition sound. Since we seem to insist it was a controlled demolition Segar says no it wasn’t. This is where a Judy Wood or the nuke argument would help. I would speculate that there was some exotic device used that day.
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 8:57 am
It is not true that there is a dearth of evidence for the sounds of explosions during the demolitions. In fact it has been shown that NIST edited the sound out of the videos that did have clear soundtracks of explosions. Further NIST made this spurious statement in the faq on Questions and Answers: “In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.” — The fact is that the sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB would be at the source of the explosion and wound fall off substantially at half a mile from that source.
225 decibels — Deafening — 12? Cannon @ 12' in front and below
Q. So who was 12 feet away from the detonations in the towers when they went off?
A. Dead people. They are always deaf.
140 dB – Deafening — Artillery fire
–”The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.”
–The conclusion from NIST
This is nonsense; this sentence would only be true if restated: ‘At a level of 130-140 decibels at source, it would be audible at a distance of half a mile.’
–“How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.”–Max Bridges
This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL above; even at 225 decibels a 12? Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast.Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.[*]
The assertion that none of the first responders reported explosive blasts is simply a lie, as has been gone into in great detail.
–“None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction” Because no one close enough to one of these blasts to be deafened survived to report it.
The claim that “no blast was audible on recordings” is also untrue, as the recordings finally released by NIST due to Freedom of Information suits, clearly have such audible sound tracks on many videos.
“Intensity and Distance
• Sounds get quieter (less loud) the further you get from their source
• Easy to see that in a free field, the power per unit area falls with square of
the distance
• Or in decibel terms, falls by 6dB every doubling of distance.
Summary
• Objective and subjective scale of sound quantity
• Sound Pressure Level scale (dBSPL)
– logarithmic ratio scale
– with a reference at the threshold of hearing
– which is convenient, standard, and closer to our perceptions of loudness.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is also the case that dB cannot be measured from a sound recording:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording. One can only measure the decibels of a live sound. Anyone that doesn’t get this is simply ignorant of the mechanics of sound recording.
It is in the nature of any recorded medium, that it is in fact an artifact, it is not the thing itself. This artifact has only the relations to other artifacts contained in the medium the record was made in.
With a sound recording these relationships are set and cannot be separated. The loudness or dB will then depend solely on the playback mechanism, the VU meter registering the settings on the playback. In a studio recording gleaning the true loudness of the drums compared to a guitar is impossible once the recording is mixed. One would have to then refer to the premix recording to adjust the levels.
In a field recording where there is only the mix created by the circumstance of the set relationships at hand at the moment a recording is made, there is nothing but a mix recording to refer to, the levels are set and the dB of the entire recording is set in those relationships.
One more thing about sound recording; those who have seen the films, ‘The Conversation’ or ‘The Good Shepherd’, may have seen the way EQ can be used to play with frequencies in a sound recording to mask or enhance a sound in a recording. These tricks are available to a talented recording artist. But it must be understood that
‘frequencies’ and ‘decibels’ are separate issues. Thus, assuming that the dB is somehow being manipulated by such techniques in in error, what is manipulated is the frequencies.
Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from a sound recording.
\\][//
Nikogriego
September 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm
HybridRogue1 why not go over to that forum and lend your expertise to counter Seger’s nonsense? He states he can show many films of controlled demolitions that have explosive sounds. He is a committed agent.
” William Seger (6,546 posts)
5. I can show you plenty of evidence
… that you don’t need to be inside or immediately next to a building to hear demolition explosives. I can show you plenty of evidence that virtually all videos of actual demolitions capture those distinctive sounds. Furthermore, I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns: because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound. If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it. No, this video does not defend its bullshit, and neither do you, because it’s indefensible.
This is why the “truth movement” died, wildbill.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510486
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am
“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
Daniel Noel
September 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm
That Segar is a formidable foe only to those who let her/him. With no offense meant, 9/11 activists will make little progress until they factually accept the background of 9/11’s teaching:
* The Master 9/11 conspirators’ most formidable accomplishment is neither the technical prowess of the World Trade Center’s controlled demolition, nor the remarkable inter-agency cooperation into a complicated but transparent cover-up with Osama bin Laden’s air show and fraudulent reports. It is the poorly acknowledged process that has convinced the Syrian TV, the Russian professors of metallurgy, CodePink, the OathKeepers, etc., etc., to live the official 9/11 myth as an axiom.
* As such, 9/11 Truth’s acceptance comes with the uncomfortable corollary of the commitment to the 9/11 censorship of just about all sources of information one has trusted. This is the unspoken meaning of the simplistic “but someone would have talked” argument.
* Therefore, skeptics will be extremely reluctant to accept 9/11 Truth. They will–usually unconsciously and desperately–seek and cling to any reason to reject it.
* 9/11 censors understand the above. So do 9/11 fanatics, albeit to a lesser extent. Accordingly, they try to debate 9/11 on topics where they can confuse the audience out of studying 9/11. Hence their obsession with secondary evidence like the acoustic noise.
There may be a way to demonstrate the controlled demolitions based on the study of the acoustic noise alone. But even assuming that this is the case, the demonstration will be much too complex to be teachable in the midst of the 9/11 censors and the 9/11 fanatics, who hold all the bully pulpits denied to 9/11 scholars. It is usually an error to entertain an argument on this topic. Much more effective is to decline to enter it unless the other party has completed a cursory analysis of the video record, which inevitably yields overwhelming evidence to accept the criminal controlled demolition and reject the accidental destruction. At this point, the purpose of the noise analysis is to simply look for a compelling way to doubt the controlled demolition, along these ideas:
* If it was a criminal controlled demolition, there would be thousands of explosions over the 10 seconds or so of destruction.
* These thousands of explosions would yield explosive noises.
* The demolition engineers may have taken some unusual–and presumably expensive–precautions to muffle these noises to some extent.
* TV may have taken precautions to attenuate these noises in their records.
* Witnesses may have been “convinced” to not spread their recollection of the noises.
* Still, there would be some trace of these noises. A detailed analysis of sound records or a review of witness statements shortly after the buildings’ destruction would hint at explosions.
* Therefore, if we find that the analysis of audio records shows no trace of explosive sounds and that almost all witnesses affirm in unison the absence of explosions, we will have, at last, a reason to doubt the controlled demolition. This would not disprove the controlled demolition, but call for a more detailed analysis.
* The rest is straightforward.
Love,
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Daniel Noel,
It is already straight forward, right above you have a video with the actual sounds of explosions, you have videos of Firemen saying they witnessed explosions. At my blog I have page after page of hundreds of reports of explosions by ear witnesses, firemen, policemen, reporters and civilians near the site.
\\][//
Jimbo
September 7, 2015 at 8:50 pm
Explosions are one thing, and your site shows that there were plenty which right there exposes the lie that it was only the planes and fire but if you look at a Las Vegas hotel going down you hear a staccato of boom-cracks which so far I have not heard on any 9/11 video. The firefighters in the video above talk of “floors popping out” and the “boom boom boom” a guy does mention seems more like the sound of floors coming down in a staccato way but no Las Vegas boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack boom-crack. The nano thermite found in the dust makes me think that there were these charges set at critical joints to fizz away with super-heat and super-speed rather than go boom. The random explosions we can hear in the video above maybe only aid in the destruction like William Rodriquez’s actual WTC basement explosion and the firefighters’ explosions in the lobby. In other words it looks like a typical controlled demolition but it doesn’t sound like one. And by no means would that deter me from believing it was a controlled demolition but the evidence tells me it was just not a typical one. It is too bad we don’t know for sure.
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 9:07 pm
Fine Jimbo, if it helps, wallow in uncertainty for the next 14 years as well.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 8, 2015 at 1:03 am
Let me add Jimbo, that on the Controlled Demolition Inc. web site there is – or was, an explanation of how the company produced videos of their demolition, both for records, and as promotional materials.
These productions are designed to present a totally professional presentation. The camera’s are set up at various distances and angles, with zoom and telephoto capabilities. The sound is produced separately using special shotgun mics that can be calibrated to capture a clear and finely equalized signal, so that every sonic detail is captured. The video and sound is edited together all synced to a time code for a pro production.
And it is this difference in quality that makes the difference in what you here from news camera’s that are mainly designed to capture the dialog of the newsman on the scene. he is close to the mike and it is set to pick up his voice at conversational levels. the mics for such productions are attenuated to protect the diaphragm, and unexpected loud noises will drop out for the purpose of not causing diaphragm damage. Most commercial mics are set at a range of attenuation circuitry that drops out automatically when there are strong spikes in dB levels. This is why capturing the sound of thunderstorms can be difficult without specially attenuated mics.
I used to do field recording when I was doing sound design to go with ambient music. I had spotty successes, ones that could be used with editing together the sounds and cutting out the dropouts when a surprise strike of lightning would hit nearby. It would take several seconds for the sound to fade back in after such events.
And the point of this ‘tutorial’ (of sorts), is that it is not surprising that the sound in the videos from 9/11 have picked up spotty sound tracks during the bomb events. Many shots were from fairly good distances and would only pick up the reflected sounds produced in the “canyons” of buildings and streets. At great distances using telephoto lenses, very little to nothing would be picked up. At mid distances, fairly distinct sounds could be captured. At closer distances, the attenuation situation would occur and dropouts would be present.
There are however several videos that were just at the right distance and settings that picked up good clear recordings of the explosions. On of them is posted on this page. Another is of a female reporter talking about secondary explosions on camera and they can be heart distintcly in the background. There is of course the video of the firemen at a phone booth making calls to their homes, when there are suddenly booms that totally freak them out.
All together, with these recordings, plus the hundreds of ear witness testimonies, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that explosions are what took down the towers and #7.
You may still have doubts Jimbo, you have the right to your own opinion just like anyone else does.
\\][//
Jimbo
September 8, 2015 at 3:51 am
Unless it was space rays or a nuke, as has been proposed by some in the movement, I will agree that explosions are a good bet on what brought down the buildings but until we can find the smoking whatever, as long as we insist it was a “controlled demolition” we will be derided by skeptics. For if, as we like to say, a steel frame building has never been brought down by fire, Mr. Segar will counter and say that there has never been a more silent controlled demolition. Could it be that the buildings were brought down by some “secret weapon?” I know that sounds conspiracy-nutty but there are secret weapons are there not? My Navy SEAL friend confirmed this. Yes, turn the sound off and you get a reaction like that Dutch demolition expert Danny something who with one look knew it was a controlled demolition. Sound on and we hear deep rumbling and screams but no boom-crack. Maybe the typical controlled demolition sounds are muffled beneath the deep rumbling , hard to mike on an average video camera as you say, Hell we can see those squibs David Chandler shows in a video, the ones running down the edge of the building but do they have sound? Until we can isolate that sound then the skeptics will continue to say they’re air blasts.
Indeed, just about all the sound from 9/11 sucks. (Turn your ear buds up for this.) So you could be right and the crack crack crack controlled demolition sound was wasted on the randomly placed lo-fi mikes.
I don’t mean to be contrary but every time I go to that Democratic Underground site which is loaded with good American liberals (who locked me out ages ago) who should but don’t buy the 9/11 truth line, this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb, especially when it comes to the demolition of the buildings. Arguing that mikes were not placed well enough to hear every sound probably won’t cut it with him and his followers. Frankly, I get your point and maybe the demolition sound was lost, but I would need a stronger argument than this to confront Segar (if the bastards ever let me back in).
hybridrogue1
September 8, 2015 at 9:54 am
“this Segar guy does a good job of making us look dumb..”~Jimbo
Well maybe that is not entirely Segar’s doing.
\\][//
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
September 8, 2015 at 11:57 am
That “Donny something” was one of the leading experts of large scale controlled demolitions in the whole wide world. You, or I, or the millions of ignorant (for the most part) “truthers” like us could not even begin to comprehend what Mr. Something was seeing in that “one look”. I doubt that anything this segar person can say could possibly trump that observation, especially in the absence of a similarly qualified CT expert who has come out and officially stated that it was NOT a CT.
Sadly, Donny Jowenko’s expertise is now in the past tense, as he was killed when his car collided head on to a tree on his way back from church. He was a brave an honest man , who simply could not and would not stay quite when he saw what he saw, while many out there were (and still are) silenced simply with a threatening phone call or a quick visit to let them know what would happen to them and their loved ones if they keep talking.
Please provide links for some examples of Segar’s arguments. I’d be very interested in reading a few.
hybridrogue1
September 8, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Nikogriego,
Thanks for the link to the democraticunderground site. I attempted to sign up, and as is usual, there is interference with this process that has something to do with my prior accounts in my name, that have my old email address. And I can’t get over that technical hurdle.
Perhaps Jimbo could persuade the amazing William Seger to join us on Truth & Shadows.
What I read of that thread, and Segar’s remarks there didn’t impress me as having much substance whatsoever. He says “I can explain to you in very few words why that should be expected from explosives powerful enough to cut through heavy steel columns” And then those few words are:
“because an explosion is a pressure wave and a pressure wave IS a sound.” ~WS
Well this is elementary, but what does it prove as far as the specific explosions that took down the towers?
Mr Magical Debater then goes on to say: ” If any of the buildings were destroyed by explosives, everyone in Manhattan would have known it.”
And that is pure hyperbolic bullshit. As anyone who has taken the time to read the my blog page knows, there were hundreds of ear witnesses who reported hearing explosions.
Again: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
It is obvious to me that Mr Seger is an amateur in the topic of sound recording. He is mainly a fair rhetorician, but certainly not an expert in argumentation either. He may be able to talk circles around amateurs, but I see nothing particularly formidable in his arguments. Some, like Jimbo may have a bias that makes it easy for them to conclude that Seger has more than he actually has in his arguments.
Now, like Wright hyperventilating on “angle cut beams”, other issues must be included in any discussion of the destruction of the towers; the other conclusive evidences of explosive demolition.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 7, 2015 at 9:01 am
“no blast sounds were heard or reported by witnesses”~NIST, this lie is exposed in detail at this link:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
x216 Herr der Elf : Beyond Misinformation
Dear Mr. McKee,
{Publish at your discretion. Consider it "kudos" and an FYI even if not published.}
I ordered copies of the "Beyond Misinformation" booklet. Because it wasn't going to arrive by 9/11, they have sent out a PDF version to those who ordered. I got a chance to read it.
I'm in agreement with everything except the implied extent of the involvement of nano-thermite. Yes, it played a role, but no, it is not the end station.
You wrote:
Every word in the booklet was vetted by an expert panel put together by AE.
I think that not enough attention was paid to the phrase "controlled demolition" versus "controlled explosions." The latter snuck out in places where the former would allow for more wiggle-room later.
Ted Walter wrote on page 35.
Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones.
Could Mr. Walter please provide more details on the WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones?
Likewise on page 35.
In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.
Could Mr. Walter please provide more details on the "multiple independent WTC dust samples"? Where did they come from? Chain of custody? Are these the same as obtained by Dr. Jones?
+++ page 39
[T]he leading hypothesis is that an explosive form of thermite called “nano-thermite” — possibly in combination with some form of explosives and other incendiaries — was used to destroy WTC 7.
Excellent use of the phrase "the leading hypothesis."
+++ page 30
As we will see below, NIST did not follow NFPA 921. Instead, it handled the evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions in much the same way it handled the evidence regarding the structural behavior of the buildings: either denying it, ignoring it, or providing speculative explanations not based upon scientific analysis. This is because there is no plausible, logical explanation for the occurrence of high-temperature chemical reactions other than controlled demolition using thermite-based mechanisms.
Although you say that every word was vetted, what is really going on here in the last sentence is an assumption. All dust samples including those from USGS, Paul Lioy et al, and RJ Lee show a significant percentage of iron spheres. However, the assumption AE9/11Truth make is that these iron spheres were created by "high-temperature chemical reactions" when other more energetic mechanisms can achieve this as well. Further, as hinted at above, to my knowledge, only the samples attributed to coming through Dr. Jones had supposed remnants of "thermite-based mechanisms."
+++ page 16
To guide our evaluation of these competing hypotheses, we now turn to a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method. David Ray Griffin describes it as follows: “None of the relevant evidence should be ignored.”1 This principle is of central importance in evaluating the official hypothesis.
Exactly. This will be continued. For now, this "Beyond Misinformation" booklet is a good shoe-horn guide to get the uninitiated into 9/11 Truth folklore onto the same page.
In the continuation (most likely off-list) is that -- for the scope limits of this document -- it ignores much evidence. Hot-spot duration, tritium, Dr. Cahill's air sampling, and images of bent and arched steel beams (collected by Dr. Wood) come to mind.
//
x217 hybridrogue1 : did not intend for this blog to be a “public forum”
2015-09-10
hybridrogue1
September 10, 2015 at 3:29 am
As I have explained before a few times; I did not intend for this blog to be a “public forum”, it is more a journal of my own thoughts and ideas. I have allowed a few people that I consider trusted friends posting privileges here. I have had exchanges with them for a good many years, and know that they will abide by my wishes not to overwhelm any of the threads with huge verbose arguments.
If anyone wishes to debate, another site that is specifically designed as a forum must be the venue. Not here in my living room.
One forum I attend regularly is Truth & Shadows. The current thread at this time is at:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/media-will-stick-to-emotion-while-911-anniversary-events-explore-real-evidence/
Thank you, Willy Whitten – \\][//
x218 Adam Ruff, hybridrogue1, & Participants : I know Christopher Bollyn personally
2015-09-21
Adam Ruff
September 19, 2015 at 10:08 pm
Well I know Christopher Bollyn personally and have talked with him for hours about 9/11 and the Zionist connection to 9/11. Let me state now for the record that your points about Christopher are way off base and full of misinformation. He gives small talks all over the USA (except the state where the police tried to ruin his life which he avoids like the plague) and generally stays with friends while on the road. He makes some money by selling his books at the talks which by the way he published and printed himself. He is not a racist nor is he against Jewish people, he simply exposes the FACT of Zionists involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Now Christopher can speak for himself and I assure you he is not difficult to find or to talk to yourself.
As to Steven Jones I find your suggestion that he was somehow in on the wrecking of the truth movement with Fetzer to be ridiculous. Fetzer did the damage all by himself and has always worked to undermine the strongest evidence in not only 9/11 but also in the JFK Assassination and Sandy Hook etc. In 9/11 Fetzer attempts to undermine the CD evidence by promoting mini nukes and other crap like that. In the JFK matter he attempts to undermine the Zapruder film. etc. Fetzer is the problem not Steven Jones.
Adam Ruff
September 19, 2015 at 10:18 pm
First of all Wikipedia is TOTALLY discredited and should NOT be used as a source for anything but especially not for anything related to 9/11 or Zionism. Literally Wikipedia is officially sanctioned propaganda and nothing more. I would not trust them to tell me the truth about who won the last Superbowl. I would have to cross check with other sources.
Also Christopher Bollyn lays out compelling evidence of Zionist involvement in 9/11 in his books and articles that cannot be dismissed as “circumstantial”.
Jimbo
September 20, 2015 at 12:09 am
“We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself.”
And let’s look at two of the camps, the ones who vociferously insist Israel was behind the deed like Fetzer and Bollyn, the writers above and then writers like Tarpley, Griffin, Ryan, Corbett, Massimo Mazzucco and even Craig here, thoughtful, methodical and measured researchers who don’t let hackneyed biases cloud their thinking. I am thankful for the latter.
hybridrogue1
September 20, 2015 at 12:22 am
Yes Jimbo, it is a tempest of bullshit. That is why I disingaged from this Martinez character on the other site. But Sockpuppet wanted to bring the argument here by reporting back to Martinez there, and giving the link to T&S.
I have proposed the same solution be established here, that we drop the whole thing about who may or may not be an agent.
I won’t say another word about it unless the sockpuppet persists.
\\][//
Adam Ruff
September 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm
Jimbo,
I take exception to your characterization of Christopher Bollyn. Please show examples from Bollyn himself that illustrate how he suffers from “hakneyed biases” that “cloud his thinking” and how he blames Israel as opposed to a small group of Zionist supremacist scumbags. If you cannot back up your slanderous statements about Bollyn then I expect you to withdraw those statements and apologize.
I won’t hold my breath for the examples that back up your statements about Bollyn because I know very well there aren’t any. I will also NOT hold my breath for your apology because I suspect you aren’t going to provide one. My assessment of you is that it is in fact yourself that is biased and has “clouded thinking”. In your case it appears to be the bias in favor of Zionists and in favor of the idea that Jewish people do not have any evil scumbags among them or in positions of power in Israel. I also suspect that you feel the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is somehow justified.
Jimbo
September 19, 2015 at 3:56 pm
One final point. Placing Israel or Zionists or “dual-citizens” at the center of 9/11 is as much of a deception as much of a distraction as much of an obfuscation as Bob Graham’s mysterious 28 pages. That article above slapped Israel onto the discussion table like they are as sure of Israel being the mastermind behind 9/11 as Graham and co are saying its Saudi Arabia. 9/11 was an American (led) op. PNAC, Project for a New AMERICAN Century.
Adam Ruff
September 20, 2015 at 5:27 pm
Wrong Jimbo. There is plenty of evidence that a large number of powerfully placed Zionist supremacists were intimately involved in 9/11 and profited handsomely from it and to deny that truth is just plain wrong. Shielding the guilty wins you no points with me Jimbo and I think it is despicable to protect evil people like Larry Silverstein, Dov Zackheim, Frank Lowy, and the MANY other Zionist supremacist scum involved in 9/11. They are in it up to their eyeballs and Kevin Ryan is no hero pal for ignoring the obvious Zionist connections to 9/11 and neither is anyone else who protects the guilty. Lies are lies. I am a truther not a liar.
Jimbo
September 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm
How is it that speculation is bad when it comes to being a good 9/11 truther except when it comes to speculating about Israel’s motives and future moves? I though we are all about evidence, photos, documents, actual news reports, etc.,
Come to think of it, this article about the 28 pages is speculating as to what it contains. The writers assume the pages contain damning info about SA and its active part in 9/11 but that is speculation. From interviews and articles I have read and seen prior to this one Graham and co. have been mum as to its specifics. And after the censor gets through with his or her black pen who knows what it will say?
Adam Ruff
September 20, 2015 at 5:41 pm
There is no “speculating” at all about the evil shit Israel has done with America’s help. AIPAC controls American politics and so for all intents and purposes America provides the army that Israel commands. They have used that Army to destroy many “enemies” of Israel. Any evil deeds not done directly by America are done by Israel itself with the help of massive financial and military aid from America. Israels motives are clear they want to wipe out the Palestinians and take all of their land and property because they are “God’s chosen people”. Of course my opinion doesn’t matter since I am just a lowly goy.
Jimbo
September 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm
“For years the 9/11 Truth movement has been vainly pleading with mainstream media – and the “alternative” 9/11-Truth-rejecting media (which we’ll include for our purposes as mainstream) to cover any of the endless, obvious problems with any of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (OCT) tales we’ve been told.” (The opening line of the above article.)
This line, I think, accurately expresses what 9/11 Truth is all about. Too bad, as it says, our pleading for getting the truth out has been in vain so far. One big criticism of our movement is that we are “anti-semetic.” Without getting into the weeds whether being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist means anti-Jewish as well, it is the perception that we are anti-Jewish. Nonetheless, David Ruff, by going off and ranting about “Zionist supremacists,” a term used freely I see on the David Duke and Stormfront sites, you are doing getting 9/11 truth’s message no favor. My intent is not to protect Israel but to promote 9/11 truth. Yes, there is evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but to froth over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and to meld that narrative into 9/11 truth’s message is a mistake. If you are upset over Zionist supremacists there is a forum on Stormfront you should consider joining.
Jimbo
September 20, 2015 at 6:55 pm
I mean ADAM Ruff. Sorry.
Adam Ruff
September 20, 2015 at 11:21 pm
You see Jimbo I am not concerned about “getting into the weeds” by pointing out the obvious involvement of MANY Zionist Supremacists in the crime. Any person who rejects 9/11 truth because they can’t face the TRUTH of Zionists being involved is hopelessly lost anyway and will never embrace 9/11 truth. A real truther doesn’t care who does and doesn’t like the truth, he or she simply pursues the truth wherever it leads. Now your labeling me anti-semetic and trying to link me to Storm Front and David Duke is a perfect example of hate speech itself. This is a common and despicable tactic used by very unethical groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center to label ANYONE who criticizes Israel as “anti-semetic”.
I got the term “Zionist supremacist” originally from my friend Jeremy Rothe-Kushel (Who is quite Jewish by the way) after a lengthy discussion of the possibility of Israeli agents being involved in 9/11. A conversation I had with him on the 5 hour road trip to interview Richard Gage about the Simon Wiesenthal Institute going before congress and labeling A+E as a terrorist group. I was the camera man and editor for the following video:
Jeremy and I went to the Simon Wiesenthal Institute in Los Angeles to confront them about labeling A+E as a terrorist group and this video is the result of that encounter:
So anyway Jimbo your hateful and despicable attempt to turn me into a racist Jew hater is a big FAIL buddy and fuck you very much for trying.
jimbo
September 21, 2015 at 12:08 am
I apologize for implying you are anti-semetic. And I do recall how the Palestinians dancing was cited over and over thus unfairly smearing them. Still you do get overly excited over this issue and your rhetoric and verbiage is not helpful IMO.
hybridrogue1
September 20, 2015 at 8:03 pm
“My intent is not to protect Israel but to promote 9/11 truth. Yes, there is evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but to froth over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and to meld that narrative into 9/11 truth’s message is a mistake.”~Jimbo
It depends on if you can frame 9/11 Truth in a vacuum and leave other truth out of the matrix.
To frame concern over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as “froth” is to imply that such treatment is in some way acceptable. As a person of conscience I have to disagree with you with some vehemence on this point. The treatment of the Palestinians by Israel is no less than a crime against humanity. No less a crime against humanity than the US bombing nations like Afghanistan to rubble, or the other wars of aggression the US military has waged for 60 plus years now.
\\][//
jimbo
September 20, 2015 at 8:34 pm
As a “person of conscience” Willy, why not list all the other inhumane acts in the world and compare them with the 9/11 crime. Frankly, I think the Israel vs Palestinian conflict is related more to the founding of Israel and, except for their viciousness, totally unrelated to 9/11 . The current refugee crisis, however, is directly related to what happened on 9/11. Why not froth (yeah I said it) over countries who are not allowing in refugees or countries which harbor ISIS, or even over Israel’s part in the dismantling of Syria. Muddying a 9/11 Truth site with the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not advance our cause here.
hybridrogue1
September 20, 2015 at 8:42 pm
“Muddying a 9/11Truth site with the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not advance our cause here.”~Jimbo
Speaking to the Israel vs Palestinian conflict does not retard our cause here at all.
\\][//
Adam Ruff
September 20, 2015 at 11:48 pm
The link between 9/11 and the Palestinian issue is very simple. Zionist supremacists were deeply involved in orchestrating 9/11 for the specific purpose of getting America to destroy Israels enemies. One of those enemies is of course the Palestinians whom they are wiping out through genocide.
Here is a fake news piece which came out right after 9/11 that claimed Palestinians were cheering that America was attacked. This was staged of course and the kids and woman are actually cheering for candy and cake being given away by the camera crew. Clearly Israeli agents trying to manipulate Americans into hating the Palestinians. Now why on Earth would they do that?
That is Tom Brokaw saying and I quote “The Palestinians in the streets are cheering and celebrating these attacks”. So once again Jimbo your rabid defense of anything Israeli is a big fat FAIL. The Palestinian issue is intimately linked to 9/11.
hybridrogue1
September 18, 2015 at 6:56 pm
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”~Marcus Tullius Cicero
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 18, 2015 at 7:18 pm
I would note that this quote by Cicero, not only applies to nations, but also movements such as the 9/11 Truth Movement. And just who are the moles and traitors within our movement?
This is a heady issue, for the intent of a mole is not so easily determined as the agenda would seem. The outright shills such as Agent Wright or Agent Smith, are easy to identify. But the mole, who pretends at presenting the truth, is more subtle, clever and ingenious.
I have presented facts to do with some that I consider moles, the most noteworthy being; Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Frank Legge, the bulk of the contributors at Veterans Today, headed by Gordon Duff are certainly suspect. They promote the more outlandish “theories that are easily proven as disinformation by close study. But they have many followers in the movement who are not so careful in their analysis.
I have long railed against the “Nukes at WTC” brigades, as well as those who propagate the Judy Wood DEW junk, the “No-Planes” at the WTC nonsense, and the related “Video Fakery” camp of Simon Shack. There are also those who promote the nonsense of “Projected Holograms”, another technical absurdity.
Of course those of us here on T&S are well schooled in the chicanery of the moles and dupes of the anti-CIT cult.
We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself. As Dorothy said, “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore Toto.”
\\][//
Bardo76
September 18, 2015 at 7:37 pm
I’m thinking more along the lines of Jerome Hauer, and Paul Breemer, Rudy Giuliani , Bernard Kerick as agents of subterfuge and complicity. Speculation and Hypothesis after the fact, no matter if find them personally daft is no crime. Appearing on the news on 9/11/01, within hours of the events, knowing that fire was why the towers came down and by whom, discounting explosives in a news conference , prior knowledge of building destruction is who I prefer to be skeptical about.
hybridrogue1
September 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Yes Bardo76, those you mention are obvious shills and likely suspects. I was speaking to the moles within the movement itself, which is a much more subtle problem to address.
\\][//
curiousegypt123
September 19, 2015 at 9:07 pm
I totally concur with what you say hybridrogue1. Fetzer is, in my opinion, one of the main guys who brought down the 9/11 truth movement around 2007. He created an elite group, and then decimated it with help, possibly with Steven Jones.
He is a master of bluster, and goes into infinite detail about things like the JFK assassination or 9/11 without going after the guys who did it. He distracts people from the real truth about these events. (Ignore what he now says about zionism. He never said a thing about that for years.)
So, therefore, we also have to consider Kevin Barrett suspect as well. I feel that he has cosied himself into the Muslim community to keep an eye on them.
Also suspect: Christopher Bollyn. How can someone go on the run from the police, but then apparently on next to no money swan around Europe (with his family) for years … and then come back to the US … and … nothing happens to him … at all.
Also can speak Hebrew, lived on a kibbutz, and there just happens to be an “Elbert Bollyn” who lived in the same neighbourhood as him in Chicago (before he went on the lam) … who is Jewish and went to a local synagogue there. Hmmm.
(I suspect Elbert was/ … if he is still alive … Bollyn’s father. I believe Elbert’s wife also went to the same synagogue).
Anyhow, loads of people past and present are probably moles/agents/whatever. The 9/11 truth community was probably set up by the infamous powers that be in the first place, and set to self destruct after a few years.
Best wishes
H Price.
ps also have to put Les Visible into the grey basket now. There is a post on the blog jeffrense.org where someone accuses him of being a Rosicrucian Freemason. It is purely one line, and Visible goes on a short rant … very touchy, I thought, and just a bit over the top for a guy so into love and peace.
hybridrogue1
September 19, 2015 at 9:56 pm
curiousegypt123, you say;
“He created an elite group, and then decimated it with help, possibly with Steven Jones.”
The only thing I would clear up for you here is that the original group of ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth” was uncle Fetzer’s idea. He contacted Jones when he read some of Jones’ papers and suggested an organization of ‘scholars’ to form a united front in the truth movement. It went okay for several months until Fetzer began promoting what Jones felt were ideas unsupportable by the science purporting to support them. The final straw for Jones seems to have been a dispute with Fetzer over his support of Judy Wood” Dew hypothesis., The rift grew and within a short while Jones decided to depart and form the Journal of 9/11 Truth, which shared a web address with Scholars for a short time. As we’vr seen, most of the serious scientists went with Jones. Now the gaggle of loons at Scholars is all that is left there. And they have a close relationship with Gordon Duff and Veterans Today; another nest of moles in the ever fragmenting movement.
That is the general history as I recall it off the top of my head at this time.
. . .
As per Visible, I was a fan of his lyrical style of prose for quite some time, but I got bored with his “Mr Apocalypse” jango very quickly and lost interest years ago.
\\][//
Adam Ruff
September 19, 2015 at 10:08 pm
Well I know Christopher Bollyn personally and have talked with him for hours about 9/11 and the Zionist connection to 9/11. Let me state now for the record that your points about Christopher are way off base and full of misinformation. He gives small talks all over the USA (except the state where the police tried to ruin his life which he avoids like the plague) and generally stays with friends while on the road. He makes some money by selling his books at the talks which by the way he published and printed himself. He is not a racist nor is he against Jewish people, he simply exposes the FACT of Zionists involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Now Christopher can speak for himself and I assure you he is not difficult to find or to talk to yourself.
As to Steven Jones I find your suggestion that he was somehow in on the wrecking of the truth movement with Fetzer to be ridiculous. Fetzer did the damage all by himself and has always worked to undermine the strongest evidence in not only 9/11 but also in the JFK Assassination and Sandy Hook etc. In 9/11 Fetzer attempts to undermine the CD evidence by promoting mini nukes and other crap like that. In the JFK matter he attempts to undermine the Zapruder film. etc. Fetzer is the problem not Steven Jones.
sockpuppet2012
September 19, 2015 at 10:14 pm
Thank you, Adam Ruff, for that breath of fresh air and sanity!
hybridrogue1
September 19, 2015 at 10:54 pm
sockpuppet2012,
You will note that no one here denies the participation of Israel in the events of 9/11. I certainly do not deny the more than ample evidence of such, and the connections between Israel and the neocons. What I have consistently attempt to point out is that Israel is only one actor of many that participated in this event. The US military, especially the Air Force connected with the NORAD system, were certainly deeply involved. This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda.
Again core of political Zionism has nothing to do with religious Judaism, that is a mask for what is in essence, Realpolitik, built upon the principles of “Might is Right” and “The Ends Justify The Means”, this meme transcends any ethnic or religious persuasion, and is the goal of any tyrannical objective: Hegel’s “the State as God” paradigm.
Now to the matter of the different photo you used on the YouTube version of RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast. Was this some thinly veiled attempt to try to hide the fact that you are the same poster? Are you the girl, or are you the boy or in fact the girly boy… Lol
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
September 19, 2015 at 11:30 pm
hybridrogue1 said:
“Was this some thinly veiled attempt to try to hide the fact that you are the same poster?”
No, you blind self-absorbed fool…..that’s just another figment of your imagination!
I have had my YouTube account for seven years with my Avatar as the heroic Sylvia Stolz, the “German Joan of Arc”.
On WordPress and other Forums I have another hero of mine as my Avatar, namely…..the heroic Danny Jowenko.
“This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda”
It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!
You think Adolf Eichmann or Joseph Mengele had anything to do with it?…..how about Blondi?
hybridrogue1
September 19, 2015 at 11:43 pm
“It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!
You think Adolf Eichmann or Joseph Mengele had anything to do with it?…..how about Blondi?”~sockpuppet2012
You react with hyperbole, read carefully I said:
This event was perpetrated by what is essentially the deep state, which is a matrix of political, corporatist, and military interests, combining the Nazi faction of the Bush-Skull & Bones cabal, with the Zionist faction, and all with the object of Political Power as their main agenda.
I did NOT say, “It’s the Nazis…..it’s the Nazis!!!”
Are you Mossad Mr/Mrs Sockpuppet?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 19, 2015 at 11:58 pm
“Here’s Agent Whitten’s latest flash of brilliance”~Mrs Sockpuppet on RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum
So you want to continue this game of calling me “Agent Whitten”?
An “agent” for who or what? Are you seriously going to contend that I am ‘Iranian Intelligence’?
Saudi Intelligence? Qatar Intelligence? Perhaps Pakistani Intelligence?
Who are the most numerous and deeply hidden agenteur in Amerika today? Who is more likely to be a Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltrator? The answer is clear, the Mossad.
So if one of us is an agent the odds are astronomically in favor that you are.
Not expecting an admission, but I put it to you directly once again, are you Mossad?
I guarantee I am not an intelligence agent of any sort, and only a lunatic or someone who actually is an agent would assert such. Your profile fits the bill much better than mine.
Everyone here knows my real name. You are effectively anonymous, you could be absolutely ANYBODY.
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
September 20, 2015 at 1:50 am
hybridrogue1 said:
“So you want to continue this game of calling me “Agent Whitten”?”
“An “agent” for who or what? Are you seriously going to contend that I am ‘Iranian Intelligence’?
Saudi Intelligence? Qatar Intelligence? Perhaps Pakistani Intelligence?”
No, Willy…..this is just smoke and mirrors you’re throwing up here; when one is accused of being an “Agent” or a Gatekeeper” in the context of 911, it is clear to any imbecile that what is meant is an “Agent” or “Gatekeeper” for the mass murderers and world destroyers, not for the Eskimos or the midget basketball players.
“Who are the most numerous and deeply hidden agenteur in Amerika today?”
Jews…..hands down!
“Who is more likely to be a Sunsteinian Cognitive Infiltrator? The answer is clear, the Mossad”
Or a Hasbarat, or a JIDF Agent.
“So if one of us is an agent the odds are astronomically in favor that you are”
Nope, you struck out on that one, Willy.
You bear all the marks of a Gatekeeper, whilst I bear none of the marks.
I post very few comments…..I type with my right index finger.
You post THOUSANDS of comments ALL hours of the night and day, every day…..year in year out!.
You type very fast with not very many spelling mistakes, good grammar and punctuation.
“Not expecting an admission, but I put it to you directly once again, are you Mossad?”
No.
“I guarantee I am not an intelligence agent of any sort, and only a lunatic or someone who actually is an agent would assert such”
Only a lunatic would say that only a lunatic would say that.
“Your profile fits the bill much better than mine”
And what is my “profile”?
“Everyone here knows my real name”
No, they don’t…..no one knows your real name…..they only know the name you use on the internet.
“You are effectively anonymous, you could be absolutely ANYBODY”
And so could you.
A person’s “profile” doesn’t mean squat…..what people are judged by is the content of their comments, articles, or books.
hybridrogue1
September 20, 2015 at 12:16 am
Now, I suggested disengagement between I and your Zionist pal, Martinez on the other site, because I didn’t want to go round’n’round on this type of carousel. So I am suggesting the same thing here Sockpuppet; let’s drop it, and waste no more space and time here.
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
September 20, 2015 at 2:10 am
hybridrogue1 said:
“Now, I suggested disengagement between I and your Zionist pal, Martinez on the other site”
“Zionist pal”?…..that’s pure projection, Willy.
“because I didn’t want to go round’n’round on this type of carousel. So I am suggesting the same thing here Sockpuppet; let’s drop it, and waste no more space and time here”
There’s plenty of time and space here, Willy.
The reason you want to disengage is because you are being exposed.
I have NEVER seen you want to disengage.
hybridrogue1
September 20, 2015 at 11:16 am
Sockpuppet claims that I have never offered to disengage from conversations here. This is not true, I have several times attempted to prevent one of these T&S threads from going too far, and overwhelming the original topic that the thread is about.
However, it could be said that this topic we are involved with among ourselves here would fit nicely into the overall topic of the thread.
My reasons for disengaging with your pal Mr Martinez, was not as you asserted, “because I was losing” the argument, but because Mr Martinez’s entire argument is based on ad hominem, his opening remarks against Graeme McQueen were accusatory, AT THE MAN; ad hominem.
I refuse to be trifled with Sockpuppet, I will not be accused of being an “agent’ by you or anyone else. So we won’t be discussing the merits of the case one way or another of who were the perpetrators were who did 9/11, you and your smart-ass pal Martinez, have forfeited that argument by immediately launching into charges of that Mr McQueen, and I, and Webster Tarpley are “Zionist agents”.
So now the point becomes just who is the more likely agent. You claim that nobody knows my real name. This is a complete lie. I have a web presence as a professional artist that is well established. I have been a special effects artist, and a fine art sculptor in bronze, and have many pieces of work that can be viewed on the Internet, just type my name Willy Whitten into your browser.
However you as a sockpuppet are in fact anonymous. Unless and until you are willing to reveal your actual name you will admit that you are in fact posting anonymously on the internet or you are clearly lying. The point that you have the right to post anonymously on the web is not the issue – I agree that people have that right if they so choose it.
The facts are then, you are an anonymous sockpuppet, and I am a known individual by the name of Willy Whitten. Is that clear to you now?
….. ….. …..
Now as per my counter charges that you and your comrade Martinez are the more likely Zionist agents, I offer this history:
ZIONIST FALSE FLAGS
A Historical Perspective
What was the very first Zionist attack in Israel? The King David Hotel bombing was a false flag attack carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.
The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).
Disguised as Arabs, the Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, whose southern wing housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters. The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel’s own switchboard, which the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities. A possible reason why the warning was ignored was that hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time. From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day. Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but no evacuation was ordered. The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel. Some of the inflicted deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings. Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.
Yes Zionists in the guise of Arabs. This has continued to be the Zionist – Mossad MO, up to this very day. I submit that Brandon Martinez is a Mossad double agent using the same MO to disrupt the truth movement__coming on strong against “the Zionists”, when in fact he IS a Zionist himself. And perhaps this is the same game that the sockpuppet is playing on us at T&S.
“Zios usually resort to ad hom attacks, insults and vulgarities when losing an argument. If you’re not an Israeli agent then you may wish to sign up as one because you’re doing their bidding.”~Brandon Martinez
See: Brandon Martinez, on the RethinkSeptember11 Global Interactive Broadcast, YouTube forum.
\\][//
jimbo
September 20, 2015 at 12:09 am
“We are in fact divided amongst ourselves as a result of this tempest of bullshit coming from within the 9/11 Truth community itself.”
And let’s look at two of the camps, the ones who vociferously insist Israel was behind the deed like Fetzer and Bollyn, the writers above and then writers like Tarpley, Griffin, Ryan, Corbett, Massimo Mazzucco and even Craig here, thoughtful, methodical and measured researchers who don’t let hackneyed biases cloud their thinking. I am thankful for the latter.
hybridrogue1
September 20, 2015 at 12:22 am
Yes Jimbo, it is a tempest of bullshit. That is why I disingaged from this Martinez character on the other site. But Sockpuppet wanted to bring the argument here by reporting back to Martinez there, and giving the link to T&S.
I have proposed the same solution be established here, that we drop the whole thing about who may or may not be an agent.
I won’t say another word about it unless the sockpuppet persists.
\\][//
Adam Ruff
September 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm
jimbo,
I take exception to your characterization of Christopher Bollyn. Please show examples from Bollyn himself that illustrate how he suffers from “hakneyed biases” that “cloud his thinking” and how he blames Israel as opposed to a small group of Zionist supremacist scumbags. If you cannot back up your slanderous statements about Bollyn then I expect you to withdraw those statements and apologize.
I won’t hold my breath for the examples that back up your statements about Bollyn because I know very well there aren’t any. I will also NOT hold my breath for your apology because I suspect you aren’t going to provide one. My assessment of you is that it is in fact yourself that is biased and has “clouded thinking”. In your case it appears to be the bias in favor of Zionists and in favor of the idea that Jewish people do not have any evil scumbags among them or in positions of power in Israel. I also suspect that you feel the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is somehow justified.
hybridrogue1
2015-09-21
The PSYOP of 9/11 continues now with cognitive infiltration agents swarming the Internet with counterfeit posers pretending to be part of the ‘Truth Movement’. And they join in on 9/11 forums and write things such as, “scientists tell you that the only way to turn a building into dust is mini-nuclear explosives.Testing at the site shows Thorium, a by product of nuclear fusion, and thorium only shows up after a nuclear device detonates,” which is of course anal hurlant spawned by pseudoscience.
x219 Adam Ruff, hybridrogue1, & Participants : Christopher Bollyn exposes the Zionist supremacist
2015-09-23
Adam Ruff
September 22, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Here in this next video Christopher Bollyn exposes the Zionist supremacists who perpetrated the destruction of 9/11 evidence. A heinous crime all unto itself.
The following 10-minute video, Solving 9-11: Destroying the Evidence, explains how the FBI, under the supervision of Michael Chertoff, allowed the crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Center to be destroyed. Rather than conducting a forensic examination of the steel to determine how the buildings were destroyed, this crucial evidence was hastily cut up, mixed with other scrap, and shipped to steel mills in Asia.
hybridrogue1
September 23, 2015 at 4:38 am
Christopher Bollyn
The following 10-minute video, Solving 9-11: Destroying the Evidence, explains how the FBI, under the supervision of Michael Chertoff, allowed the crucial steel evidence from the World Trade Center to be destroyed. Rather than conducting a forensic examination of the steel to determine how the buildings were destroyed, this crucial evidence was hastily cut up, mixed with other scrap, and shipped to steel mills in Asia.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 23, 2015 at 5:03 am
I have discussed this before, but I will make clear again: I do not agree that Israel was the main perpetrators of 9/11. The perps were a combination of Zionist Israelis, Zionist Christians, and the US Military Industrial Complex, which has only strategic military goals. At the core of the whole network is the International click of financiers. The whole game is realpolitik, and their agenda is based in “Might makes Right” and “the Ends Justify the Means”. This is the guiding rule among psychopaths who have no religious ideology or even political ideology, only the insatiable lust for political power.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
September 23, 2015 at 1:04 am
I have discussed this before, but I will make clear again: I do not agree that Israel was the main perpetrators of 9/11. The perps were a combination of Zionist Israelis, Zionist Christians, and the US Military Industrial Complex, which has only strategic military goals. At the core of the whole network is the International click of financiers. The whole game is realpolitik, and their agenda is based in “Might makes Right” and “the Ends Justify the Means”. This is the guiding rule among psychopaths who have no religious ideology, only the insatiable lust for political power.
\\][//
Adam Ruff
September 23, 2015 at 3:34 am
I see where you are coming from by holding that position and I cannot really disagree with your overall assessment of who was really behind the dastardly deed. I will point out though that while “Christian Zionists” were surely involved they are about as pro Israel as you can get without being an Israeli. I will also point out that the “international click of financiers” are headed by the Rothchild cartel who control much of the worlds financial strings. As to the “strategic military goals” of our “military industrial complex” they seem to be very much in line with destroying the perceived enemies of Israel.
May I also point out that virtually all of the MSM and Hollywood is controlled by Zionists and heavily promotes a false narrative about Israel (good) and the Palestinians(bad). Since the chief operator of the destruction of the evidence, namely the WTC steel, was Michael Chertoff a Zionist dual citizen we can safely say that the Zionists were certainly well placed to destroy the evidence and control access to it. Since the media is controlled by Zionists then we can safely say they were well positioned to cover-up the crime and control the narrative after the fact. We can also look at who benefited from 9/11 the most both financially and strategically and again we are right back to Zionists.
Were these Zionists capable of orchestrating 9/11? In other words did they have the resources to actually do it and then cover it up and control the legal process afterwards? The answer is YES! In my opinion the Christian Zionists, Zionist Israeli’s, and the military industrial complex are one and the same thing and are all operating on behalf of this click of Zionist supremacists and at least inside their own twisted minds think they are operating on behalf of Israel. In my opinion this will all backfire and eventually destroy Israel and a whole lot of innocent Jewish people. It will backfire in the same way the Nazi’s burning down the Reichstag ultimately resulted not in them conquering the world but in the almost complete destruction of Germany.
The average Jewish person is no more involved in 9/11 than the average American is involved in US aggressions all over the world. It is the sociopathic monsters at the top who are doing these things and it is they who must be stopped. In the case of 9/11 those sociopaths happen to be Zionist supremacists and their close allies the so called Christian Zionists. No other group was positioned to plan, execute, cover-up, destroy the evidence, control the narrative, and control the legal process after 9/11 but this cabal of Zionist supremacist monsters. They had the resources of both the USA and Israel at their disposal. They did it and they will pay for their crimes.
Jimbo
September 24, 2015 at 3:42 am
The Rothchilds did 9/11?
No wonder they think we’re all nuts.
Adam Ruff
September 24, 2015 at 6:17 am
Who said that? Why are you trying to twist what I said?
x220 Adam Ruff, hybridrogue1, & Participants : A. Wright ignores Adam Ruff
2015-10-06
ruffadam
October 5, 2015 at 7:57 pm
A.Wright,
So you refuse to respond to this question posted in the previous thread?
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34632
ruffadam
October 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Why are you allowed to even speak here A.Wright when you refuse to answer direct questions put to you?
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/28-pages-of-misdirection/#comment-34632
hybridrogue1
October 5, 2015 at 8:14 am
Yes Mr Syed,
I thought of this last night after shutting down my workstation; the fact that this rebuttal by CIT has never been addressed by Chandler & Cole:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
I suggest it is moe than reasonable to insist that before Chandler & Cole attempt one more step forward that they give a full answer to this well reasoned rebuttal by CIT.
\\][//
ruffadam
October 5, 2015 at 8:42 am
They won’t address it. They won’t debate CIT or us.
ruffadam
October 5, 2015 at 8:32 pm
Well stated HR1 I agree completely. 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.
D Chandler
October 29, 2015 at 1:00 am
…just a drive-by. If you want to know what I think, read what I have written.
ruffadam
October 29, 2015 at 8:32 am
David,
A drive by and that is it huh? Pathetic. 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.
I for one am not going to beg you to debate this issue. As far as I am concerned the points made in this article and the points made in CIT’s response to your and Cole’s paper have gone UN-rebutted. The ball is in your court now. We have read your material and listened to what you have to say and we responded to it. Now it is up to you to either respond to our criticisms of your pentagon position or pretend they don’t exist and hide from the whole thing.
x221 Paul Zarembka, Elias Davidsson : Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence
2015-10-08
Paul Zarembka
October 7, 2015 at 10:43 pm
I cited Elias Davidsson’s book ‘Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence’ in my review of Roth’s first book. I had asked Roth, in my phone conversation with her, about her opinion of Davidsson’s work but nothing concrete was offered, only that she had read it and there were problems.
Today, Davidsson has a review of Roth’s book on Amazon. He has given it a one-star with a comment:
“Due to the many raving commentaries on Amazon, I decided, myself an author of a book on 9/11, to read Rebekah Roth’s book, too. The first pages reminded me of old-fashioned pornographic novels, written by third-class authors. Sentences like the following abound: “Grace found her room, closed the door behind her and immediately began to wonder what she would wear. She hoped she had packed the right shoes and jewelry to accent her sexy blue silk top with her brand new linen pants.” (p. 15) …
“It took quite many pages until the author began weaving 9/11 factoids into her narrative. Her book demonstrates that she studied some of the 9/11 critical literature. There is no evidence, however, that she carried out original research, let alone “mind blowing research”, the term used on the back cover. The book lacks literary value and is useless as a critical reference book on 9/11.”
Davidsson could have mentioned that the book has a Tea Party political orientation that becomes very apparent at the end, going so far as to read like a John Birch Society produced novel. This, in spite of claims in interviews that she has no political agenda.
Elias Davidsson
October 7, 2015 at 7:06 pm
I have been hesitant to engage in this discussion but feel compelled to do it here. It would be useful for 9/11 truthers to shed, once and for all, the illusion that a “true, independent and thorough investigation of 9/11” could be carried except after a U.S. “regime change”, in other words after a revolution. The U.S. ruling elite is intimately linked to upholding the myth of 9/11 and will never allow such an investigation. THe Nuremberg Trial could only take place after Nazi Germany was defeated.
Instead, the 9/11 truth movement should – in my opinion – embed itself in the larger movement to weaken and ultimately defeat the criminal regime of the United States. The paradigm should be to think the U.S. as a post-modern version of the Nazi regime and slowly undermine the moral legitimacy of the institutions that maintain that regime. For that purpose, continuing to discuss about “how” the US regime carried out 9/11 is a waste of time. There is more than sufficient data to conclude on US responsibility for the crime.
{mcb: Elias Davidsson in his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence (Algora Publishing, New York, 2013).}
Dr. Markus J. Schneider
October 7, 2015 at 8:46 pm
It makes me sad to see how little the truth movement is able to reach the general public. Sad, to be honest, is putting it mildly: it makes me sick.
A year ago, I started presenting extracts of books, websites, speeches and videos published by the truth movement to family, friends and colleagues (mechanical engineers). Material that – in my opinion – proves beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC buildings were brought down with controlled demolition, that no large aircraft ever hit the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville. What reaction did my sample of the “general public” show? Well, it all seemed interesting and entertaining to my audience, but the conclusion that the official story is false was simply not accepted. The engineers were not convinced by David Chandler’s words “the upper portion of the building would not fall through the path of its greatest resistance”. The friends (well educated people with leading positions in their companies) were not impressed by watching the slow motion and analysis of the WTC7 collapse. Neither friends nor colleagues made life-changing discoveries through my presentations. I tried a few more times. Then I gave up. (By the way, the family members were the ones the most impressed. Why? Because they were convinced by my emotion, my sincerity, my engagement, my trust in the sources of which I took the material.)
So how can the general public be convinced if not with facts? It can be convinced by the individuals who believe (and can defend) those facts on one hand and the number of the followers on the other.
The 9/11 truth movement however appears to be split into dozens of groups and fractions, many of them contradicting (even insulting) or – at best – ignoring each other. Obviously, each and every prominent member has its own blog. Considering myself a representative of the “general public”, it looks pathetic. I felt relief when I discovered David Ray Griffin’s consensus panel. (It appeared weak to me, but it seemed like a start). Now I read in the exchange above that members of the truth movement pride themselves in saying “Fuck the consensus. The whole concept of it.” These individuals have not understood that the truth movement is (or must be) a political movement. And political power only stems from unity. The 9/11 truth movement reminds me of the loud and colorful but powerless oppositions one finds in many countries’ parliaments of this world where the dominant party keeps ruling only because the opposition can never agree on anything. Each member of the opposition opposes something else…
Scientific (or less ambitiously: engineering) argument cannot defeat the official story in the view of the general public. Did Richard Gage not fail horrendously even in front of his peers? From more than 4,000 delegates at this year’s American Institute of Architects business meeting, only 160 voted in favor of a new WTC7 investigation, 3,892 voted against it. If the engineers cannot be convinced – not even about the limited subject of WTC7 alone – how should the common citizen be convinced that the entire official story about the four plane crashes is a lie?
Those members of the truth movement who have to tell a somewhat truer story, to announce an all-important detail correction or to advertise their superior understanding (insight, overview, knowledge, philosophy, experience, authority, etc.) should do this behind closed doors. The public is not served by it in any way.
David Chandler’s approach to the pentagon issue largely annihilates his achievements with the WTC towers. He has just lost his credibility. I can already see the logic in the heads of my friends: “What, all those who convinced me that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon are wrong after all? So they did take me on a ride! Or is Chandler wrong? But if Chandler is wrong on the Pentagon, he is probably also wrong on the WTC towers… The government seems to be right, after all. The truth movement does not know itself. These guys are just conspiracy theorists. What a pity, I wasted my time on that.”
I will still forward the “Beyond Misinformation” brochure to friends and colleagues. Hope they don’t google David Chandler.
Mark Schneider, Ph.D. Physics, Germany
hybridrogue1
October 7, 2015 at 9:46 pm
“Now I read in the exchange above that members of the truth movement pride themselves in saying “Fuck the consensus. The whole concept of it.” These individuals have not understood that the truth movement is (or must be) a political movement. And political power only stems from unity.”~Dr. Schneider
I appreciate your passion. It is a conundrum, is it not, that the Truth movement, in order to become a “political movement”, demands acquiescence of ones personal principles as to what that truth is, by bowing to a ‘collective’, in the name of consensus?
You say, “But if Chandler is wrong on the Pentagon, he is probably also wrong on the WTC towers” — clearly this is a non sequitur and as such a fallacious argument: “Sally can’t shoot straight, so she is a lousy shot, therefore she can’t cook’.
It is a fact of the movement of time through space that all “consensus” is temporary. The only consensus that is not is one that is enforced by dogma. Shall we as members of a “truth community” then bow to the tyranny of dogma?
I do appreciate your opinions and your input her Dr. Schneider. But my reservations to them have been registered here. You may respond as you will.
\\][//
dji9424
October 7, 2015 at 10:30 pm
If a movement is not grounded in truth, there is no real hope that it will achieve anything worthwhile; certainly not by design. If consensus is held superior to truth, what makes you think that it won’t end up being sidetracked; willfully steered off course so that nothing good is accomplished, except for the agenda for which the dastardly actions were originally conceived?
Your argument is exactly what the US government is doing – playing in their arena with their rules of engagement is never going to win any meaningful victory. The pursuit of truth is not for the majority, it genuinely is the devoted work of a relative few that will eventually win the day. The government’s case is crumbling with each passing month, now is not the time for compromise, now is the time to support those willing to fight where the battle is being waged.
James Hufferd
October 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm
I don’t think your professional colleagues (or Richard Gage’s, for that matter) would have rejected the scientific evidence you presented in the abstract, but that the problem was one of them being unready to violate the layered social compact of their allegiance to the social and political context providing them, in their perception, a place to operate, a context giving them the privilege of a shared purpose. And even more so, would they feel they owe allegiance and gratitude to their shared profession, so that they would not violate the perceived social contract within the principles of which they live and move and have their being. At this point, they are not ready to consider fundamentally opposing the consensus thus provided for their development, and they are not ready to consider facing the likely consequences of meaningfully doing so.
As for your family members, you occupy a more prominent position and thus have more leverage and persuasiveness with them. But don’t get discouraged! We can eventually change the conventional wisdom on this subject if we can continue to plant seeds, one person at a time, and look for things to come up in the news and otherwise to cause those seeds of awareness to germinate across the society and cause the shift in perception that must happen. Hang in there!
Dr. James Hufferd
http://www.911grassroots.org
x222 Maxwell Bridges : exile seat comments to McKee
2015-10-20
2015-10-20 {mcb email}
Dear Mr. McKee,
From my seat in exile, I ping your consciousness to remind you of where my zig-zag path to Truth has landed me: 9/11 nuclear involvement. Lots and lots of data points, mined from the most reliable sources and the unreliable ones, lead me there.
You may not recollect details of my exchanges with HR1. When we were debating whether NT could go the distance in achieving the pulverization as well as the hot-spot duration, HR1's go-to source was Dr. Legge. For quite some time now, HR1 has been pegging Dr. Legge as a mole. However, it has not caused HR1 to re-evaluate our exchanges and how NT doesn't add up as the sole or primary means of destruction.
I have had direct exchanges with Mr. Chandler. I was pointing out that the energy requirements of pulverization were excessive; not something that would be implemented using conventional chemical explosives, because the quantities are massive. If conventional CD were the means, the goals could be accomplished not only with much less, but also in a manner that more closely resembles a crumbling (not pulverizing) destruction initiated by airplane impacts. The smoking gun is the energy requirements of pulverization, which I say was a side-effect of the means chosen and not something that was designed and planned for.
Mr. Chandler avoided the nuclear topic. Didn't review Dr. Wood's book. He, of all people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, would have wielded a lot of weight in debunking the book. Why didn't he, even when today I admit it was disinformation? Because it had much truth that they didn't want to address.
Nuclear topics were also purged from 9/11 blogger. I was never granted admission.
I'm busy and distracted with real-life, but I do have the goods to thoroughly trash the AE9/11 Truth FAQ on no-nukes written by the AE9/11 Truth Writing Team. (Were you involved?) As with debunking of previous Dr. Jones no-nukes papers, its weaknesses are in the reports they accept, unchallenged and at face value, as being definitive on what was measured. Also, it frames the nuclear case badly, making absolutely no mention of FGNW -- a glaring omission.
You've said repeatedly that it doesn't matter HOW the towers were destroyed; what matters to you and the public is that they were destroyed in an unlikely fashion that the official statements can't support. You've said that you want to bring public awareness to that improbable aspect.
What my dogged persistence into nukes even from exile proves, is that if a nuclear HOW does matter. In fact, a nuclear 9/11 is the rallying call that has the potential -- in a Lord of the Rings fashion -- of bringing together both the divided factions of 9/11TM as well as the "uninitiated" ignorant masses. It furthermore explains all of the limited hang-outs into NT, NPT, pods-on-planes, hollow towers, etc. It explains the brutal tactics used against me, from (HR1) flame-wars to his incoherent blog postings dedicated to me as a "disinfo agent." (And HR1 is still tolerated by you?!! Despite his same black-boot-on-throat tactics used rudely against participants today?)
Mr. Ruff never ceases to amaze me with his hypocrisy, played out often against Mr. Wright. First, I can re-purpose Mr. Ruff's posting against him when he's been agitated by Mr. Wright not answering direction questions, etc. His whole litany of complaints are exactly the same I have against Mr. Ruff. I'm still partway convinced that purposeful triangularization exists between AWright, HR1, and Ruff.
Second, you tolerate Mr. Wright, yet I remain banned? I have demonstrated being far more reasonable, rational, logical, intelligent, etc.
I can be convinced of other conclusions.
Yet, you act the censor and won't let such discussions happen so that I can be convinced otherwise... Or others can be convinced of my arguments.
The BIG picture of all this is that keeping the public from landing on 9/11 nuclear conclusions is the only uniting thread in all of this. Because it is the KEY, it is the motivator, it is the rallying cry, it is the change instigator... Or rather it would have been if it would have been revealed and had its dots connected 10 years ago.
Whatever.
Exile is a blessing for what I achieve in real-life. As a sincere seeker of Truth, I'm only rankled by the games of your "regular trolls" and their hypocrisy. I'm sure you can imagine the circus that they would start were a single comment of mine permitted publication.
Again, whatever.
I'll do another yoga exhale and let my mind be purged of its ire with this venting email, so that it is no longer there to distract.
Connect some dots, Mr. McKee.
Before I return to my seat in exile, I thank you for granting me permission to subscribe to the discussions.
All the best,
// Herr der Elf
++++++
hybridrogue1
October 20, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Craig,
Let’s be clear here, Sheila not only questioned the Nanothermates as insufficient to have felled the towers; she said she agreed that the proposition that Nukes were involved made sense to her. Let’s address her entire comment, not cherrypick and isolate the part about Nanothermates.
\\][//
Craig McKee
October 20, 2015 at 5:04 pm
HR,
I react to what I think is important. You are free to take her on about nukes, although I don’t think every mention of nukes should cause people to freak out. I think the type of material used to demolish the towers is not high on my list of priorities to fight over. I’m more concerned with how we convince official story believers to reconsider what they’ve been told.
hybridrogue1
October 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm
Thanks Craig,
I am not particularly anxious to take Sheila on about nukes. It is a prospect that is easily dismissed with but a few well reasoned and substantive point. I don’t think it is worth burdening this thread with that argument. What I would suggest is that Sheila read this page on my blog, and by page, I mean all of my commentary after the initial remarks put in the abstract — the whole argument:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/
I would especially point out my comment on “The Prager Psyop” that addresses all the substances he claims prove a nuclear reaction.
\\][//
+++
2015-10-20
Dear Mr. McKee,
If you're now allowing nukes to be discussed -- and in particular by mean-spirited HR1 --, then the reason for my banishment no longer exists.
Your only concern will be for HR1's unhingement and what he & his tag-team (Mr. Ruff) dredge up to side-line my rational, reasoned, measured comments in flame wars.
I do have new information, new analysis. I can set Shiela straight as well as all of those who don't believe in nukes.
//
+++
2015-10-20
Dear Mr. McKee,
HR1's reference links are disorganized pieces of crap. Very funny to how he plops in such links as if they were authoritative, when they are not. I've shredded them in the past. Plus anybody, once on HR1's blog, exploring his other ware, will find other "less-than-pretty" offerings.
That you allow HR1 to repeatedly put such links into his postings speaks volumes. I have equivalent links that I could post, were I permitted.
It should be pointed out that HR1 does not permit me to respond on his venue, and he is too chicken-shit to debate me on my turf, where I am much fairer to his words and arguments than he ever has been to mine.
You want something to "convince official story believers to reconsider what they’ve been told"? A nuclear 9/11 will do it, Mr. McKee. And it dovetails so nicely with the Pentagon-con in all aspects.
//
x223 hybridrogue1 & djthermaldetonator : emotionally invested truthers irrationally call me a shill
2015-10-23
djthermaldetonator
October 22, 2015 at 11:13 pm
Forum, blog, whatever. Sorry I really don’t like this format. It’s too long to scroll and keep focus with all these little comments directed towards me, going off subject on some. So I rather just direct this message to Mr. McKee, and I’m ignoring the rest.
I recognize your face and name, I am quite certain we have talked on Facebook before. If you add me on Facebook you’ll see the previous conversation we’ve had. I am well acquainted with numerous people who have worked with AE.
Reason I come off defensive, is because as of recent, I’ve had a portion of emotionally invested truthers irrationally call me a shill without considering my years of being public and activist for 9/11 truth, which I find disturbing with how much the movement is still correct on the majority of the tragic deaths (bombs inside the WTC).
But I do not understand how there is evidence for plane denial on this blog, contrary to witness and photographic evidence of a plane having hit the Pentagon? Nor the fact that most 9/11 researchers never question people in DC who saw the plane, or dare to interview family victims from that itself, (especially when there is a chance these witnesses and family victims could of found solidarity within the truth movement, or just having legitimate concerns for the victims and obvious lies at the WTC).
The situation(scene) lacking media and bystander cameras at the Pentagon is a separate subject, and so is whatever reasons we could speculate why the authorities would not release the 80 camera angles (which i wish they would release too), but suspiciously release angles that are poor.
But because there is limited video documentation of the Pentagon strike, that doesn’t mean we should just ignore or throw away all the early conclusive witness accounts to that strike, and only accept those who saw and witnessed the bombs at the WTC, just because were lucky enough to have had lot of news cameras as proof to validate those claims.
By me referring to “government evidence”, is the actual submissions from the crime scenes, not just a general overall blanket term, to include the 9/11 Commission report, which one doesn’t have to read to know is a lie (when 6 of commissioners already stated it was set up to fail, a white wash, and a cover up) which was assembled after the crime scene evidence was already gathered. That is the context of how these items came about. Maybe you haven’t looked at all of it, but even the evidence gathered for the plane incidents is contrary to the 9/11 Commission report (amongst some other things I’ve even discovered recent that are not in there, besides the popular building 7).
As an irrational question of, do I trust the government? No. But what we accept in comparison of how our government of yesteryear has gotten into wars through lies, is way different now than just assuming our government (military) is all evil and encompassing, and will just kill its own, on its own turf. The war deception strategies then still differ, as does the technology to spy and terrorize, and the global stage itself. Also what matters is what sort of research you may have done on previous false flags, and whether if there is a correlation or similar agenda to them, or not?
It will take a great detail to give you my complete theory on whom and how 9/11 was done. Because my theory allows a lot more room and sound arguments for other operational theories to how this may have been orchestrated. It’s sort of an “I know how much I don’t know, about 9/11” sort of answer, by sticking to only concrete evidence. Like for example, we know for a fact Israelis were caught in and around, and all involved with 9/11. Isn’t that just as strong (or stronger) evidence than just paying attention to how building falls down?
Now if you’re not going to accept what photographic and witness evidence there is at the Pentagon, I will honor that, because I understand where you’re coming from. But that also means that cant really go no further If you’re just going to ignore evidence, that’s not acceptable to you. So I’m not going to spend my time explaining out my entire Pentagon theory, as it will also have to include explaining the rest of the attacks in greater details.
As even cited in movies like Loose Change, a big clue to what I’m saying, you should recognize is evidence that was released by authorities and yet contrary to the official version, which is the passenger flight manifest for flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
With your willful limitations, in order to get around to proving that there was a plane that hit the Pentagon, and that there were planes that still crashed into the WTC (I hope some of you at least agree on that part?) and in Shanksville, and to proving there where hijackers, and that there where hijackings and passengers on those planes, phone calls and all, who died on those planes, we will have to do a little terrorism research, that goes into areas others are afraid to look at, and is too long to explain.
I seem to recall you are aware of Israeli involvement? Then I can gladly build my theory explanation step by step, versus preconceived notions from the truth movement. But it will also have to include facts about the WTC 1993 bombing (and few worthy points about Iran Contra too). I know it’s not the same thing, and there were no planes involved. But the official versions of those events are linked (and could be easily defined as both being Al Qaeda events , but are strangely not) , however they still are linked the same way as what us truthers implicate who did 9/11. The WTC 1993 bombing is not off topic at all, and it’s (what I think) shameful that the truth movement really has not done much research on this, other than watching Alex Jones movies. There are beyond not only similarities, but it possibly may been done for the same agenda as what 9/11 was for.
So Mr. McKee, if you would like to learn more on what research I have done, please add me on Facebook and I will speak to you privately or public there. There is no point for me to continue on this thread, if conversation on the Pentagon is going to be limited to “I don’t trust the government”, or “the government could just fabricate evidence” without any proof to that either, plus that I really don’t like this format. I only hope the rest of you will challenge yourselves more to look at evidence and other witness accounts, that may counter what you already believe, (or what you would call, defending the official version), especially if you are one not afraid to implicate Israel. I’ll just give you one more last clue. Suicidal terrorism isn’t limited to Muslims and Japanese.
One more response to a later comment.. I myself actually enjoy debating not only plane denial truther’s but debunkers too (on Facebook). It’s just kind of funny that it’s sort of a 50/50 split between agreeing with both groups. But both groups don’t seem to know anything about the 1993 WTC bombing either. But with debunkers, they seem to run in fear from the Israeli evidence or call me anti-Semite.
rediscover911com
October 22, 2015 at 11:37 pm
“Forum, blog, whatever. Sorry I really don’t like this format. It’s too long to scroll and keep focus with all these little comments directed towards me, going off subject on some. So I rather just direct this message to Mr. McKee, and I’m ignoring the rest.” [short quote from a long meandering post]
I’ll be short and to the point: Who accuses of that which they are being and doing … projecting their own failings upon others?
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 12:00 am
djthermaldetonator,
I appreciate that you addressed this latest comment to Mr McKee, but I feel compelled to disabuse you of your gross misconceptions concerning our findings on the matter of the Pentagon event. You have been invited to study our case first hand on your own cognizance. You have most obviously failed to do so, or your current remarks would be recognized even by yourself to be incorrect – were you to be frank with yourself.
The issues are in fact straight forward, if not simple to digest.
The case is straightforward in that the plane proven to be on the north of Citgo path cannot have hit the light poles nor made the damage within the Pentagon at the angle that damage is documented to be.
The case is not simple to digest because the matter of that proof rests for the most part on the witnesses to the event that were in the proper place and time to witness the plane on that path. It is difficult to digest this because the witness testimony is a huge meal that must be taken one bite at a time. It takes a great appetite to be determined enough to find the truth that lies in this huge meal. Only when you are willing to go through our assessment of the witness testimonies, and follow the very careful reasoning put to them will you have the capacity to digest this rather complex assessment.
The second point is less complex and concerns the so-called “evidence”. There simply is no legitimate evidence for an aircraft crash at the Pentagon. You will find no legitimate chains of custody in the official record for any of this asserted evidence. You will find that even the so-called FDR evidence is illegitimate and must be dismissed as tainted. You will find there is not a single aircraft change-part list of ID’s for any of the asserted evidence.
You will be left with the only reasonable conclusion one can make in such a situation, that being that there was “evidence planted” at the scene of the crime by the perpetrators of that crime..
I will also address the 1993 “terrorist bombing” of the WTC. As well as your remarks on the bombing of the Murrah building. But those will be in a separate, or perhaps several separate commentaries here.
\\][//
djthermaldetonator
October 23, 2015 at 12:57 am
feel free to add me. I’m not doing anymore responses here. I’m well aware of all the Pentagon theories, have spoken to some of these filmmakers before. Plenty of investigatory questions I asked, that you have not addressed. https://www.facebook.com/djthermaldetonator
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 1:16 am
djthermaldetonator,
I do not do facebook, I don’t like their policies and refuse to be stalked by their algorithm.
If we are done here – so be it, I find your arguments from ignorance untenable at any rate.
\\][//
djthermaldetonator
October 23, 2015 at 1:23 am
understandable, thermatedetonator@gmail.com . Your wrong on few things with WTC 93, but i know why most truth seekers site the FBI to blame. the other events you mentioned dont concern me or 9/11. However, the OKC bombing does (JFK to a degree, but its a stretch), but i will relay that you via email.
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 1:44 am
“but i will relay that you via email,”~djthermaldetonator
No you will certainly not. If you are able to keep making remarks here with this evasion tactic, you would be able to make your arguments here just as well.
My personal email is meant for my personal friends and acquaintances. You can also read my blog at:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/
And:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/truther-no-more-david-chandler-embraces-official-pentagon-story/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 1:13 am
djthermaldetonator,
I will make this one short and sweet. As you have access to all of the issues that have been addressed on this blog by simply going down the list under the heading; “ARCHIVES”, it is your own unwillingness to grasp what has been previously addressed on this blog;
>The Murrah bombing has been addressed in great detail here
>The Shanksville crash as been addressed albeit in somewhat less detail. There was no crash at the old strip mine as is asserted in the official narrative.
>The 1993 bombing of WTC using the explosive supplied by the FBi to the informant, and his taping of their admission to allowing that bomb to be placed and detonated by the patsies that they set up, has not been addressed in sufficient detail here, but I know the case intimately personally.
Additionally I have been on the trail of the government perpetrators in earnest from the time of the coup d’etat in Dallas in 1963. And am aware of the Stockton California false flag school yard shootings that were meant to pass the first legislation against “assault rifles”.
Also the Columbine false flag event with the same anti-gun agenda.
Skipping a few we come to the Branch Davidian compound attack by the military in breach of the Posse Comitatus Act (1878)
The Randy Weaver incident that was actually the proximate cause of Timothy McVeigh’s impetus for joining the elOhim militia group on the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, which led to his involvement as a patsy for the Oklahoma bombing.
This history of false flag and other PSYOPs is long and complex when one simply accounts for the ones made in Amerika.
\\][//
djthermaldetonator
October 23, 2015 at 9:56 am
Mr hybridrogue1, not interested in you’re blog and threading back to you here. Have a nice life.
Mr. sockpuppet2012 , I’ve meet Craig Ranke and know his films.
A.) 4 people out of countless of others who witnesses the plane and path, is not conclusive proof that there wasn’t a plane, or that was a missile, a drone, a hologram, or even a “stand down order”.
B.) Mr Ranke no longer cares to be involved in the movement, nor want’s to debate his findings.
Now, if you care to compare notes on your claims, or want my answers to the rest of your questions, i’l gladly do so via email or Facebook. Hell, i might even try to resurrect Mr Ranke for you. I dont run a blog, nor care to validate one that’s not practical. i’m done here.
sockpuppet2012
October 23, 2015 at 11:04 am
djthermaldetonator said:
“Mr. sockpuppet2012 , I’ve meet Craig Ranke and know his films.
A.) 4 people out of countless of others who witnesses the plane and path, is not conclusive proof that there wasn’t a plane”
If you think there were only four witnesses to the NoC flight path, then you know NOTHING of Craig Ranke’s films or website.
If you think Craig Ranke says there was no plane, then you know nothing of his films and website.
Can you name one of the “countless of others who witnesses the plane and path”?
“….. or that was a missile, a drone, a hologram…..”
Why do you bring up that nonsense?…..that’s just more proof that you are completely unfamiliar with Ranke’s films and website.
Your status as a shill, a gatekeeper and a liar is obvious…..you stand out like a clown at a funeral!
“Mr Ranke no longer cares to be involved in the movement, nor want’s to debate his findings”
That’s two more lies.
He probably doesn’t want to waste his time with you, and you spin that into “he doesn’t want to debate anyone”.
Craig Ranke would gladly debate Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman, Deets or Ryan or any of the other well known detractors of his work on camera, but why would he want to waste his time with you?
“Now, if you care to compare notes on your claims, or want my answers to the rest of your questions, i’l gladly do so via email or Facebook”
Why are you afraid to discuss your nonsense here, where you are unable to block people and delete comments?
Why are you so interested in collecting email addresses?
“Hell, i might even try to resurrect Mr Ranke for you”
What makes you think you have any influence over Graig Ranke?…..you’re not even familiar with his films or website.
“i’m done here”
I doubt that.
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am
djthermaldetonator,
Well now if that isn’t a bunch of oinking rhetorical bilge you just spewed. You obviously haven”t a thing of substance to offer. So you may as well can the bullshit and get lost.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 12:55 pm
sockpuppet2012,
This clown, djthermaldetonator turned out to be another turnip without a drop of blood or substance. It seem that not a single Chandlerite can make even the beginning of an argument here. Not a single one will make an argument of substance, just hot wind.
\\][//
x224 Maxwell Bridges : quiz your false belief that Facebook is somehow better
2015-10-23
2015-10-23
Dear Mr. ThermalDetonator,
I am a lurker reader of Truth & Shadows. In exile, really, for a pre-crime, no less. Mr. McKee is gracious enough to let a second email alias of mine subscribe to comments, but he won't publish at the moment. Not so much for what I would write, but for the over-reaction of my debate partners: the infamous Mr. Rogue and his fart-saluting little buddy, Mr. Ruff. My zig-zag path to 9/11 truth has lead me to FGNW (4th generation nuclear weapons), that I had a talent for slipping in sideways in my comments while being able to relate it to the subject.
I don't necessarily recommend going to my blog where I have dual-purposed my exchanges (under the alias "Senor El Once") with belligerent dry-drunk Mr. Rogue and others from T&S. Such a repetitive bore it has become even for me! The view from the penalty box is a blessing, really.
Be that as it may, the reason I am writing is to quiz your false belief that Facebook is somehow better than Mr. McKee's blog. FB has no permanence -- except with the FBI and what they'll dredge up at our trials. FB is so easy to game. Post a few comments in a row, and you push the discussions of others up into the Read More nether regions. Share a few posts in a row to a forum, and you push down into the news feed of others the discussions on other topics. You literally have to have notifications on and receive emails in order to have half a chance of getting a URL to give to others on where a great discussion might have transpired. You can't even go (but I'm sure the FBI can) to any view of your own submissions and have collected in one place all shares ~and~ comments that you ever made; nor can you do that for others. I repeat: FB has no permanence.
9/11 Truthers have to participate in so many carousels with trolls. Serious participants who feel they are writing something worthy need to take efforts on their own to preserve a copy of wisdom: off-line at the very least. It is so easy to get banned, and for a vindictive admin to purge your content. Blogs are free and just as easy to maintain as posting normal comments, I believe you error greatly in judgment about their value.
FB together with a blog is your only hope at permanence while avoiding carousel spins. I mean, if you re-post you worthy efforts on FB to your blog, you'll have a "goto" URL to shut-down unproductive spins down the road. The more diligent you are in your blog postings of capturing source URLs of where discussions took place, can help your efforts for truth. Likewise, you can post on FB links to your blog, It gives permanence to FB when otherwise it would be a memory hole.
Of course, it can also be misused, as Mr. Rogue does. He won't ever publish a comment from me (but that doesn't mean I can't subscribe.) Nor will he confront me on my blog. If you go rummaging around his blog, you'll find a couple of unhinged postings followed by literally hundreds of comments dedicated to me, an alleged disinformant. Too funny, and hardy worth reading; it has no organization. Mr. Rogue can't decide what his blog wants to be: (1) something serious with research, (2) a smear job on opponents, (3) a legacy for Mr. Rogue. The omissions are noteworthy, for he had lengthy debates with others on T&S and never re-purposed his "worthy" words on his blog. Guess that makes me special that he has dedicated so much to me.
T&S is a unique place. Mr. McKee brought back URLs to individual comments, so if you save them with your words off-line, you can later shut-down a lot of nonsense by posting the "goto" link, if not choice quotes from the original.
Mr. McKee is pretty fair, although my time in the penalty box has dragged on too long. On the plus side without me as a catalyst for bad or sour behavior by Mr. Rogue, we quickly learn that the issue isn't with me.
On another topic, I am also in the CIT camp. There was a plane that people saw. But there are no witnesses to it actually hitting the Pentagon. The witnesses saw a plane and shortly on its heels heard and explosion and saw smoke, and mentally connected the dots and the psy-op wanted them to. Conveniently, no video released either except a few frames from a parking meter. Alas, the flight path was not aligned with the staged damage. [I believe a missile was launched from a construction trailer, coupled with explosives within the building.] Aside from the videos [that could shut a lot of people up one side or another if released], there is no effort to correlate via serial numbers airplane parts with the alleged commercial aircraft.
Oh well. Just thought I'd touch base to inform you that you pin false hopes on FB. It has no permanence (except at our trials.)
All the best and have a great weekend.
// Herr der Elf
x225 Maxwell Bridges : oinking rhetorical bilge
2015-10-23
hybridrogue1
October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am
djthermaldetonator,
Well now if that isn’t a bunch of oinking rhetorical bilge you just spewed. You obviously haven”t a thing of substance to offer. So you may as well can the bullshit and get lost.
\\][//
++++
Dear Mr. McKee,
If Mr. Rogue does not substantiate his assessment, then his comment itself becomes "oinking rhetorical bilge" that he should spew on his blog and not on yours.
I don't subscribe to the comments of your blog to get poked in the eye repeatedly by Mr. Rogue's demeanor.
//
x226 Jens Schmidt, ruffadam, hybridrogue1 : under his scholarly spell.
2015-10-21 through 2015-11-05
Jens Schmidt
October 21, 2015 at 12:20 pm
“Some of the others might just be under his [Legge’s] “scholarly spell.” You know, the academic Ph.D. who wears the jacket and tie and speaks softly.”
I have no opinion of Legge, as I don’t remember having read anything by him, other than the Harrit et al paper, to which his contribution probably was minor.
But: If memory serves, he has his PhD in chemistry, with a background in agriculture. Can any of you verify that? Does he have any scholarly achievements to his credit other than his papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies? The Harrit paper lists his affiliation as “Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia” – a business, apparently, not an academic venue.
With that in mind, I don’t see how physicist Chandler, engineer Cole or physics PhD Wyndham should feel under any “scholarly spell” – Legge is simply outside his field here at the Pentagon.
Do you assert that perhaps Dr. SE Jones (physics), Dr. NH Harrit (chemistry), Dr. J Farrer (physics), Dr. GS Jenkins (physics), Dr. C Grabbe (physics), or Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer) were likewise under that “scholarly spell” when they collaborated with Legge on various papers?
Jens Schmidt
October 21, 2015 at 4:47 pm
“No I do not. Legge is the oldest of these people, and often that translated to “wiser” for younger men.”
Seriously? Cole graduated in 1979 and thus has 35 or so of engineering experience on his back. Chandler is no “younger man”. I don’t know how old Wyndham is, but he was Assistant Professor for three years before going on a career in IT education. I can’t take this serious.
“I do know Legge quite well although not having met him in person we communicated for several months in an intensive email discussion and eventual heated debate. Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.
He is a persuasive liar and a cheat as well.”
I can’t argue with your personal experience, and accept it as you put it. However, I am aware that the quality of personal communications is a function of both sides’ behaviour. I am sure your personal experience with me differs VASTLY from the experience of those I collaborate with on a friendly. co-operative basis.
“So whether this “scholarly spell” was all from respect for his tenure and achievements or had some great measure of intimidation is only known by the details of each of this cast of characters actual interactions with this shyster. Going along to get along is a pretty deeply ingrained human psychological response to perceived authority.”
In other words: You are speculating, perhaps projecting.
“That is No, as a long answer Mr Schmidt, and it is adamant on my part as well.”
“Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.” :D
Jens Schmidt
October 21, 2015 at 5:34 pm
“Legge is in his 80’s, Chandler is in his 70’s now, Cole is quite a bit younger still.”
80s – wow, ok, would not have guessed that.
Cole would be going on 60.
“That you “can’t take this serious.” is absolutely of no concern to me.”
That’s your prerogative.
“You say, ““Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.”
Which is quite a distinction between; “Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.”
The “with” as opposed to “against” is of the essence. Is it not Mr Schmidt.”
D’uh. Yes, of course, I wouldn’t have changed the “with” to “against” of it didn’t make a difference. Did you notice the “:D”? That was essential, too, to correctly parse my text.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 3:37 am
“You should have noticed the comparative charts between the Tillotson Xerogell and the chips being tested by Harrit. The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”
The W/g are “specific power”, not “brisance”. Tittlotson’s paper points out specifically that they did NOT yet measure the reaction velocity!
5 W/g are nothing extraordinary. Here is a paper that investigates the “…Thermo-oxidative Degradation of a composite Epoxy Resin Material” – nothing designed to be energetic or explosive, nothing nano, just regular epoxy resin:
Budrugeac (2013)
Look at the upper right chart in Figure 1: The DSC chart peaks near 5 W/g!
Is 5 W/g a very fast reaction?
Truth is: No, not at all, it is a very slow reaction.
From this curve, Harrit determined a specific energy of 1.5 kJ/g for the entire chip (including the gray layer, which they assumed to be inert). By definition, 1 W = 1 J/s. Or 1 s = 1 J/W – reaction time is energy divided by (average) power: t = E/P. Let’s plug in the numbers (mass, measured in g, cancels out): reaction time for that chip would have been 1500 kJ / 5 W = 300 seconds, assuming konstant power. That’s 5 minutes. Read: IF the chip burned constantly at its peak specific power of 5 W/g, it would take 5 minutes to burn to completion! For a red layer merely 50 micrometers thin and about 1 mm wide, that is VERY slow burning indeed! Now you need to realize that this slow burning is immediately obvious from the DSC graphs anyway: The x-axis plots target temperature. Temperature was raised at a rate of 10 °C/min. 10 °C on the x-axis are thus equivalent to 60 s. The blue curve (the one they compare with Tillotson) starts reacting exothermally at ~240 °C and ends reacting exothermally at ~480 °C. The difference, 240 °C took 24 minutes in the DSC device – that’s how slowly the chip reacted in reality!
Harrit’s DSC comparison between one chip vs. Tillotson’s nanothermite (Fig. 29) is odd anyway: Look at Fig. 19: They picked the curve that most closely resembled Tillotson’s – with the lowest peak power and highest peak temperature. The green curve peaks well above 20 W/g! That is also the curve from which Harrit determined a specific energy of 7.5 kJ/g – 5 times that of known nanothermite, and almost twice that which thermite could do in theory. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the MAIN reaction that produced the plotted DSC peak was NOT, could not possibly be, a thermite reaction.
Anyway, at no point do Harrit et al even hint that the chips react “explosive” in any way under their own power! I don’t think it counts if you infuse lots of heat by pointing a torch flame at a chip.
As far as I know, the only person hinting such is Mark Basile; he filmed a chip he heated on a steel strip, and then in one frame it was still there, in the next gone.
Assuming a frame rate of 30/s, and a field of viision that shows no more than an inch or so, this gives a minimum velocity of the chip of 0.03 meters per 1/30th of a second – we are talking about an order of magnitude of 1 m/s. “Extraordinary brisance” of an explosive would be far beyond 1000 m/s.
SUMMARY:
Harrit’s chips burn very slowly in the DSC test.
Their brisance is unknown, experimental results indicate it may be 3 orders of magnitude lower than the brisance of ordinary explosives.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 4:26 am
“…you derived this assumption from the photo of Jones. As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.”
No. I think you want to re-read the relevant part of Harrit et al and then come back and correct your mistake.
“As far as the rest of your post; this simply does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. They speak of massive overpressure and brisance, and the ability to dial in such attributes according to the gas producing molecules in ratio to the energetic product.”
I agree it does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. The conclusion from Harrit’s experimental results should then be that the chips are probably NOT “sol-gel energetics”.
Is there any evidence in Harrit et al that the red material is the result of a sol-gel process? No. Have Harrit et al identified the red material? Not really! They don’t know what the organic matrix material is, they have no idea what the silicon is doing there, and they haven’t really understood what these platelet-shaped particles are. They have no explanation for the gray material.
Most of the energy release comes from the organic matrix as it burns on air. Again, the power is comparable to that of ordinary epoxy resin, as per the Budrugeac paper I linked you to. There really is no good evidence that any thermite reaction has occurred at all.
“Again, if Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate,”
IF – but did he really? Did he powderize concrete? Did he toss steel columns?
“ it is imminently plausible to presume nano-milled sol-gels would be exponentially more explosive.”
That would be a presumption, which does not follow in any way from the experimental data on the red/gray chips as presented by Harrit et al. Quite the contrary. The thermal behaviour of the chips is dominated by mere organic combustion on air.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 3:50 am
“…explosive properties: can they cut WC central columns? can they toss columns? can they powderize concrete? Anyone who has seen Jonathan Cole’s experiments with simple Termate (sulfur laced thermite) knows that even this regular Thermate can do every one of those things.”
To the best of my knowledge:
Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate powderizes concrete.
Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate tosses columns.
The steel wall panels found at the WFC, on the other side of West Street, are said to have been ejected at a lateral velocity of 60 mph, 75 mph … I have seen different estimated by different Truth researchers, but that is about the range.
Each wall panel weighs several tons.
It is easy, in principal, to calculate the amount of high explosives needed to accelerate a ton of steel from 0 to 60 mph. As for formulas, all you need is the formulas for energy (kinetic energy of the tossed mass, chemical energy of the explosive) and momentum (of both the panel and the explosive residues flying the other direction), and estimate reasonable bounds for brisance and energy density. Has anyone attempted to do that? I think the result would leave you scratching your head.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 4:48 am
“He most certainly did. He showed a video of the thermate blowing the top off of a capped column that blew it up high as a pine tree in his back yard.”
Thanks for confirming that he didn’t toss a column.
What flew up in the tree? Watch the Cole-video from 12:50 minutes on: He made a four-sided box cutter – something he can hold in his hand without a lot of force. Then boom, then: “I think my box cutter blew about 30 feet up“. Not the top of a capped column. Be more careful with your claims, HR1!
In his experiments, Cole typically used like 1 kg of thermate. I think the box cutter isn’t more than 5 kg. To fly up 10 meters, an object needs an initial velocity of about 14 m/s, that’s about 30 mph. Half of what is claimed for the wall panels. To accelerate the box cutter to twice the velocity, you need four times the energy. So for perhaps 5 kg of box cutter, he’d have needed more like 4 kg of thermate.
Wall panels weighed several tons.
To toss wall panels to a velocity of 60 mph, you need tons of thermate.
This is a result of Cole’s experiment.
It should have you scratching yout head: How would the perps place tons of thermate onto or into each wall panel?
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 5:35 am
“you KNOW damned well we aren’t talking about Thermate, nor Thermite here”
I never claimed we are talking about therm_te here. I was talking about the experimental results on certain red-gray chips.
It was YOU who introduced the talk on thermate when you linked to the Cole video. If you don’t want to talk about thermate, don’t introduce the topic! Don’t blame me for responding to you!
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 11:54 am
“Then don’t be surprized that I won’t be responding to you further. If you can’t figure out why I brought up the Cole videos then screw you.”
I am not surprised. I pointed out several hard errors in your claims about the Harrit study. I can understand why you might be shy to respond to that.
To remind you: The original cause for me to respond in this thread half a day ago was your assertion that “5 Watts/Gram” means “at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”“. This was flat-out FALSE. I explained to you that brisance is not measured in W/g (rather, it correlated with velocity of the reaction front in the explosive material), that Tillotson explicitly wrote that they had NOT measured the reaction velocity, that Harrit’s 5 W/g corresponds to / is the result of an excrutiatingly slow reaction, where the tiny chips (roughly 1 mm x 1mm x 50 µm) smouldered over the course of a whopping 24 minutes; and finally that I showed you another scientific paper, where the authors had measured ordinary epoxy resin to burn at a peak specific power of about the same 5 W/g.
Yes, I understand why you didn’t respond to that.
Further erroneous claims you made, that I corrected, were
“As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.”
That was wrong. You should have re-read Harrit et al and corrected this error.
You claimed, and insisted, that Cole showed that thermite charges could “toss columns” and “powderize concrete”, when in fact he showed no such thing.
You corrected the former claim to “the top off of a capped column” – which was FALSE, too – he hurled the box-shaped cutting device. which didn’t weigh very much.
You avoid the glaringly obvious observation that Cole needed a huge amount of thermate relative to the object he “tossed”.
You claimed “we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study“.
I told how this was, again, FALSE, on both counts: No evidence that the red or the gray chip material is “sol-gel”; and no evidence that either is “explosive”.
I understand perfectly why you would not wish to respond to this repeated incident of being shown plain wrong.
You claimed: “There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?”
How deeply embarrassed you must have felt when you relized you were wrong and my reply was correct: That there really is no chart of any kind of “the” (or indeed any) primer paint.
I understand perfectly why you would not wish to respond to this.
It must hurt to be shown wrong so often, about something that you believed in so much with all your heart, and I understand why you would wish to distract from your numerous false claims.
By the way: Do you believe there was only one primer paint in the world, or in the WTC?
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 5:10 am
“Now if Cole did this with regular Thermate, and as you see it blows the top off of the capped box column; what are the possibilities of a sol-gel nanothermate?”
Invitation to speculation.
“So what are the alternatives? RDX certainly, DETcord certainly. But these can only be surmised”
Correct. Speculation.
“whereas we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study.”
No, these are both false.
There is no evidence in the Jones-Harrit study that the chips are “sol-gel”
There is no evidence in the Jones-Harrit study that the chips are “explosive”
“There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?”
No, you are wrong.
There is no graph in that paper on any primer paint.
You need to re-read the Harrit et al paper. You have grave misconceptions of its content.
“Obviously we have disparity between your interpretations and the experiments of Cole.”
No.
Cole is doing experiments with thermate.
Harrit et al did experiments on an unknown material that derives most of its energy from organic combustion.
The disparity has nothing to do with my interpretation, but with the studied materials being so different.
“One more thing, if Cole’s Thermate has the explosive power we witness in his videos, and we know what it can do to steel, then it certainly has the explosive force to obliterate concrete as well. ”
I do not doubt that you can obliterate concrete or steel to any degree you wish with thermate, nano-thermite. The problem arises with the quantity needed. This has not been properly assessed.
“Especially the light weight concrete making up the floor pans. Full strength concrete was only used in the foundations and sub-basement weight bearing levels of the WTC.”
I know. Light-weight concrete easily crumbles, if for example you drop it from a large height. No explosives needed.
“Since we are all agreed that the towers exploded violently, throwing box columns and beams weighing multiple tons laterally for up to 600 feet. What mechanisms would each of you propose were at work there?
Jens? Utu?”
I do not agree at all that explosions threw the wall panels 600 feet. You’d need totally ridiculous amounts of explosives to do that, which are not in evidence.
I think the walls simply toppled over, after the floor joists were stripped off.
“Utu didn’t answer whether he/she considers DEW or nukes as options.
There are some very simple reasons that both can be ruled out. And this can be discussed further if anyone cares to propose one or the other.”
I certainly don’t propose either, silly.
Please bear in mind that what I commented on today is the thermal properties of the red-gray chips as measured and presented in Harrit et al (2009) – and your FALSE claim that the value “5 W/g” is a measure of “brisance”. I have allowed you to distract from that, but would kindly ask you to review my arguments that led to my conclusion that the chips reacted very slowly in Harrit’s DSC experiments.
Bottom line is: You have badly misrepresented Harrit’s results in several places now and need to correct those errors.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 5:29 am
“I do not think your calculation of reaction time are correct. It’s way too rough ”
You dismiss without argument what I asserted with an argument.
My argument is solid and stands unrefuted.
“and dividing 1500 J/g by 5W/g gets you something in seconds (which would be correct) but this division is not really justified.
Not seconds – MINUTES!
(1500 J/g) / (5 J/(s*g)) = 300 s = 5 min (provided the chip burned at 5 W/g constantly, which of course it did not – it burned even less powerfully all the time exept at peak).
And again, the x-axis span from 240-480 °C = 240 °C really is equivalent to 24 minutes of burn time – there is no escaping this direct experimental result!
“In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives.
Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.
This despite much of the chips being inert gray layer!
The gray layer typically has about the same thickness as the red-layer, and thus about the same volume, but the gray material is clearly much denser than the red material, and thus most of the mass of the chips is made of inert gray layer. If you accept that the energy release comes from the red material alone, then it follows that the energy density of the red material alone must be much larger than the 1.5, 3, 4.5 and 7.5 kJ/g measured by Harrit et al, putting it firmly outside the theoretical maximum of all explosive materials.
The exotherm is clearly dominated by combustion of the organic matrix on air. This is a slow process, nothing explosive.
“However, the speed of reaction is what is the most important.”
I am not sure it’s the most important. I think energy considerations are more important IMO. But yes, it is important – AND has not been quantified at all by Harrit et al. So we do not know what the speed of reaction is “in the wild”, but we know it was VERY slow in the DSC environment.
“Mixtures even nano mixtures always will have a lower speed of reaction (explosion) than that of single chemical compound explosive material. So I think you are correct pointing out the slowness of the thermite.”
There is no evidence at all that the “nano-mixture” in the chips reacts.
I think the entire Harrit and Jones claim that the chips are thermitic is bogus.
There – now you have it ;)
(Remember: Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan are co-authors. Coincidence?)
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 7:25 am
“Energy densities of organic compounds do not include the weight of external oxygen. In explosive oxidizer containing oxygen in the explosive material. Gasoline has about 40 kJ/g while TNT has 4.6 kJ/g.”
Yes, you correctly identified the reason why mundane organic materials ususally have so much higher energy densities than monomolecular explosives or thermites.
“Did Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt the samples in vacuum or in inert gas?”
No, they did it under air.
“If they got 7.5 kJ/g (the highest value for one sample) it is high for explosive (material containing its own oxidizer) but moderate for an organic compound burnt in oxygen.”
Yes.
Not just “high” for explosives, but impossible.
“Jens Schmidt claims that Jones-Harrit test did not result in actual burning the oxidizer+metallic part of the chips. That only the organic compound was burnt? Is he correct?”
Actually, I don’t want to lean too far out the window and claim positively that “only” the organic, and “no” metal burned. I say there is no actual evidence in Harrit et al that any Al did react and significantly affected the DSC results.
Harrit et al themselves point out that most likely the organic matrix contributed to the exotherm, but they failed to quantify that. I say that the organic matrix most definitely did burn, and it would suffice to explain the DSC data, while thermite alone could not possibly do it. Thermite is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the thermal behaviour.
“I think I will have to read their article carefully and then perhaps to contact them.”
Good idea.
“Or do we have any commentators here that studied Jones-Harrit paper thoroughly with understanding who has some physics and chemistry background (can be an autodidact)?”
Doubtful. But we’ll see.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 10:18 am
““No, they did it under air” – If this is so, then it’s possible that thermite did not participate in the reaction.”
Yes. Looking at the DSC test alone, that is correct.
Harrit’s and Jones’ case rests in no way on the DSC test as such.
It rests solely on a claim that elemental iron was created when they burned chips (by whatever method).
“One would have to perform chemical analysis to find out if some free metals in the initial sample turned into some oxides or whatever they suppose to turn. They got XEDS but they did not do chemical analysis of the sample which is a destructive test.”
I am not a specialist in forensic material analysis and cannot judge competently what tests should or should not be done; whether chemical (as opposed to physical) tests would be necessary. But in order to prove thermite and a thermite reaction, you must indeed show that 1. elemental aluminium is present before the reaction (a), and depleted or gone afterward (b).
2. iron oxide is present before the reaction (a), and depleted or gone afterward (b).
3. aluminium oxide is present after the reaction (a), but wasn’t there in significant amounts prior (b).
4. elemental iron is present after the reaction in signicant amounts (a),, but wasn’t there in significant amounts prior (b).
Of these, only 2(a) is unequivocally proven in the Harrit paper, IMO: The 100 nm grains are definitely Fe2O3 – they have the crystal shape of hematite, and they are most definitely the pigment that maked the red layer red.
1(a) is claimed by Harrit et al as a conclusion from Figure 17, but in conjunction with Fig 14 and 15, that finding is slightly dubious in my opinion – it is far from clear that they detected a significant amount of elemental Al (the total Al in the red layer of that particular chip is probably well under 5% by weight of the red layer)
4(a) is also claimed, as resulting from Fig 21 and similar findings, but again the quantities are unclear – are they significant?
They never looked for or found Al-oxide before or after – that’s the main blunder.
“Perhaps they did not have enough samples. I’m disappointed. It seems that Jones-Harrit did not answer very essential questions and their result is very preliminary and thus their claim (like the title) seem to be ezagerated.”
I agree. Their conclusions are speculative, do not follow necessarily from the data, and are in part even contradicted by the data.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 6:53 am
“You said: “Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.” This what I found:
[several thermites and traditional explosives, ranging from 4.0 to 6.4 kJ/g]”
Thanks for confirming my claim.
“Hexanitrobenzene 7.00 kJ/g
Heptanitrocubane 8.20 kJ/g”
These are the only ones approaching or exceeding 7.5 kJ/g.
Hexanitrobenzene is unstable and not currently used as an explosive
Heptanitrocubane, acording to WP, “is a new experimental high explosive”.
Both have chemical formulas with about 20-25% by weight nitrogen. Harrit et al show no nitogen in any of their chips – the red layer matrix material cannot be one of these non-traditional explosives.
“So if you say that Jones-Harrit measured energy density of some organic substance that was in the flake what would it be to give that high 7.5 kJ/g?”
That would be speculative, but any ordinary organic binder (polymer) would fit the bill.
For example epoxy (20-25 kJ/g) would.
No doubt cured linseed oil would be in that range (liquid vegetable oil has somewhere near 35 kJ/g).
Pretty much every organic polymer has an energy density somewhere between 18 and 40+ kJ/g. The exception are halogenized polymers – but the XEDS reveals no significant signals for Flourine, Chlorine or Bromine.
“And since the amount of that substance was probably less than the sample weight it would be even higher unless they measured the net weight after burning it.”
Correct. They would have measured before burning, everything else would be so brainless it would amount to deception.
The gray layer would usually outweigh the red layer 2:1 or 3:1
Within the red layer, the organic matrix would certainly outweigh the inorganic particles by a similar margin.
Mark Basile has quantified the elemental composition of the red layer of his “best” chip. which subsequencly burned very vigorously. He found under 2% Aluminium, under 3% iron, but over 70% carbon. The Al and Fe could combine for no more than 5% by weight thermite, while the carbon content would imply >80% of some standard (non-halogenized) polymer.
It follows that >95% of the energy output of his chip must have come from ordinary organic combustion.
Basile may have his estimates somewhat wrong (they are tricky to do), but not by leaps and bounds. There is no reason to think the mass proportions in Harrit’s chips were much different – after all, all sides agree that Basile corroborated Harrit.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 9:55 am
“According to XEDS red layer had lots of carbon and gray layer had negligible amount of carbon.
Do you claim that Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt only red layer? Did they do it in oxygen free environment? Red layer has very little oxygen.”
Harrit et al themselves believe that the gray layer is practically inert: It is close to 99% iron and oxygen – that’s fully or partially oxidized iron (or steel). It is conceivable that there would be some phase shifts upon heating in the DSC, and perhaps a bit of further oxidation on air. But this comes with only two possible interpretations:
Either those reactions are far below the level of the red layer exotherm and thus negligible (this is what Harrit et al believe, and I concur)
Or these reactions within the gray layer are so significant that they render the entire DSC test inconclusive and essentially worthless.
ens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:45 am
utu,
because the analyses by Harrit et al were incomplete, didn’t follow a well-thought plan and were in part done incompetently, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to draw any certain conclusions from looking at some of the figures. With this in mind:
“I have questions about Fig. 20 that shows residues of red/grey chips after being ignited in DSC.
The spheres are small fraction of residues and the residues are still red. Not much different than before test. This means that combustion of samples in DSC was very incomplete.”
Yes. The red layer is bright red because it contains iron oxide pigments of ~100 nm particle size – the standard, low-tech, cheap pigment stuff that you find in EVERY red primer paint.
The residue still being red after combustion means that the red iron oxide pigments are still there in large amounts and have not participated in any reaction. Since these pigments are claimed by Harrit et al to be the oxidizer of the hypothesised thermite reaction, the conclusion is inescapable: The thermite reaction either did NOT occur at all, or it was highly incomplete – which puts the DSC results even farther outside the reach of the fabled thermite reaction.
“But on the other hand there are no signs of the grey part. Or is it behind?”
I can only guess, but I suggest that the gray parts, the shiny blobs, are the gray layer.
“The process of combustion happened at say 400 C (DSC traces) while the existence of iron spheres imply that locally much higher temperature was present.”
Don’t forget that each DSC run went all the way to 700 °C! I can only guess, but I suspect that the gray layer deformed in part into energetically more favorable round shaped as a result of phase transitions – no melting required.
“ I suspect that they did not really succeed in igniting the samples. Only the organic matrix burned but ironoxide+aluminum mostly did not react except in few spots.”
And yet you see these large amounts of gray, shiny, roundish things. If you tally the volume of iron oxide pigments relative to the binder before any ignition (for example from Figure 8), and of these “speres” in Fig 20, I think you will find that there wasn’t enough iron in the red layer to produce these.
They did ignite the chips alright – the exotherms prove it. There simply wasn’t any significant thermite reaction, and all the observations must be explained differently.
“So is it legitimate to ask why they did not run DSC scan up to 900 C or more? Only then they could experience a complete thermitic reaction.”
They had this expectation, from some literature, that nanothermite ignites below 660 °C (the melting point of Al). To test this hypothesis, it was ok to run to just 700 °C. The stupid mistake was to do it under air when you know already that you have an organic binder that is certain to combust somewhere under 700 °C.
They could have run the test to 1200 °C and then would have found some more phase transitions, reductions of metal oxides, and combustion of char. But still no thermite.
Ha! If the thermite burned incompletely, as evidenced by the large amount of left-over red irin oxide, there should also be left-over Al, and that should have melted at or below 660 °C, resultung in a pretty sharp endotherm (downward) DSC peak. There is a tiny short such signal in the blue curve near 600 °C – too far off to allow the conclusion “Al”.
“I think that this organic compound in the samples (if it is really a manufactured thermite) is a binder not some ignitor”
I agree.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 12:41 pm
“Thank you for addressing all points (and more) that I brought up.”
You’re welcome, utu.
“ I think that Harrit et al. did not prove that specks they analyzed where thermite. It is also highly questionable whether they observed a thermitic reaction.”
I agree.
“They only provide XEDS that can be used to obtain info on elemental ratios if the XEDS were calibrated. Were they?”
Probably not. At least they don’t mention that they used standards to calibrate the XEDS quantification, as would be the usual practice in such papers. I believe that their statement “A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents” should be interpreted as “conventional” = “not calibrated”, but I can be mistaken.
“Though without chemical analysis or at leas calibrated XEDS we do not know for sure whether Fe2O3 was present. It could have been a different oxide. Does the red color points to hematite uniquely?”
Among iron oxide pigments, only hematite is red, and only at at particle sizes below 250 or 500 nm (shades vary – the red gets brighter the smaller the particles are). There of course exist red pigments that are not iron oxide, but so far no one has proposed any candidate among the things we see in the chips. The crystal shape (rhombic facets) also speaks for hematite.
“We do not know if the ratio of Fe2O3 to Al is right one for optimal thermitic reaction.”
Correct, no attempt was made to quantify Fe or Al in the entire red layer. Except by Mark Basile, who estimated 1.7% by weight Al and a bit below 3% Fe. The ratio is not far off.
“It was not proven that Al detected with XEDS was free (not in any compound but in elemental form) and thus ready to be oxidized!”
Actually, Figure 17 has such a high Al-peak and such a low O-peak that the best interpretation would be that, in that particular spot, we see elemental Al (plus some Al-oxide).
“The origin of micro spheres discovered after DSC burn is unknown. Harrit et al. suggests that they are iron rich (yes, one XEDS is presented) and that they resulted from stealing oxygen by Al from Fe2O3, i.e., the thermitic reaction. The latter claim cannot be proven without addressing the issue of the gray layer. The gray layer is not discussed. It absence or presence is not mentioned when discussing the post DSC residues.”
Exactly! Without discussing the gray layer, which is mostly Fe and O, as an obvious candidate origin for iron-rich residue, the argument is incomplete and remains speculative.
“The semi-transparent micro spheres are not explained. Was there enough temperature to produce glass? Or are they organic?”
I could only speculate here. We have no data on these transparent spheres. Could be silica something. I don’t know what temperatures would suffice to produce such spheres. I am not convinced none of the various different kinds of chips contained any glassy silica to start with. The Tnemec primer contains amorphous (glassy) silica.
“As you have mentioned the biggest blunder was performing DSC under normal atmosphere. And I would add that several samples should have been sacrificed for a thorough chemical analysis.”
I think another weakness is that there are no real before-after comparisons of the same chips.
“Question: In reaction Fe2O3+2Al aluminum must be in elemental form. But Al is always covered with an ultra-thin layer of Al oxides. The ratio (by weight) of this oxides to elemental Al increases as particle gets smaller. So it is reasonable to ask how small the particles could be to obtain the optimal reaction? If there was no ultra-thin layer of oxides the answer is simple: smaller is better. But with oxides on Al there is a limit.”
I can’t answer this. You describe correctly the payoffs. The answer would depend on several things: perhaps production process (maybe some processes yield thinner alumina layers?), and of course the application or properties you have in mind.
Note that the spere is the shape that maximizes volume for given surface area (or minimizes surface for given volume). Harrit et al show that the Al-content in chips a-d is most probably limited to the platelets that are only tens of nm thin. These would have a passivation layer of several, perhaps as much as 10 nm, on both sides- a very inefficient shape.
(And keep in mind that we don’t even know what kinds of particles there are in other chips, such as the one they soaked in MEK! We don’t know that that chip has the same Al- and Si-rich platelets)
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 3:13 pm
“and we might imagine that some of the thermitic compounds continued to combust, off-gassing a toxic brew of PAH’s”
You might imagine anything you wish. I hear a vivid imagination is appreciated by many people.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 5:23 pm
“Imagine” was quite alright, as your hypothesis is not informed by any observation or previously established theory. You basically appeal to magic: You imagine that there is a magic potion (thermite) that can have any property you wish it to have (such as “can off-gas a toxic brew of PAH’s”). Reality is that you do not actually know that “thermitic compounds” were present, nor that “thermitic compounds” could be expected to have this property.
You are imagining this. Scientists don’t call it “hypothesizing” when they make up stuff from nothing.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:08 am
“Determining the actual chemical composition of the red-gray chips can involve working backwards from gaseous byproducts of the combustion. PAHs were found IN ABUNDANCE by the EPA at ground zero.”
You are assuming that the PAHs found at GZ came from combustion of the red-gray chips – when there were so many other things smouldering in the piles.
Yes, capturing and analysing the gasous products of the chip combustion might have been a smart move, but you are already proposing a conclusion supported by no extant evidence.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 12:22 pm
Thanks, HR1, for confirming with the lengthy quote that indeed your claim was wrong that “the chip was ignited by an electrical charge“.
Jens Schmidt
October 30, 2015 at 12:59 pm
“The chip was ignited by an electrical charge in the DSC”
No, complete nonsense. You invented this – you must know that you just invented this falsehood. HR1, are you really lying?!
“Do you think that your commentary here is successfully debunking the Jones-Harrit paper?”
You utterly – UTTERLY! – fail to even address my arguments. You tell false claim after false claim, wrongness upon wrongness, error concatenated to error. Are you doing this consciously? Or are you really so utterly ignorant of the topic you attempt, but badly fail, to debate? You don’t understand the science in Harrit et al, do you?
Yes, my arguments disproving Harrit’s conclusions are valid – my premises are true, my reasoning solid. You can’t and don’t hold a candle to this, sorry.
I think YOU are attempting misdirection here – I have no other explanation for your continued inventions of FALSE claims such as the one on “ignited by an electrical charge”.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:19 am
“It would require much less volume to achieve the explosive energies by the sol-gel products.”
a) what sol-gel products? I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products! This is a made-up fantasy to equate the red-gray chips with sol-gel energetic materials! You continue to peddle mere imagination, zero fact! Please do not fail to address this admonition! Please do not commit again the fallacious claim that the chips are products if a sol-gel process unless you provide evidence – which doesn’t exist! Please admit in your own words that you understand that your implied assertion of chips=sol-gel has no, zero, evidence to support!
b) The “energetic” red layer of the red-gray chips is mostly organic binder with a low density (would be near 1 g/cm^3 as opposed to thermite’s ca. 4 g/cm^3). IF the red material was the “explosive sol-gel” that you fantasize about, it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives. But of course there is ZERO evidence that the red-gray chips are explosive – that is a fantasy!
Man, HR1, don’t you notice that almost EVERYTHING you write here is factually FALSE? There is a very strong pattern.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 11:54 am
““I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products!”~Schmidt
Yes you have. And I don’t believe you.”
You don’t believe me you don’t have evidence?? Uhm okay…
Then it should be easy to present/point to/quote that evidence :)
A few hints to guide you:
– What tests or criteria would show whether a material is sol-gel?
– Have Harrit et al applied those tests or criteria?
– What were the results?
I think that, if and when you think about this, you will find that you not, in fact, have any such evidence.
I furthermore think that you don’t even know what a sol-gel is, and how to spot evidence for it.
““it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives.”~Schmidt
Not according to the chart, of course “roughly” can be interpreted as a weasel word in this instant.”
The chart that you reproduced simply showed the theoretical values for generic Al/Fe2O3 thermite – regardless of particle size or mixing process, as you can verify by looking at Figure 1 of the reference [21] they took that graphic from. This has nothing to do with sol-gel, the authors start talking about sol.gel as a proposed process after that.
Generic thermite would be a mixture of only Fe2O3 and Al in appropriate proportions, without any binder whatsoever, without silicon compounds, too, of course.
But the chips DO contain organic binder – in fact there is a LOT of organic binder surrounding the pigments. Much more organic binder by volume than iron oxide grains and Si-Al-O-platelets, and probably even more organic binder by weight. The organic polymer would be MUCH less dense than thermite. This greatly indluences the density of the composite red material, such that the energy density per volume drops by a factor that’s certainly somewhere around 2-3. Perhaps I am being generous here. The graphic suggests that the density of thermite is about 4 g/cm^3, which seems about right. The red material quite certainly does not exceed 1.5 g/cm^3. I can do the math to support my estimate, if you don’t believe me.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 5:19 am
““Do you know what DSC is? How does it work? What is its purpose making DSC trace?”~utu
Yes I do you know what DSC is.”
No, hybridrogue1, you just proved once and for all that you truly do NOT know, much less understand, how a DSC works. See, you copy&pasted most of your post from Wikipedia without marking that as a quote, without credit and link. You sneaky one! You come across as a bit dishonest there! Those WP sentences of course are quite okay. All the rest, what you wrote yourself, is essentially WRONG – again, and that shows clearly as day that you have not the first clue.
What HR1 wrote:
“It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC.”
That is correct. Wow.
“One sample is heated, while the control sample is not. The DSC trace determines the heat flow through the heated sample in comparison to the unheated sample.”
And this is flat-out WRONG: The reference sample of course is heated, too. Why didn’t you read the WP article you stole from for comprehension?
HR1 c&p’ed from WP:
“More or less heat will need to flow to it than the reference to maintain both at the same temperature. Whether less or more heat must flow to the sample depends on whether the process is exothermic or endothermic. For example, as a solid sample melts to a liquid it will require more heat flowing to the sample to increase its temperature at the same rate as the reference. This is due to the absorption of heat by the sample as it undergoes the endothermic phase transition from solid to liquid. Likewise, as the sample undergoes exothermic processes (such as crystallization) less heat is required to raise the sample temperature. By observing the difference in heat flow between the sample and reference, differential scanning calorimeters are able to measure the amount of heat absorbed or released during such transitions.”
This, the remainder of your post, is stolen from WP without any citation. BIG no-no ;) And you wonder why you get no respect here?
Man up and admit that you committed several grave errors of fact already, that you are clueless and need for someone competent to explain the entire Harrit et al paper to you.
Admit that, for the last 6 years, you have believed Harrit and Jones as well as Ryan and Legge on faith alone, because you lack the comprehension to judge their work.
And open up to the possibility that perhaps Harrit and Jones can be wrong, too. Or liars. It’s the scientific stance to take.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 3:59 am
“How else do you propose that the chips were ignited in a DSC? They certainly wouldn’t use a blowtorch now would they?
Explain an alternative to electrical heating while the chip is in the DSC”
Ah I see now – you have not the first clue what a DSC does, and difficulties understanding how things react when heated, We have to start from zero with you.
FIrst and quickly: you wrote that the samples were “ignited” by an “electrical charge”. It wasn”t an electrical “charge” as such that ignited the samples. Rather, the heating plates of the DSC are powered by electricity. The proximate cause for the chips to ignite was heat (the infusion of energy by influx of a higher temperature), not electrical charge. Do you know, and understand, what the proper scientific meaning is of “electric charge”? If not, look it up at WP. You should understand that you can speak of an electric charge if and when an object has an excess or lack of electrons. Shile the heating plates are powered by electricity, they at no point experience a net positive or negative charge. That’s why your claim was wrong entirely. But I see now that perhaps through your lack of understanding of physics you somehow meant something correct, while using incorrect language.
A DSC is a device where you subject two samples to a defined temperature regime: One sample is the substance you are studying, the other is a known, ideally inert reference material. The temperature regime could for example be to heat the sampled slowly to 400 °C and then cool them slowly back to room temp. You can vary the heating and cooling rates, sometimes you have more than one heating circle, etc., depends on what you are studying, The regime that Harrit et al programmed (the guy actually carrying out this DSC experiment was Jeff Farrer, who explained in an interview how he first learned how to operate a DSC on that occasion – that’s how unexperienced that team was, they had never ever before worked with a DSC!) was slow heating at a rate of 10 °C per minute from room temperature (~20 °C) to 700 °C (note that this is often misconstrued as Farrer heating the chips to only 425 °C). Since that is a time differential of about 680 °C, you see that each run took about 68 minutes.
The trick that makes DSC what it is (a “Differential Scanning Calorimeter”) is that it measures the energy input required to maintain the heating rate for both the inert reference sample and the specimen you are studying. Some reactions (physical as well as chemical) consume energy – for example, the vaporization (boiling) of water consumes a lot energy while temperature remains practically constant. To maintain a heating rate, the DSC must suddenly apply a LOT of additional energy to quickly boil of the water at 100 °C. Had the chips contained water, it would have shown as a very marked downward “peak” at 100 °C. If on the other hand the sample ignites and an exotherm reaction occurs, then the DSC device doesn’t need to input as much heat to maintain a temperature rise – this shows as the plotted line in the DSC graph going up.
There are several things that can go on in materials that cause DSC curves to go up or down:
melting/freezing
vaporizing/condensing
phase transitions (from crystalline to amorphous or vice versa; from one crytsal structure to another)
chemical synthesis (e.g. oxidation – for example burning on air)
chemical decomposition (e.g. reduction of oxides, or the slow destruction of polymers into smaller molecules, such as CO2 gas or char and soot (elemental carbon))
There are more.
When you heat a paint sample, reactions that might occur might be, perhaps in this order:
* giving off residual water at 20-100 °C
* a glass transition of the polymer somewhere between 100 and 400 °C
* polymer decomposition somwhere between 200 and 450 °C
* polymer combustion somewhere between 230 and 550 °C (often concurrent with decomposition)
* various phase transitions within the mineral pigments over a vast possible temperature range
* reduction of minerals at higher temperatures
* melting of any components possible over a large temperature range
Having this in mind, you can’t reduce the discussion of DSC curves to observing that there is a peak somewhere, and that’s it. You also want to look at all the smaller characteristics – the wobbles, the secondary peaks and troughs, the point where the slopes begin to rise above or sink below 0, etc etc etc. Harrit et al haven’t done any of this analysis. Their four samples differe in many of these characteristics. For example, the green and black curve drop below 0 between 540 and 700 °C., while the red and blue curve remain close to 0 there. The red and blue curve have local maxima near 390 °C and local minima near 410 °C before raising to their global maxima near 430 to 440 °C – the green and black curves have smooth slopes there. These differences in observations are best explained as the “green” and “black” chips being a material different from the “red” and “blue” curve chips. The red curve alone has another local maximum a bit beyond 450 °C – the red and blue chips may be similiar but are not same. Harrit et al missed all this.
Anyway, to cut back to your question:
Do you understand now that the chips were slowly (taking >1 hour) heated on little stove plates from room temperature to 700 °C, that this heating (increase in temperature; not electric charge) caused several reactions during that time, chief among them was ignition and organic combustion of the binder on air (exotherm chemical reaction) which started (“ignited”) well below 400 °C for the green and black curves, and peaked at 425 °C (green, black) to 440 °C (red, blue)?
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 9:29 am
You’re welcome, and I appreciate your clearing this up.
“We nevertheless have the results from that experiment. Do you dispute those as well?
If so explain.”
That experiment; The DSC test on four red-gray chip specimens, about which we know very little else:
– They were selected from three of the four dust samples provided to Jones by private citizens of NYC: MacInlay (2 specimens), Intermont and White
– They were attracted to a permanent magnet
– They visually had a red and a grey layer
We do not know their elemental composition, and we have no micrographs (neither optical nor from electron microscopy). We do not know how they would have behaved if soaked in MEK. We do not know what their resistivity is, and we do not know if the residues of any of these four chips appears in the remainder of the paper (such as Figures 20, 21, 25), and of so, which residue corresponds to which DSC curve.
The results are as follows:
– Figure 19, showing four DSC traces (green, black, red and blue)
– From these curves, Harrit et al determined specific energy yields of 7.5, 6, 3 and 1.5 kJ/g (for the green, black, red and blue curve, respectively)
I do not despute these results at all. I accept them in their entirety.
In their discussion, Harrit et al explain that the variation of the specific energies must in significant part be due to variations in the relative mass of the gray layer:
“Variations in
peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising,
since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray
layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron
oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.”
I find this entirely plausible: The gray layer would indeed be almost completely iron oxide, with very little potential of further oxidation. It might conceivably contribute a little to the exotherm, either through phase transitions, or by oxidizing Fe3O4 further to Fe2O3. But either process would be small in effect compared to the exotherm of organic combustion.
They write that
“In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope”
I accept this a true as well, but would like to note that this is not specifically a result of the DSC test, but more generally of heating the chips to 700 °C (or more, as in the flame test) and burning them in the process. It is entirely unnecessary to do a DSC run to get some form of this result.
Further below (page 28), they write this interpretation of the DSC plot:
“the DSC tests demonstrate
the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of
pure thermite.”
This is correct.
What I disagree with are the following statements:
“Furthermore, the energy is released over a
short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in
Fig. (29).”
This is FALSE. As I pointed out, the DSC temperature was slowly raised at a rate of 10 °C/min, such that a difference of 10 °C plotted along the x-axis in Figures 19 and 29 corresponds to 60 seconds, 1 °C to 6 seconds. That the peaks appear “narrow” is an artefact of the chosen scales.
Tillotson’s nanothermite (Fig. 29) peaked at about 5 W/g. If you look at Fig 19, you’ll see that the black, green, red and blue curves first reach and exceed 5 W/g at 377, 382, 423, and 432 °C, and stay above 5 W/g until 455, 462, 462 and 450 °C, respectively. The four curves thus stay at that specific power for 78, 80, 39 and 18 °C, which corresponds to 468, 480, 234 and 108 seconds, respectively.
In short, the “short period of time” is actually between almost 2 minutes and 8 minutes! And that’s only counting the part of the exotherm where specific power exceeds that of Tillotson’s reference. All four peaks are actually quite a bit wider than that – the green peak starts at just over 200 °C and goes to about 545 °C, and interval that took 34 minutes! That is most decisively NOT a “short time”. The narrowest peak is the blue one, starting at about 420 °C and ending at about 478 °C, which took 5.8 minutes. Short time??? Either Harrit et al are spectacularly incompetent at reading DSC traces, or they are consciously deceptive.
They repeat the same mistake / deception when they write:
“The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC”
Among the 10 conclusions, I agree with #10:
“The carbon content of the red material indicates that
an organic substance is present. […]
The nature of the organic material
in these chips merits further exploration. We note
that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the
total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests
exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
thermite reaction.”
And I would like to add that the organic material most definitely is “energetic” – as any ordinaty paint binder would be, for example. I left out this part from #10, which I disagree with in that it is mere speculation not actually supported by the evidence:
“This [organic substance present] would be expected
for super-thermite formulations in order to
produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus
make them explosive.”
It would also be expected for many other materials for many other reasons. Most notably it would be expected in red primer paint, which most of the chips without a doubt are.
Consequently, I reject assertions like this:
“If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
use.To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance
such as paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration
using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.” (page 28).
Complete nonsense. Primer paints DO contain flammable organic binders that most definitely release more heat than thermite when burning! This is no problem, as the paint layer is only 25 to 50 micrometers thin – compared to the thickness of steel members that are upward of 1/4 inch = 6250 micrometers thick, that’s negligible. It is not difficult to calculate that a steel member would warm up by only a few degrees if the paint (or a corresponding thermite layer) were to burn completely. Since the paint doesn’t ignite before the steel is already beyond 250 or 400 °C, the problem then is not the paint.
Conclusion 7 focusses on the DSC results, and it is all wrong:
“As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition
and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
120 nm show that the material is not conventional
thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
but very likely a form of super-thermite.”
WRONG: The DSC results do NOT indicate a “vigorous” reaction.
WRONG: The chips do not all ignite at ~430 °C – the green and black curves are already reacting under 380 °C.
WRONG: the blue curve in Figures 19 and 29 does not match the red curve in Fig. 29 (“a known super-thermite sample”) – practically every characteristic is different: peak temperature differs by almost 100 °C, peak power by a factor of 2, the chip doesn’t have the thermites endotherm between 30 and 310 °C and above 560 °C, the red curve is missing several local minima and maxima of the blue curve. Again: Either Harrit et al are spectacularly incompetent at reading DSC traces, or they are consciously deceptive.
WRONG: The low temperature of ignition says nothing about any thermite reaction, as it first and foremost, and almost certainly exclusively, is a property of the organic binder.
WRONG: The “presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is … very likely a form of super-thermite” – 120 nm grains of iron oxide are extremely well known to any competent forensic expert, but apparently completely unknown to the forensic amateurs Harrit et al – the common name is “red iron oxide pigments”. They are a low tech product. They cost about half a dollar per pound and have been the main red inorganic pigment in the world for everything including steel primer for ever and ever.
It is hard to believe this astounding density of wrongness can be the result of an honest scientific inquiry by competent researchers.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 3:11 pm
“So the bottom line here Schmidt, is that you are claiming that the red-gray chips are nothing but “primer – paint”. The same tired assertions made by Millette, the JREF crowd, and the so-called “Skeptics”.”
Yes. That’s where the evidence is pointing.
“I acknowledge that you make an argumentum verbosium – an argument of intimidation here. You have every right to your “professional opinion”. There are however many physicists and chemists that disagree with you.”
No. My argument is not needlessly verbose. You are needlessly verbose when you post lengthy quotes without any argument of your own.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
You are unable to refute any of my arguments on their own merits.
“If you are so confident in your theories here, why don’t you write a paper on this and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. You surely have done papers that have been peer reviewed before {?} You should know the procedure well enough.”
No, I have never published any scientific paper.
“You could make quite a name for yourself in the literature of 9/11 by successfully rebuking the Jones-Harrit paper. Perhaps you are wasting your precious time here arguing with us “ignorant plebes” … aye?”
Perhaps.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:49 pm
“They are if they are “scientific” psychobabble.”
Well good. They are NOT “psychobabble”. So relax :)
“That is exactly what I think you are offering here; complex argumentation that is simply meant to confuse.”
If that’s what you think, then you are (again) plainly in error. The topics are somewhat complex to a layperson, sure, but I do my best to explain to that level.
“I don’t buy it. I won’t buy it until you produce a peer reviewed paper of your own.”
Do you hold the writings of your friends and heroes to that same standard? If not, why mine? Double standards much?
“Your argument comes down to Jones & Harrit are liars.”
No, wrong. You confuse argument and conclusion.
And I do not conclude that they are liars. I conclude they are highly incompetent in what they did for that paper OR liars. (Of course, they can also be both at the same time). I have personal hunches about the distribition of incompetence and dishonesty among the authors, but will keep them mostly to myself, as I obviously can’t prove them.
“They obviously are not stupid, they couldn’t have made such egregious and silly mistakes as you posit.”
Is that your premise, or are you attempting to paraphrase me with this?
Yes, I agree that they are not, in general, stupid.
But being intelligent, and being a sharp and competent mind in one field (or perhaps having been sharp and competent in the past) doesn’t always protect you from committing such egregious and silly mistakes.
“So the only conclusion we can come to is that you are calling them liars.”
That’s what you say.
“Both of these men have long and illustrious scientific careers, with hundreds of peer reviewed articles under their belt. I find it absolutely preposterous to assert they would take the chance of ruining their own unblemished reputations in the manner you propose.”
I am flabbergasted myself and offer no explanation for why smart people might do such things. I do not claim any in-depth understanding of psychology.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 5:15 pm
“My determinations are balanced by what I find to be rational arguments as a first priority.However a great many if not a majority of the works I cite are peer reviewed AND they make sense internally as well.”
Bullshit.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 5:01 am
Griscom is a specialist in the properties of certain amorphous minerals – essentially a geologist.
He has no experience with forensic material analysis.
He has no experience with organic polymers
He has no experience with mineral, crystalline pigments
It is unclear what expertise Griscom brings to the table to be picked to review a paper by the editor of a “Chemical Physics” journal.
But wait, there is one bit of experience that makes him a “peer”:
Griscom is a Truther who had previously published in Jones’ and Ryan’s own “Journal of 9/11 Studies”:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf
Could this be coincidence?
The approprietness of the peer-review process and the reputation of the Bentham line of Open Access journals notwithstanding, all of the arguments made about Harrit’s data and conclusions stand on their own merits. Perhaps Griscom found no further fault – I do!
ens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 9:55 am
Yes it is obvious that you find the conclusions of Harrit’s experiment wrong. However you haven’t made it clear exactly why that is.
See my other, long post a few minutes ago, where I tackled the conclusions about the DSC results. That’s only part of the reason.
What do you think the red and gray substance is, if it is not a sol-gel energetic?
First of all, I need you to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless, you have exactly ZERO evidence for this claim. It is also a useless claim. So please tell me verbously why you keep repeating this suggestion? You need to drop it, until you bring evidence (of which there is precisely none)!
Secondly: There is no data, no observation, that would give grounds to call the chips “explosive”. Do you realize this?
Having said that, it is true, and trivial. that they are “energetic” – EVERY organic polymer is, and EVERY material based on organic polymers is “energetic”.
This label “energetic” means nothing more here than that the stuff can burn – your finger nails can burn, and I’d bet they’d release as much energy as those chips. So I could ask you with precisely the same level of legitimacy: Why do you grow sol-gel energetics on your finger tips? You see, the question is slightly moronic.
So what do I think the red and gray substance is? Easy: It’s paint.
What Harrit et al either never quite understood, or deceptively ignore, is that they were looking at different chips. The four chips in Figures 6 to 11 are very probably the same material, but the chip they soaked in MEK (Fig 12-18) definitely is a different material. They surely had at least two, perhaps three or four, different materials in the DSC test, and they mention having found several further red-gray substances. I am convinced these simply represent different paint formulations.
What Harrit et al also had not understood when they published in 2009, and still can’t quite admit today (or draw the correct conclusions from) today is that, of course, there were different paint formulations painted on the WTC steel: The perimeter columns of WTC1+2 are different from the floor joists, the joists certainly different from the core columns, and they all are most probably different from the paints used in WTC7, built about 15 years later, when they were already fading out chromates and lead in paints.
Harrit et al address the question of paint in their paper, as it was obvious even to them that the chips look an awful lot like paint. I think all arguments in the paper are invalid as they compare unspecified chips to unspecified paints. Since there are several different kinds of chips, and an unknown and vast number of possible paints, all these arguments amount to comparing apples with bananas.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 3:16 pm
“No, you actually need to get the larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless.”
There is no “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters”. The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:37 pm
“The only “scientific investigation” that I am aware of is the Millette attempt, which was never completed and never published in a scientific journal.”
This is all correct.
But his work was a “scientific investigation”, wasn’t it?
If you wish to discard Millette’s study based on those criteria (not completed; never published in a scientific journal), then I think you will agree that “the larger scientific community” has actually NOT “been investigating these matters” AT ALL. Correct? Or can you point me to any other scientific investigation of the red-gray chips that was completed and published? Then please do! Otherwise, please retract the FALSE insinuation that there is a “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters” and admit you made that up.
“Millette has been soundly rebuked”
No.
“he did NOT follow the proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”
You don’t understand that there is no “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”. They didn’t have a protocol. They just did random things that popped into their minds. It was a bad study, badly presented. It was the work of amateurs in that field.
Millette is an actual forensic scientist with loads of expertise in exactly this kind of research.
But if you must: What IS the “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper” – can you please summarize it?
“He did NOT publish.”
So what? His entire data was made publicly available, plus his preliminary findings.
Harrit et al are holding back lots of data.
“So are you going to plead ignorance of James Millet now Jens?”
Silly. I knew you knew what I was talking about.
And again, you are ubable to refute my true assertion:
“The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.”
Millette’s study IS the only follow-up on Harrit et al out there,
And it found that the chips are ordinary paint.
And you haven’t even attempted to hold a candle to that.
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 8:47 am
“I learned a term for a credentialed person’s bamboozling of the uninitiated. It’s called “proof by intimidation.”~ David L Griscom
Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 11:58 am
I like that! Print it out and keep it handy, so you can read it the next time someone tries to bamboozle an “uninitiated” doubter of the good Dr.s Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Legge by clubing them, with alleged credentials, titles and such stuff.
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm
I have known of and encountered Argumentum verbosium for a long time Schmidt,
You are not the first and surely not the last to apply it.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 12:12 pm
Dear Lord – can’t you at least comment the lengthy quotes? So that I can assess whether you even understand what you are quoting?
I have already addresses everything that’s contained in that quote!
Yes, the organic binder is energetic! So are your fingernail clippings and your bourbon whisky. So what?
No. the chips are not “as powerful as one known variant of super-thermite” – they are a lot MORE powerful in the DSC test! And it doesn’t matter!
No, the alleged “narrowness” of the peaks is not significant! They are not narrow, and it wouldn’t matter if they were! These people are totally inept at interpreting DSC charts!
No, the “degree of its energy is” NOT”determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak.” This is garbled nonsense, uttered by a DSC amateur!
No, it is FALSE to claim that “according to Harrit´s paper, the tested samples of paint displayed a completely different behavior in the DSC” – there is no such data in the Harrit et al paper, and nowhere in the paper does the word “paint” appear in the context of it being tested by DSC! These amateurs LIE to you, hybridrogue, and you gullibly believe all these falsehoods, because you are incapable of assessing their claims!
Don’t quote text that you do not understand!
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Tell you what Schmidt, get yourself some primer paint; heat it, cook it, flame it, do anything you want to it. And then show us the production of iron microspheres that result from this simple little experiment.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:17 pm
“Tell you what Schmidt, get yourself some primer paint; heat it, cook it, flame it, do anything you want to it. And then show us the production of iron microspheres that result from this simple little experiment.”
Moving goal posts again, HG1?
You can’t refute any of my arguments.
Actually, I am rather shure that the iron-rich microsheres largely don’t come from burning the primer but from heating the oxidized steel flakes (the gray layer). But that is a little speculation on my part.
Problem is that the Harrit et al paper is in large parts bogus. Their conclusions do not follow from their data and are in significant part contradicted by their own data. Their claims are not made out, and so the burden of evidence still rests on them.
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
October 31, 2015 at 3:11 pm
I don’t know much about solgel, DSC, SEM/XEDS, Al/Fe2O3, don’t know about physics and chemistry beyond my high school advanced physics and chemistry classes, and I can barely differentiate between paint chips and potato chips under a microscope.
But I have over five decades of hands-on, intensive, field-tested experience in clinical level douchebaggery…
So, I ask you, Jens Schmidt. Why do you have to be such a giant douchebag when you are arguing your points? Does it help you feel good about yourself? I mean, we all get that you know your “science”, but what is it with the hyper-obnoxious language? Is it compensating for something you otherwise lack? Or is there a much deeper motive and/or meaning to the intense drama you are staging while you illuminate us with your knowledge?
Thank you for the facts and knowledge you are sharing… But, screw you for your demeanor while you are doing it!!!
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 4:12 pm
Another interesting paper – thanks again, utu!
“My impression is that DSC scans are NOT made to measure explosive properties like actual energy density or reaction speed but they are done to study stability of the materials and what phase transition they undergo at different temperatures.”
Hehe yes, of course your impression is correct! DSC is rarely used to study chemical reaction. There is a certain slowlness and inertia inherent to the method that makes it difficult. In a nutshell, you can’t explose an explosive slowly and at a well-controlled temperature ;)
Perhaps the greatest value of this paper is that it shows for all these explosives and propellants that they decompose at temperatures mostly under 300 °C. This underscores what Dutch explosive demoltition expert Danny Jowenko explained when interviewed by the TV program Zemla in 2006 or so: That the twin towers could not possibly have been demolished with explosives: the collapses started within the fire zone, where the heat of the fires would have destroyed the explosive charges and their detonators.
“Only the existence of the micro spheres that were iron rich may but doesn’t have to point to a thermitic reaction and a high school level test of observing micro flash when setting the flake on fire with a bunsen burner may but doesn’t have to indicate that there was elemental Al that got oxidized producing a flash.”
Exactly. They have some spheres. That is all the evidence that is left after diligent scrutiny. And the claim that “only” thermite could result in such spheres is wishful thinking.
“ I have noticed that in minds of many the thermite acquired extraordinary and mythical properties. This is because we do not know that much of its properties, so all claims that thermite could for example toss several tons columns at 50 mph are just pure unwarranted suppositions.”
Yes. They haven’t actually worked any of this out. It’s all speculation.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 5:12 pm
I knew the Yi Wang paper already (a different Wang, by the way, than the Jeff Wang you cited earlier).
“It seems that nano thermites ignite below Al melt point while micro thermites ignite above the melting point”
Yes.
“Fig. 5a Shows DSC curves for three nano-Al thermites. The peak width is similar for all three”
okay… and?
“but the height is largest for the …”
Careful! The plot lines are stacked in Fig. 5a for easier comparison of the events along the x-axis! Wang et al do not put a scale on the y-axis. You were right to take the values from Table 1.
Table 1 lists the interesting data, for example “?Hr (J/g)” – that’s the energy density: The nano-Al mixes range from ~1.4 to ~1.65 kJ/g and thus outperform the micro-Al mixes (all slightly below 1 kJ/g). All thermite compositions fall far short of the theoretical maximum of thermite at 4 kJ/g. I haven’t seen any work so far that documented more than those 1.65 kJ/g for nano-thermite.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 5:46 pm
“claiming that the investigated samples are paint is disingenuous on your part.”
Why disingenuous? I have only given my conclusion so far .- we have not yet discussed systematically my reasons. You don’t have to believe me, for I haven’t even tried yet to persuade you, but I am not “disingenuous”.
“In exchange between you and I we expressed suspicion that DSC peaks could have been created by the binder but we have’t proven it and we haven’t seen DSC traces of paint.”
Not proven 100%, okay, but there really is no other possibility. We don’t need to even think about paint to know that there is an organic binder that MUST have reacted with a significant exotherm.
“And from what I have read Milled did not do DSC traces for paint either.”
So what? Why should he have?
The reasons why the chips are paint don’t rest that much on the DSC traces, really. The DSC traces are a good falsification, but they cannot prove paint (but some corroboration is possible, as Í may come around to showing you eventually)
“So I am not ready to go where you want to be and I would suggest you apply similar degree of skepticism and scientific rigor to your own pronouncements as you did to Harrit et al”
Yes.
“And do not tell me that burden of proof is on them”
Stop. Burden of proof is on them for their claims (“thermite”). Burden of proof is on me for my claims (e.g. “paint”). It doesn’t matter very much if the chips are paint or not. What matters is that Harrit et al are plain wrong to claim they have proven thermite.
But they are paint :D
“…or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs because paint is commonplace and thermite is not.”
Don’t worry, I don’t use that phrase. However I would like to point out that “paint” really is, or ought to be the null-hypothesis, as the chips really look like paint, and we already know as a certain fact that there were tons of primer paint in the WTC towers. Red primer paint, even in the form of red-gray chips. are definitely expected a priori to be found in the WTC dust, while thermite would not.
Even Harrit et al implicitly accept “paint” as the null-hypothesis to improbe upon when they attempt (but really fail, as I have yet to explain; I only hinted yet at the “apples/bananas” problem) to disprove “paint” in two or three places in the paper.
“Take a look at my comment above on Fig. 30. While this may not explain the psychology of the authors it may shine some light on their state of ming when the composed the paper.”
I understand your suspicion. But I won’t claim I know or understand the personal pschology of the authors.
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 6:07 pm
Utu,
I still want to see Schmidt produce the formation of iron-rich microspheres during burning of paint.
I presume that, being the working chemist he claims to be he has access to lab where he can conduct a proper experiment and get the proper readings for the process he uses and the tests on the resulting materials.
Or perhaps he can attempt the theorize his way to such conclusions…grin
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 6:43 pm
“Another question about chemistry: Why has this group…”
Which group?
“… largely ignored the FEMA Appendix C “Limited Metallurgical Examination” report in these discussions?”
Which discussions?
Why should that report be discussed, and in which discussions? Why?
“EDS profiles seem to support thermitic “rapid sulfidation and oxidation” of the steel.”
How so? Thermite doesn’t cause sulfidation. Sulfur and some Sulfur compounds do.
“The Bentham paper references this science as corroborative of their findings.”
No, untrue.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 6:30 pm
“being the working chemist he claims to be”
What the…?? You invent your own facts at will, don’t you?
I am not a chemist, and never claimed I am.
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 6:36 pm
“I am not a chemist, and never claimed I am.”~Schmidt
Pardon my egregious infraction! So what are you a bellboy?
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 6:51 pm
I claim no formal training or professional experience in the relevant fields of scientific research,
It doesn’t matter what I am. What matters is whether my claims are true and my arguments valid.
You previously quoted at length from an article by Messiers Talboo and Zugam – have you questioned what they are, or why did you put such complete and blind faith in their utterings that you didn’t even adorn their words with any comment of your own?
Double standards much, HR1?
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Good to know Schmidt, I have not formal training a a scientist either, nor do Messiers Talboo and Zugam. They are journalist and artist as I understand it.
What is “blind faith”? No I find their arguments reasonable and coherent with what I have learned of these matters
You say; “What matters is whether my claims are true and my arguments valid.”
That is so indeed, I do not find you arguments valid. So, here we are at the place this all started.
I had looked up your name and found a chemist with your name in Copenhagen if I recall correctly. It doesn’t matter now, you obviously ain’t the guy.
We obviously are having a failure to communicate here Mr Schmidt. I see no profit in continuing this carousel.
Maybe you can cook some paint at home. Just be sure it is well ventilated, and wear goggles.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 7:23 pm
“What is “blind faith”? No I find their arguments reasonable and coherent with what I have learned of these matters”
As you perhaps found out in the last 48 hours or so, what you have learned of these matters is actually very little to almost nothing. There is no shame in that. Knowing that you don’t know is a good start on a journey to knowledge,
You should perghaps hold your judgement until you know a little more.
“I do not find you arguments valid.”
That’s not quite true. You don’t find them convincing perhaps, but you haven’t probed the validity of my arguments. You can’t actually explain WHY you don’t believe my arguments. You mainly dismis them without argument, if you don’t ignore them.
“We obviously are having a failure to communicate here Mr Schmidt.”
This would not occur if you addressed my arguments. Your constant evasions and your constant desire to find fault with the person rather than the argument is what derails our communication. Perhaps this is what you aimed at when you sensed that my discussion of Harrit et al is highly competent?
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 7:29 pm
“Perhaps this is what you aimed at when you sensed that my discussion of Harrit et al is highly competent?”~Schmidt
“Perhaps” wouldn’t be the operative word here. I don’t find your argument here particularly competent at all.
You can dance, spin and continue your psychobabble all you wish.
I would rather sit this ta ta tango out.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 7:35 pm
“I don’t find your argument here particularly competent at all. ”
Why? Have I made any argument about any aspect of the Harrit paper that is false, invalid or weak?
You haven’t actually pointed out any fault with any of my arguments.
So how did you decide my arguments are not competent when you don’t find any fault wuth them?
Please pick up any argument that you have found a fault in and explain why that argument is faulty :)
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Riding along on a carousel…. can you say “paint”?
Let it be Schmidt, the ride has been too long already.
\\][//
ruffadam
October 31, 2015 at 7:42 pm
Jens,
I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
Have you done so already? If so please direct me to your paper/presentation. What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time. I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
So far though, and this is just my opinion, Jens it seems to me that you are missing the forest because of the trees. There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos. Surely you are not saying that was caused by office fires reacting with (take your pick)? It seems very clear to me that this was molten metal pouring out which from my understanding could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer. Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower? Jones and Harrits theory does.
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 8:16 pm
“Harrit pointed out that the red-gray chips were soaked in acetone to remove impurities.”
Which chips?
Are you sure he said “acetone”?
Are you sure they soaked chips in solvent to remove impurities?
“Soaking a sample of the paint primer left it limp and soggy and it fell apart.”
A sample of WHICH primer paint? Or do you believe there exists only one primer paint?
“I think this is both in a written response, and on a video as well. Harrit has made comments as to Millette’s failed attempts on several occasions.”
Links would be great.
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Schmidt, read this article in its entirety and cut the crap:
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 31, 2015 at 10:55 pm
I just want to update to say that the solvent the chips and paint samples were soaked in was MEK – not Acetone as I had recalled.
I have had to work with both of these products and they are both terribly dangerous to handle and inhale.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 2:54 am
OK, I read both articles.Now what?
“I have had to work with both of these products and they are both terribly dangerous to handle and inhale”
Ooohh! Bamboozle bambooozle! :D
ruffadam
October 31, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Several typo’s in the above which I could not correct after it was posted. They are as follows:
I said: “I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
I meant to say: “I have seen this argument before about the red/grey chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
I said: “could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer.”
I meant to say: “could not be produced by burning office contents or paint or primer.”
Jens Schmidt
October 31, 2015 at 8:10 pm
Thanks, ruffadam, for your courteous and reasonable reply!
I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
That’s a good idea, actually. It would take some time to realize though. Responding to individual points on a discussion board required a lot less structuring and precision than writing a paper.
Have you done so already?
No.
What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
In part, it’s testing how the arguments are received.
I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time.
That would be great!
I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
Sounds like you are thinking of Harrit’s “Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint“?
There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos
What observation, fact or logic would connect the red-gray chips to that flow of some glowing material? I see none. This is pure conjecture.
Perhaps there was thermite used in the demolition of the towers – but the red-gray chips are not that thermite. Because they are not thermitic.
Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower?
I have no theory of what happened.
Jones and Harrits theory does.
Really? How so?
They don’t know what the red-gray chips are, they have no theory how they were used, where they were applied. They actually have no explanation for the flow of glowing material that involves the red-gray chips and any of their known properties.
And anyway, Harrit and Jones claim, erroneously, that the exotherm of the red-gray chips was a thermite reaction. It clearly wasn’t. If they take that as premise for an explanation of the glowing flow, the premise would be false.
In general: Even if the red-gray chips are paint, that does not disprove thermite was used to demolish the towers, or thermite explains the flow.
And even it the red-gray chips are thermite, that does not mean they explain the glowing flow or the demolition of the towers.
In any case, each claim must stand on its own evidence. You need to prove both that the red-gray chips are thermitic AND that the glowing flow was the result of a thermitic reaction before you can reasinably hypothesize a causal connection between the two.
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 4:10 am
“I’m siding here with Jones. Because if samples tested by Millete did display different DSC traces than the ones obtained by Harrit et al. this would indicate that Millete samples were not the same as Harrit samples.”
By the same reasoning, you should conclude that Harrit’s samples are not the same as Harrit’s samples: The green and black curves have several features not seen in the blue and red curve, and vice versa.
Harrit et al tested at least two different materials in the DSC and never realized it!
This can be no wonder, as their elemental (XEDS) analysis also identified red-gray chips as being several different materials: the MEK-soaked chip is very different from chips a-d (with its significant Mg and Zn content and the large disparity between the Al and Si peaks), the multi-layerd chip has additional Pb, and other chips were found to contain additional Cu or Ba. One chip even had a gray layer that wasn’t iron-based.
They established no selection criteria beyond the initial “is magnetically attracted and looks red-gray“. Therefore, they tested apples and oranges in the DSC, and in all other test.
This ALONE renders the paper inconclusive and extremely poor.
Millette concentrated on chips that were very similar to Harrit’s chips a-d in that their main EDS peaks were limited to C, O, Al, Si and Fe, where the Al and Si peaks were about the same height, and which had the two characteristically shaped particles: rhombic, Fe-rich grains and hexagonal. Al- and Si-rich platelets.
If you argue that Millette maybe had the wrong chips, then you must also throw out Harrit’s chips a-d as the wrong chips. This then would deprive you of any and all evidence in the paper that there are “nano-particles” and that there is iron oxide in the red layer of the remaing chips (well, except for the red color of course).
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 5:21 pm
Millette did not do DSC or he did not present i? W/o DSC Millette work is noted but cannot serve as a definitive proof that Harrit’s samples had no thermite.
I don’t understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Why do you think that DSC is a necessary test to prove or disprove thermite? By what criteria derived from a DSC test would you decide whether a substance is or isn’t thermitic?
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 6:20 pm
Utu,
The iron rich microspheres are the key to this. Primer paint will not produce the iron rich microspheres.
Scan through this article until you find the info on what these iron rich microspheres are:
http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
utu
November 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm
Harrit et al. and Millette are primary sources and this is what I read and I get it. What you linking here is a secondary source. They are for people not capable to read the primary sources with a proper comprehension. The authors of the secondary sources often do not understand science. And thet have their own spin and bring their own agendas. HR1, beware of secondary sources. You do not want to be at their mercy. However, I’m afraid, a person w/o a proper scientific background – like yourself – has no choice but is left to mercies of the interpreters.
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 6:52 pm
The original sources are quoted, utu.
Do you understand that the iron rich microspheres are not just any iron spheroid?
” I’m afraid, a person w/o a proper scientific background – like yourself – has no choice but is left to mercies of the interpreters.”
Don’t give me this bullshit Utu.
You’re on your own.
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
November 1, 2015 at 7:39 pm
utu: ….. “Good cop”
Jens Schmidt: ….. “Bad cop”
Too obvious.
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Yea Sockpuppet,
I figure it is a routine too. We get the real sophisticated agenteur here on T&S.
I say we just ignore both of these clowns.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 5:24 am
Cool, the arguments are over your head, the results not to your liking. What does the rational gentleman do?
Right – ignore! :D
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 5:22 am
sockpuppet2012, like hybridrogue1, cannot refute the arguments. So instead he smears the persons.
Too obvious.
Just like Kevin Ryan could not refute Millette, so he tried to assassin the character. Poor shmocks.
sockpuppet2012
November 1, 2015 at 7:48 pm
“utu” is allowed to “refute” some of what “Jens Schmidt” says, while maintaining that Harrit and Jones are incompetent buffoons.
It’s the “Good cop/Bad cop” routine.
“utu” says to “Schmidt”:
“Come on, Schmidt…..lay off Hr1 a little bit…..here…let me explain it to him”
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Yes yes Sock! We were suckered into the weeds far away from the issue of this thread, which is the nonsense from Chandler et al on the Pentagon. Everything those two jerks said was a simple diversion tactic.
Live and learn…forget and then get kicked in the ass by this jive nonsense and learn again.
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
November 1, 2015 at 7:53 pm
Willy said:
“I figure it is a routine too. We get the real sophisticated agenteur here on T&S”
That proves the importance of this Blog, and why the Pentagon Clan won’t be caught dead near this place.
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 5:18 am
@utu
“By looking at the two Wangs’ articles and LLNL reports I know what DSC traces to expect when dealing with thermites.”
If you overlay all those DSC traces, you will find that the values are somewhat all over the place, some graphs have 2 exotherm peaks, the peak temperatures vary, the maximum specific power varies, etc. The property “has an exotherm peak somewhere between 550 °C and 950 °C” is so vague and general, it doesn’t help at all to identify the substances or the reactions.
Anyway, the red-gray material is obviously quite different from all the thermites you looked at: The latter contain no or little organic residue (Tillotson found 10%, some Wang preparations have none), and none have this big inert mass of pure iron oxide. So you would expect from the start that the chips’ traces would differ significantly from those of purer thermite even if they actually did contain thermite.
And lastly, the Wangs and the LLNL teams do not apply DSC to identify the substance or the reaction! To that end, they use XRD and electron microscopy. They usd DSC to investigate the performance of their preparations. It’s like you might use a person scale to investigate the efficacy of a diet: If you plot your weight from day to day and find that you lose weight quickly in the first week and then stall, that plot would not help to identify specifically you or that particular diet! If another researcher did scale tests on some person and found the same pattern of “weight loss the first week, then stall”, he would be wrong to conclude that that person ate the same diet that you did.
“Harrit’s DSC traces are similar though not identical (a lower temperature of ignition).”
Every exotherm chemical reaction would be “similar”: Show a peak like Harrit’s specimens, only at different temperatures.
“I haven’t seen DSC profiles of paint or other non-energetic organic materials. Have you?”
You imply that paint is non-energetic. Why do you say that? What do you understand by “energetic”? One WTC paint is based on an alkyd resin with linseed oil which both crosslink to harden when curing. This is an “energetic” material in the most ordinary sense of the word: They release energy (exotherm reaction) when burning. The other known WTC primer paint consists of about 70% epoxy. Epoxy, too, is energetic: It reacts exothermaly when exceeding its ingnition temperature of ~425 °C. And guess at what temperattre Harrit’s chips burn the most powerfully…
Here is a paper that has DSC traces of an organic binder (epoxy):
http://revroum.lew.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/4/Art%2006.pdf (Fig. 1, top right)
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/19722/ferranti_louis_200712_phd.pdf?sequence=1 ()
I have a link to a paper that does DSC tests on oil paints (cured linseed, sunflower and stand oil), but that is behind a $30 pay wall. It used to have some of the figures visible, but no longer.
“Millette did not do show them (why?).”
Millette’s lab, MVA, is a forensic lab with all the equipment needed to identify materials collected at crime scenes and elsewhere.
A DSC device is not there. That’s because DSC is not a method used by experienced, competent forensicists.
He didn’t do DSC. He could have sent a specimen to another lab that does DSC, but that would have cost money, and why do it anyway? DSC results are not fingerprints in the way that XRD, XEDS, FTIR or SAED are.
“Jones claims (in his letter) they tested some paints and got bland DSC shapes (w/o definitive peaks) but they did not show them either (why?).”
Right – why not show them? And why not tell WHICH paint(s) they tested! WTC paint? I doubt it, actually! And did they test those paints with a dominant gray iron oxide layer attached?
You can choose to believe these claims, or remain sceptical.
“But I sense that you want it to be closed very much. You can close it but you have to present evidence that cannot be found in Millette or Harrit papers. Do you have any evidence from without their papers? So far you did not present it.”
I only have the papers by Harrit et al and Millette, plus an open letter by Harrit (“Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint”) plus a presentation of results from red-gray chips by Mark Basile (Screenshots), plus a study on red-gray by a French researcher, F. Henry-Couannier, plus a few statements by Jones and Farrer. I haven’t nearly presented all of these results!
For the time being, I think we can close the book on the assertion that Harrit et al “proved” the materrial is thermitic. They have not. And with this, they ball is in their court, and nothing else needs to be done as long as they don’t play it. No researcher has actually confirmed their findings (Basile THINKS he has, but his result of only 1.7% Al in the red layer, of which no doubt a significant proportion is already oxidized) belies that claim: Pure, ideal thermite has about 25% Al and releases under 4 kJ/g. A substance with 1.7 % Al could thus release at most 4 kJ/g * 1.7/25 = 0.27 kJ/g. Assuming his chip is the same material as the four chips in Harrit’s DSC, it follows that less than 18% (best case: comparison with blue curve) or less than 3.5% (comparison with the green curve) of the heat release could possibly come from a thermite reaction.
But there actually is no evidence at all that any thermite was present or reacted.
None whatsover.
Yes, the theory is dead already.
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 3:02 am
“A keen eye can discern from either a faulty premise or a faulty conclusion”
This is very telling – you say you take as premise that a conclusion is faulty and argue from there? Thanks for revealing how your mind works.
“The philosophy of argumentum holds the key to critical thinking skills.”
What pseudo-intellectual babble!
You found no faulty premise
You found no faulty reasoning
So you simply declare the conclusion false without any argument and work backwards from there?
Fascinating.
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 4:51 am
“So you simply declare the conclusion false without any argument and work”~Schmidt
I don’t need to do any argument or work, the red gray chips are not paint.
You need to do the argument and work to prove the chips are paint.
You are the one disputing the Jones-Harrit findings. It is your responsibility to prove them wrong. You are not arguing with me Schmidt, you are arguing against Jones-Harrit.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 3:57 am
“Millete did not perform DSC traces. DSC tests are very important in studying energetic materials.”
Yes, but the Harrit study was not a study to figure out the properties of an energetic study, but a forensic study to find out what an unknown substance is. In contrast to methods such as XEDS, XRD, FTIR or SAED, the thermal traces do not provide unique and precise fingerprints. That’s why DSC is not that good at identifying a material.
“The above papers do not explicitly state whether DSC test were done under inert gas condition or in the presence of oxygen.”
I would bet serious money that they were done under inert gas. Residues of organic substances in their sol-gel preparations clearly demand doing DSC without oxygen.
“Y Wang has tested regular nano thermite powder (no binder) and obtained the same ignition point as for the sol-gel nano thermites.”
You mean that tends to refute Jones, right?
You quote Jones:
“We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.”
Since they did not also test under inert gas, that is speculation.
But of course it is true: 7.5 kJ/g means inescapably that the substance reactied with external oxygen, It just wasn’t a thermite reaction.
You quote Jones:
“Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air”
But Jones added a note at the end of the article:
“After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised.”
The article that Jones references here and in Fig 29 of Harrit et al is
http://de.scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies
They write about the organic impurities:
“From elemental analysis we have observed thatthese materials have organic impurities that makeup 10% of the sample by mass [23]. It is likely that the impurities are due to residual solvent and/or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the syn-thesis.”
epoxide releases about 20 kJ/g of energy when burned on air, solvents usually more. If their material was 10% epoxide or similar, and it was allowed to burn on air, then it would contribute about 2 kJ/g (10% of 20 kJ/g) to the total heat release – more than they measured total! Also epoxy ignites around 425 °C. There is no marked thermal event in that region in Tillotson’s DSC trace. It follows that the trace was very unlikely won under air.
“DSC tests of Millette samples possibly might produce different non-energetic DSC traces. But we do not know.”
Speculation.
“The temperature of the peak of the traces obtained by Harritt seems to be too high to be that of an organic compound”
No. Here is a document on the combustion properties of many polymers:
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf
Table A-1 lists the temperature for three thermal events; the third is ignition temperature. You will find plenty near or above 425 °C.
We had previously looked at the ignition poins of various explosives. These are not crosslinked polymers like an organic binder would be. Breaking the crosslinks requires the additional heat that pushed polymer ignition points above those of oligomers and monomers.
“but it is significantly lower than that of nano thermites by Yi Wang or LLNL”
Yes, although I have seen at least one report that found a nano-thermite preparation to ignite around 450 °C, if I recall correctly. Don’t have the link handy.
“Since Millette does not want to perform DSC tests then ideally Harritt and Jones should provide more DSC tests as well as comparative test of organic materials like paints.”
What would be the purpose of that? DSC is not a good method to identify unknown substances. Can you explain the purpose of such a study?
“Some paint samples should be obtained from old steel construction columns.”
Then you’d compare one unknown with another unknown, for you will typically not know the paint composition of old steel construction columns. You realize that different paints have different binders and different pigments in different proportions? Apples and bananas.
“I conclude that Millette did not negate Harritt et al. findings beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Millette didn’t need to do DSC at all to identify precisely the identity of ALL constituents of those red-gray chips that match Harrit’s chips a-d: What the gray layer is (a steel similar to A36 with manganese and low carbon; oxidized), what the organic binder is (epoxy), what the small rhombic grains are (alpha-Fe2O3, called hematite), and what the hexagonal platelets are (kaolinite, an Aluminium Silicate). He additionally found a bit of TiO2. All these ingredients are perfectly consistent with red primer paint on oxidized structural steel.
He found no elemental Aluminium. That rules out thermite.
Here is Millette’s report:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 5:25 am
An analogy from the DEW proposition by Judy Wood:
Wood’s proximate premise was that since there is no seismic signal accompanying the collapse of the material of a WTC tower as it slammed to the ground; that the material must have “dustified” — ie, “disappeared’. (‘Where Did The Towers Go?’ – Judy Wood)
Where is the error? It is quite simple is it not? The material of the tower did not slam to the ground in a single instant. This is self evident by simple observation of any video of the events.
It took TIME for the material to hit the ground as many thousands of separate events. Some 10 to 14 seconds of time for each tower.
One knows in the very first instance of Wood’s hypothesis that it is based on a prima facie falsehood. It is self evidently untrue.
From that point, one then goes through the futile and fruitless exercise of addressing all of the other assertions that Wood makes to back up her initial premise, and finds that each one of these are equally provably false. This is PREDICTED by the provably false premise; yet we are “challenged” to go through every single point of her argument to prove beyond doubt that she is wrong. THIS is logical error. We KNEW she was wrong from her proximate error.
In arguments such as these, it can become argumentum ad infinitum – an endless carousel of blithering nonsense.
I propose that the suggestion that the red-gray chips in the WTC dust are primer paint, is just as obviously false as Judy Wood’s suggestion that lack of seismic signal proved that the towers disappeared.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 7:44 am
“Wood’s proximate premise was that since there is no seismic signal accompanying the collapse of the material of a WTC tower as it slammed to the ground”
I am not sure this is a precise and fair rendering of Wood’s premise (I haven’t really looked at her work yet), but assuming it is. it is obviously false: There were seismic signals accompanying the collapse of the material of each of the three WTC towers as they slammed to the ground. So yes, if that is actually her premise, every conclusion that follows is invalid.
(She has plenty of other premises that are all false, plus a few instances of strangely erroneous reasoning. If anyone should seriously be interested in what they were, we can discuss that in a separate discussion if, when and where it fits. For the moment, I am merely areeing with you, HR1, and saying more specifically why I agree)
“From that point, one then goes through the futile and fruitless exercise of addressing all of the other assertions that Wood makes to back up her initial premise, and finds that each one of these are equally provably false.”
This is the routine that you want to put me through.
The starting point of our current debate here was your assertion that 10 W/g, twice the specific power of some nanothermite preparation, indicates a “high brisance” – that the chips reacted very fast, vigorously, even “explosively” (for “brisance” is a property of explosives) in the DSC experiment.
That premise was FALSE.
It, or rather something related, is also a premise taken as true by Harrit el al to justify their conclusions, but is actually FALSE: That the DSC results show “narrow” peaks, indicating a “vigorous” reaction.
At that point, if you had consistent standards, Harrit et al should have gone the way of Judy Wood’s claims in your book, HR1. Why didn’t they?
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 9:27 am
I cannot be any clearer or direct than this; You are not arguing with me Schmidt, you are arguing against Jones-Harrit.
Consequently I am not arguing with you.
I have made note of the endless carousel, the one too long gone ’round.
You Schmidt make yourself out to be more important that you are here. I am under no obligation to answer your every question, to satisfy your every need for attention.
This is beginning to remind me of that Monty Python sketch, “This is Not an Argument”
“Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t” “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t” “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t”
No it isn’t.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 10:11 am
Glad you realize you have not actually argued the subject matter after your several initial false claims, HR1.
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 10:13 am
Those false claims were?
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 11:01 am
I pointed out several of your false claims twice already. You failed to address them and argue. Why would it be different the third time around?
1. “The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”
2. “the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit”
3. “Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate” (namely “tossing columns” and “powederizing concrete”, the former later changed to tossing “the top off of a capped column“, which was FALSE, too)
4. “we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study” – that’s false on two distinct counts – no evidence for sol-gel, no evidence for explosive
5. “There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph.”
6. “In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives.”
7. “Yes I do you know what DSC is. It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC. One sample is heated, while the control sample is not.” (That’s to related counts of false claims – the claim that you “know” what DSC is, and the claim about not heating the reference material, which proves the former to be false)
8. Your implications that there exists a “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters“, and that this imagined larger scientific community accepts that the chips are “sol-gel””
9. The implication that there is a “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”
10. “If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic” (quoted from Farrer) – lie by insinuation: the peaks aren’t sharp; and the wording suggests that being energetic is the nature and purpose of the substance, when in reality nearly every organic substance is “energetic” by this criterion
11. “I presume that, being the working chemist he claims to be he has access to lab”
12. “the red gray chips are not paint” (this being stated as your premise)
Is seems you so far have retracted only 2., 7. and 11. while maintaing repeatedly 3., 4. and 12. and leaving the others uncorrected.
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 11:08 am
“Is seems you so far have retracted only 2., 7. and 11. while maintaing repeatedly 3., 4. and 12. and leaving the others uncorrected.”~Schmidt
There is no need to retract anything else Schmidt, it is only your opinion that the other points are incorrect. It is only your assertion that I am incorrect on the points you list.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 11:35 am
“Claims of fact” and “opinion” aren’t the same things.
Claims of fact can be verified or falsified using objective criteria. If you had claimed the Statue of Liberty stood in El Paso, Texas, I said that false, then neither of us would state an “opinion”. Your claim of fact would be false.
You could try to verify your claim for example by posting photographs from EP showing the SoL there. But you refuse to do so.
You made those claims.
Burden of evidence was on you.
You have refused to provide evidence.
You fail.
Let’s try the first:
Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?
Then please consider what “brisance” IS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance
WP: “Brisance /br?'z??ns/ is the shattering capability of a high explosive, determined mainly by its detonation pressure. … The sand crush test and Trauzl lead block test are commonly used to determine the relative brisance in comparison to TNT … Generally, the higher this pressure, the finer the fragments generated. High detonation pressure correlates with high detonation velocity, the speed at which the detonation wave propagates through the explosive, but not necessarily with the explosive’s total energy (or work capacity)”
Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure “the shattering capability” of the chips? NO.
Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure the “detonation pressure” of the chips? NO.
Is the sand crush test a DSC test, or does it result in W/g readings? NO.
Is the Trauzl lead block test a DSC test, or does it result in W/g readings? NO.
Did the DSC test of the chips generate fragments from the material it was in contact with (such as the sample holder)? Certainly NOT.
Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure the “detonation velocity” of the chips? NO, detonation velocity is measured in m/s.
So you see that your claim that the DSC test determined the “brisance” of the chips relative to Tillotson’s nanothermite is objectively false. You can hold on to your “opinion” that you claimed something true – that would be irrational, but your prerogative. It is however NOT “opinion” on my part to state that your claim is FALSE – I just tested it against objective criteria.
Basically you are maintaining that you don’t need evidence and logic to determine the truth value of your “opinions”. This defies every base principle of science of course.
hybridrogue1
November 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm
“Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt
Yes, but only indirectly.
Would you assert that the Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, are not intimately related to their brisance?
Now once again, you are attempting to draw me into a debate that we have already had.
I refuse to go around and around here past this one response.
As you have been advised, it is in your court to make a critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. If it is your opinion that I have misinterpreted their findings – again that is your opinion, regardless of your framing your opinion as an “objective fact”.
FINI
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 1, 2015 at 12:49 pm
““Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt
Yes, but only indirectly. ”
Please explain!
“Would you assert that the Energy release ”
Energy release is not measured in W/g and not represented by the peak height. Please do not distract once again from your claim that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g.
“a debate that we have already had”
We haven’t come to the end of that debate, for which their can objectively be only one possibility: You understanding that your claim was false (nonsense) and retracting it.
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 5:36 am
@Hr1:
““Farrer is the TEM lab director at Brigham Young University, where he has access to world-class equipment.” ( Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory (TEM Lab)
And Schmidt was trying to convince us that he didn’t understand how to run a DSC.”
Yes, correct on both counts. Farrer is a competent practitioner in the electron microscopy lab (TEM as well as SEM). His SEM and XEDS work in the Harrit paper is excellent!
He had zero experience with a DSC the day before he DSCed those chips.
“So Schmidt was simply here to smear and defame the scientists involved in the Jones-Harrit paper.”
It follows directly from the quality of their work: Doing DSC on a specimen, that contains a LOT of organic matter, under air when you are interested in an inorganic reaction among the components of the specimen, is an obviously stupid thing to do, and the way they interprete some plot features and fail to interprete others clearly show incompetence.
I actually like Farrer and would trust him with a lot (this in contrast to Jones or Ryan). He admitted himself that he had to learn first how to use a DSC device – in other words, that he had no experience in that!
Will find link later if you need that evidence. Was in his interview wit AE911Truth.
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 9:20 am
If there is anyone on this forum who would like to continue on this circus ride carousel that Jens Schmidt is continuing to offer rides on, I welcome them to respond. For myself I have made it clear that I find his motives disingenuous. I have made it clear that I am not going to argue this topic around and around on every trivial detail that Schmidt can bring up.
This latest business about Farrer is an example. The fact that Farrer may have been inexperienced in the DSC device is meant to imply that the conclusions of the results are faulty. This conclusion must face head on the acceptance of the conclusion of these studies by world renowned scientists, experts in their fields.
Again it seems the tell of this tale is divided between scientists who are independent, and willing to confront political authority, and scientists who are beholden to authority and go along to get along.
As a prime example of this is Millette, the only scientist so far to attempt a rebuttal to the Jones-Harrit paper. Millette was heralded as an independent scientist with no connections to the government by the JREF crowd that hired him to debunk the Bentham paper on thermitic materials in the WTC dust. It turns out however that Millette was working directly for the EPA, and is responsible for papers that led to the announcement that the environment of the WTC cleanup operations were safe. He has been found to have committed some serious criminal acts in this regard. But like anyone involved in the 9/11 cover-up Millette enjoys impunity.
If anyone wants to go into the details of how Millette’s so-called research on the ‘red-gray chips’ is legitimate or a scam, let them. But this is an old story spun every which way for years now.
The bottom line here is that the Red & Gray Chips are not paint, they are a sol-gel energetic material. And if anyone wants to prove otherwise there are proper procedures for doing so.
Making scurrilous arguments against the Jones-Harrit findings on blogs is not going to cut it.
Schmidt can go on and on here for the rest of the year and beyond, and it will amount to nothing, as it amounts to nothing now. Of course he can pound his chest and hoot his ululations of victory and make claim to all the bananas here. The sorry truth is there are no fruits available here at T&S offered as consolation prizes for fancy tango dances of spinning rhetoric.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 10:40 am
@HR1
“The fact that Farrer may have been inexperienced in the DSC device is meant to imply that the conclusions of the results are faulty.”
Wrong.
I already explained HOW the DSC test was incompetently done and inexpertly interpreted. This needed no recourse to the qualifications of the operator.
However, noting the inexperience of the experimenter helps to explain WHY the Harrit team acted so incompetently with regard to the entire DSC desaster.
In my mind, noting Farrer’s inexperience is actually a nice thing – it suggests he merely erred. If he were an experienced DSC user and interpreter, I would have to conclude willful deception.
“the acceptance of the conclusion of these studies by world renowned scientists, experts in their fields”
Surely you can name at least two “world renowned scientists, experts in their fields” who have indicated “acceptance of the conclusion of these studies“, along with the fields that you believe they are experts in? Any forensicist there? Any world renowned thermite expert? Any expert on primer paints?
Or perhaps, if you can’t actually name two such scientists, you want to retract this fabricated claim, and add it to the list of false claims you were forced to retract :)
“scientists who are beholden to authority and go along to get along. As a prime example of this is Millette”
Yay, the old “he has found out so many of my false claims, while I could not hold a candle to any of his arguments … what can I do … o right, let’s do a little character assassination instead of arguing the facts of the case!” Classy, HR1 :)
“Millette was heralded as an independent scientist with no connections to the government”
Was he? “With no connections to the government“? Linky please? Or retraction?
“He has been found to have committed some serious criminal acts in this regard.”
Has he? Surely Kevin Ryan, who originated this smear piece, has taken Millette to court over this crime? Court docket, please? After all, Millette’s report reveals that Ryan is the co-author of a fallacious paper?
You already found out that Kevin Ryan is a most shady character, didn’t you? You place him among the bad, deceptive, perhaps even traitorous folks with regard to the Pentagon story, right?.
What if Ryan has been out to discredit the Truth Movement from the very beginning? Could you perhaps be falling for the lure of a liar? I think you are!
Be more critical, HR1!
“the Red & Gray Chips are not paint, they are a sol-gel energetic material”
You keep saying this, but have no evidence. Please present your evidence, or retract!
Worse still: You don’t even understand the very sentence you wrote there.
You don’t know what “sol-gel” is, otherwise you would not write such stupid phrases as “they are a sol-gel energetic material“, “various known sol-gels that they compared against their own material“, “the brisance of the military sol-gel“, “sol-gels with exponentially more explosive force“, “sol-gels might have been the only explosives needed“.
I’ll give you a hint: You seem to think that “sol-gel” is a word for a kind of material.
No, it isn’t.
That’s how I know you are talking out of your rear end.
Why do you talk about “things” (“things” in quotes because “sol-gel” is not a “thing”) that you don’t know at all? Don’t you realize how utterly STUPID you appear?
“there are no fruits available here at T&S”
This may be the only true phrase in your post ;)
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 11:26 am
@HR1:
*FACEPALM*
The list of flat out false blunders you write because you don’t the fuck understand what you are writing about keeps growing and growing. I think you are an intelligent guy – you must sense, at least sometimes, that you don’t know what you are talking. Why do you make such a fool of yourself so often and so consistently? Are YOU perhaps a mole out to make the Truth Movement look dumb, silly and ridiculous?
Here is your latest blunder:
“Sol-gels are distinguished by the nanoscale characteristics. The difference between macroscale materials and the sol-gels are obvious simply from the VLM photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples.”
Oooh – “nanoscale characteristics” – “VLM photomicrographs” – mighty techy sounding words, bamboozle bamboozle, right?
VLM is the abbreviation for “Visual Light Microscopy”, and “nanoscale” is commonly understood to be the range from 1 to 100 nm – a particle can be called to be on the “nanoscale” if one or more of its dimensions (width, lenght, thickness) is in that range 1-100 nm.
Visible light is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm. The resolution of any microscope depends on the wavelength of the rays it uses. There is a theoretical limit of resolution for VLM lenses near 200 nm, while in practice, very few VLM microscopes come even near this limit.
It is therefore flat out IMPOSSIBLE to characterize the “nanoscale characteristics” of any material with VLM.
Again, hybridrogue1, you spoke out of your rear end and invented claims that you don’t even understand.
Stop that childish behaviour.
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 11:59 am
“It is therefore flat out IMPOSSIBLE to characterize the “nanoscale characteristics” of any material with VLM.”
It is however to characterize microscale characteristics by VLM, and these are clearly NOT microscale products. Thermite and Thermate are microscale products.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 12:35 pm
Edit the above sentence:
It is however possible to characterize macroscale characteristics by VLM, and these are clearly NOT macroscale products. Thermite and Thermate are macroscale products.
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
November 2, 2015 at 12:53 pm
I’m sorry, Willy…..I posted my comment before I saw your edit.
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Okay okay I read this “correction” too late. So for all I care:
Alright, Einstein: Did Harrit et al examine and describe the macroscale characteristics of the chips using VLM? What were they? Please quote the relevant passages.
Which of the macroscale characteristics that Harrit et al detected by VLM convince you that the chips are “sol-gel”? :) (Remember: The context is still: What is your evidence that the chips are “sol gel”? Or are you hoping you could detract from that question?)
So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 1:19 pm
@HR1
This conversation has the entertainment value of a bizarre train wreck.
“It is however to characterize microscale characteristics by VLM”
Alright, Einstein: Did Harrit et al examine and describe the microscale characteristics of the chips using VLM? What were they? Please quote the relevant passages.
Which of the microscale characteristics that Harrit et al detected by VLM convince you that the chips are “sol-gel”? :)
“these are clearly NOT microscale products. Thermite and Thermate are microscale products.”
So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 1:44 pm
“they were all identified as Thermite”
This is the conclusion by Harrit et al, but it doesn’t follow from the data. The conclusion is invalid
“Do paint chips produce iron spherules when heated?”
Harrit et al did not show that the “iron spherules” originated from the red (paint) layer. They did not exclude the possibility that they resulted from phase shifts within the gray (oxidized steel) layer.
The “iron-rich sphere” shown in Fig 21 looks like a ball of condensed soot with a concentration of hematite pigment. In the upper left part of that image, you can clearly see the 100 nm rhombic grains and 1-2 µm hexagonal platelets – obviouskly unreacted! Since those were heated to 700 °C; at least any elemental Al should have melted (at or under 660 °C) – there is no evidence for that – not in the image, not in any DSC trace.
In the text, describing the ball in the center of Fig 21, Harrit et al write: “the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two“. Approximately? What does “approximately” mean? Would a factor of 1.6 count as “approcimately”? Did they do a standardizing routine for that quantification? If not, the error in that estimate could be substantial – they don’t say. Is that a factor of 2 by weight or by mols? They don’t say! If the former, then the conclusion they draw, “so substantial elemental iron must be present” is flat out wrong: Fe2O3 is 111 g Fe and 48 g O per mol – a very good match for what they measured!
“What is thermite or any other energetic substance doing in the WTC dust?”
No one found thermite.
There were a lot of “energetic” substances in the WTC debris:
– Paper
– Computers
– Furniture
– Human remains
– Paints
– ….
ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 1:54 pm
“ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!”~Schmidt
I hope this idiotic statement is your last Schmidt! I understand your caveat, and the statement is still bullshit.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm
@HR1:
What matters is how fast it burns and what temperature it can produce when burning.”~utu
That is the caveat I mentioned. His assertion is utter rhetorical nonsense on that head.
Except you didn’t mention it :D
I am glad you understand now that pointing out that a material is “energetic” just because it produces an exotherm peak in a DSC test is utter rhetorical nonsense.
So – how fast do the red-gray chips react? :D
Ooh – flashback,,, that’s where this whole mess started – your assertion that somehow “10.5 W/g” means “twice the brisance” – a stupidly false claim you still haven’t retracted.
And … what temperature did the chips reach?
(That is actually an interesting question, to which my answer is only “speculation” as I have no evidence for it – which I, in contrast to a certain someone else, have no trouble admitting)
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Allow me to reply in the manner that you do Schmidt;
You are an idiot who doesn’t know anything about science. You are bluffing your way through this entire exchange making up shit as you go. You are a liar and will not retract a single lie you have made. You are just a stooge and a shill. And! An arrogant prick as well.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 3:57 pm
@HR1
“Allow me to reply in the manner that you do Schmidt;
You are an idiot who doesn’t know anything about science. You are bluffing your way through this entire exchange making up shit as you go. You are a liar and will not retract a single lie you have made. You are just a stooge and a shill. And! An arrogant prick as well.”
It is easy to make such statements without argument and evidence. That is the difference between you and me:
“You are … making up shit as you go”
Except you haven’t pointed out a single thing I have made up. So far, I have been able to support every claim I made with evince – when asked, and often without being asked.
You on the other hand have already been called out on several of your fabrications – and every time, you were not able to support your made-up bullshit with evidence.
“You are a liar and will not retract a single lie”
You haven’t pointed out a single lie. This is because nothing I have written in this exchange was wrong, or at least I am not aware of anything wrong.
“You are just a stooge and a shill.”
You have no evidence for this accusation.
What an extremely poor, pathetic attempt at “tu quoque” of the cheapest kind. I almost start feeling sorry for you.
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 2:18 pm
@HR1
““ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!”~Schmidt
I hope this idiotic statement is your last Schmidt! I understand your caveat, and the statement is still bullshit.”
Are you blue in the face while you yell “BULLSHIT”, Willy? :D
Your problem is that you have no argument to support your “bullshit” claim.
What I wrote is true:
Thermite releases less than 4 kJ/g of energy when burned <- TRUE, right?
Paper and wood release around 15-18 kJ/g when burned <- TRUE, right?
15 to 18 is more than 4 – <- TRUE, right?
So paper and wood (furniture) release more energy when burned than does thermite.
Computers contain a lot of plastic – certainly 20% by weight <- TRUE, right?
Most plastics have energy densities of 20-40 kJ/g <- TRUE, right?
20% of that is 4 to 8 kJ/g <- TRUE, right?
"4 to 8 kJ/g" is more than "under 4 kJ/g" <- TRUE, right?
So computers release more energy when burned than does thermite.
Now as for human remains … what are they made of? Fat, meat, other organic substances… these may average 25 kJ/g (fat dominates in Wall Street Americans!) are perhaps 25-30% by weight of the body (most of the rest is water, and some inorganic stuff in teeth and bones).
Human remains thus average about 6 to 8 kJ/g. That's more than thermites under 4 kJ/g.
So human remains release more energy when burned than does thermite.
Is any of that untrue? What? Please be specific, so we can go look for evidence for our respective claims :)
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm
@HR1:
“My reply to utu is adequate”
Perhaps you should let utu do the arguing for you, if the only way for you to write a sensible reply is to quote utu and blurt “what he said!” ;)
sockpuppet2012
November 2, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Why do the Nutty Professors insist on arguing about thermite on this thread?
ruffadam said:
“What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?”
Jens Schmidt said:
“In part, it’s testing how the arguments are received”
Received by who?…..and what’s the other “part”…..the other reason?
Wouldn’t it be much more reasonable to see “how the arguments are received” where Jones or Harrit can respond.
Why, in the name of sanity, would the Nutty Professors choose a thread where the topic is the Pentagon to test “how the arguments are received” about Thermite?
The obvious motive, just like the Chandler Clan, is to take the conversation off course from discussion of the Pentagon.
The Pentagon evidence is the most damning of all the 911 evidence because it leads directly to perpetrators with names, faces and titles.
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 3:08 pm
sockpuppet2012
Agreed in triplicate!
\\][//
utu
November 2, 2015 at 3:21 pm
I think it was me who was the first that objected to something HR1 wrote about thermites. This started the whole discussion. Jens Schmidt joined later. If you want to blame somebody for keeping you from Pentagon blame me. It was not my intention though.
sockpuppet2012
November 2, 2015 at 3:29 pm
utu said:
“I think it was me who was the first that objected to something HR1 wrote about thermites. This started the whole discussion. Jens Schmidt joined later. If you want to blame somebody for keeping you from Pentagon blame me. It was not my intention though”
Thank you, utu!
So, do you think we could put an end to this Chemical Merry-go-Round?
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 2:47 pm
@SP2012
Makes sense to me.
Can you write a response without silly sarcasm?
What was wrong with what I wrote?
I did not, as your silly 2H+O simile suggests, mistake fuels for their oxides.
Do you say that paper, wooden furniture, computers, human remains or paints do NOT release more energy upon burning than even ideal thermite?
hybridrogue1
November 2, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Now the bottom line here, the one that Schmidt should sit his arrogant ass on; is that there is nothing he can accomplish here as an adequate rebuttal to the Jones-Harrit paper- If and until he gathers his junk science together in a paper and attempts to publish it to present to the scientific community oft referred to as the Truth movement.
All of his scurrilous efforts here are in vain.
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 4:00 pm
@HR1
“All of his scurrilous efforts here are in vain.”
Quite possibly.
And so are your scurrilous efforts here at trying to hold a candle to me – and failing badly.
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
November 2, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Others have asked, but [no reply has come forward from you, Jens. What is it exactly that you are after? Why are you discussing extreme technicalities here with people who are obviously and admittedly not engineers or scientist? Why here? How exactly is this discussion “testing” your scientific chops about the subject matter. How come you are wasting your “genius” on a page like this?
And… One more time: Why do you feel compelled to be such a giant douchebag?
Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post. Do you not realize how much credibility you are losing with your behavior and asinine “gotcha” comments? Do you talk to your students like this? How about your peers? Friends?
sockpuppet2012
November 2, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Lilaleo said:
“And… One more time: Why do you feel compelled to be such a giant douchebag?
Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post. Do you not realize how much credibility you are losing with your behavior and asinine “gotcha” comments? Do you talk to your students like this? How about your peers? Friends?”
That is precisely why I “advised” Willy to answer Schmidt with…..”Nuh uhh”
The book of Etiquette says:
Always answer arrogant Douchebags with “Nuh uhh”, or “Huh?”
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Lilaleo,
strangely, I didn’t see you complaining about HR1 being such a dick and douchebag when I first posted here, trying to correct mistakes and answer challenges in a cool, concentrated and sober way. How he fought to derail the debate! What names he called me!
Where were you then?
Or perhaps you have resigned to HR1’s douchbaggery a long time ago?
I have been reading this blog on and off for a few months, perhaps a year now. So far I was under the impression that mostly the discussion was high-level, well informed and intelligent. That assessment expressedly includes HR1, who generally came across to me as an educated, well-versed person, even when he was a dick abusing people not sharing his beliefs.
Because that’s what it is – people have beliefs, and they bend their arguments and their facts to match their beliefs. The same intelligent and educated person can be spot-on with one claim, and totally nuts with the next. Perceptive and subtle with one, and blind to the elephant in the room a minute later.
I think some of the main proponents of the “plane flew NoC and over the Pentagon” are as intelligent, and as honest, as some of the main proponents of the “plane flew SoC and into the Pentagon by remote control” theory. They accuse each other of being shills, detractors, moles, whatever.
This is a very interesting topic to me.
Similar things can be said about the various claims concerning the WTC collapses – nanothermite, DEW, nukes… I do not think that any of those “schools” is set up by the enemy or only populated with assholes or lunatics.
Generally speaking, I find that almost all of these researchers are way outside of their fields – they are almost all amateurs in what they are doing.
And so am I!
And yes, Harrit and Jones are amateurs when it comes to forensic research, Farrer is an amateur in thermal testing, Legge and Chandler are amateurs in the field of … whatever the fields are that apply to researching the Pentagon incident. MacQueen and Griffin obviously are amateurs in every discipline of “9/11 research”. McKee is. AE911Truth boasts 2350 or whatever “experts”, their booklets and technical briefs however are written by a lawyer, a carpenter, a business student, a journalist. Ever wonder why that is?
The 9/11 researcher nearest to being an expert that I can think of and have read a bit about is Tony Szamboti, although a mechanical engineer is not a forensic structural engineer. He happens to disagree with the Chandler mantra of “freefall at WTC7 means explosives on perimeter columns”, and I think Szamboti is right – and Chandler, and practically everyone at AE911Truth and in the larger 9/11 Truth community, is wrong about that (not saying there weren’t explosives at WTC7, just that “freefall” is no proof if it).
I have studied Harrit et al. I have discussed it with chemists, with a structural engineer and an architect who both know a bit about structural steel coatings. I have communicated with a couple of experts in XEDS for months before I felt reasonably competent to discuss the basics of it. I have studied papers on inorganic pigments and their mineral precursors. I have seen pretty much all of the “nanothermite” papers out there. I have read training materials of a DSC manufacturer. I am privy to a few private conversations with Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Basile and Griscom about the red-gray chips. I have myself contacted Farnsworth. I have looked at all the data by Harrit et al, additional data by Jones, by Farrer, by Harrit, all the data so far released by Mark Basile, the Millette study, a study by Henry-Couannier – all on red-gray WTC chips. I have read blogs and debates between the authors and some of their critics, I have listened to hours of interviews.
Farrer says that Millette’s chips look precisely like his own, and Millette has identified the composition of those chips completely: No thermite whatsoever. This is the shortest story that I can tell about the chips. Harrit et al is refuted absolutely.
The next shortest story is the competent appraisal of the Harrit et al DSC data, which shows very clearly that the exotherm is NOT a thermite reaction – 95% to 100% of the energy MUST come from organic combustion. This, too, kills the Harrit et al paper totally, without hope of resurrection.
The story here is that Harrit et al is a hopelessly flawed paper, it is absolutely CRAP – and yet, after more than 6 years, it seems that no Truther has lost faith in Harrit or Jones over that hoax! What does that tell us about the movement? -> It is faith based.
I think there prevails the same attitude that you can see exemplary in HR1: People are intelligent and can be critical, but the moment certain core beliefs are challenged, all pretense of critical or scientific thinking goes overboard: Because the chips are not paint, facts firmly in evidence and natural laws must be false. Premises are derived from conclusions.
Because no plane hit the Pentagon, any evidence must be faked. Because a plane hit the Pentagon, the witnesses must have been manipulated. Because there were explosives at WTC7, NIST are traitors. Because the twins were demolished, Jowenko is a patsy of the government, buying the Jewish MSM yarn hook, line and sinker. Because WTC7 was a CD, the Mossad killed Jowenko. Because Mineta said AA77 was approaching while he was in the bunker, all radar data, TV recordings, photographs of the Vice President, Secret Service logs and a dozend other testimonies must be faked. Actually, because Cheney is a naughty naughty boy, Mineta is right and inerrant and everyone else lies.
There is a new star in the Truth skies over Europe – Johann Kalari, self-proclaimed civil engineer and “explosives master”. He saw the light a year ago or so and now speaks to everyone who couldn’t climb up a tree at the count of three. He is amazing: 2 of 3 claims of fact he utters are flat-out false – he misrepresents the claims he tries to sell. I think he is stupid, not impostor. When I alert him to all his mistakes – his standard reply is not to reject my correction, but to maintain that it doesn’t matter whether his claims are true, as long as we agree that the US government demolished the towers. This guy has opened a group on Facebook that has quickly grown to 4000+ members since summer. Every other day, some member posts an old hoax – Kalari never catches the hoax, and when alerted, doesn’t mind, as long as the hoax has a message of “Inside Job!”. People post Judy-Wood nonsense, nuke nonsense – Kalari doesn’t mind, as long as the message is “government bad – truth movement good”.
This movement is pathological.
And HR1 shows some interesting symptoms.
What was the question again? Ah, right
What is it exactly that you are after?
Someone was wrong on the internet, and still is.
Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post.
utu has actually learned something here – has asked questions and accepted, after critical examination, some of the answers. I think utu doesn’t perceive my posting with him as douchebaggery – I respect him (or her?), he/she respects me. Why? Because we understand what the other understands.
Contrast this with HR1. Did you notice the many false claims he makes?
Did you notice how he neither presents evidence when pressed, nor retracts most of the false claims?
Notice how he insults me, smears me, smears other, in lieu of arguments?
THAT, my friend, is douchebaggery. “As you call into the forest, thus it will sound back”.
utu
November 3, 2015 at 7:42 am
To Jens Schmidt
Individua like HR1 are self appointed enforcers of core beliefs dogma. They are good at intimidation and impervious to arguments based on logic and facts. Their ignorance is actually of great help in doing their job. Accomplishments and talents of Zdhanov or Beria come to mind. Arguing with them can demonstrate to onlookers how dense and shameless they can be but it never causes any cracks in their beliefs.
You are casting pearls…But why are you doing it is not clear to me. You cannot draw much satisfaction by defeating your inferiors. Certainly you have acquired lots of knowledge on subjects related to 9/11 and you have good writing skills. Why not use it for a constructive project in which you explain what in your opinion evidence shows and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence and what extra evidence would be needed to demonstrate thesis A or B? Also an article explaining common mistakes in reasoning and data interpretation people make would be useful. What do you actually believe after your analyses? The are several camps. Each is populated by the believers in one particular dogma, though they do not see themselves as believers but as knowers. They actually believe that their beliefs is the state of knowing at which you arrive by a rational process. The smallest of all possible camps is the camp of skeptics who profess that they actually do not know. As a skeptic you are attacked by everybody. There was no room for skeptics during 30 Year War or during the Civil War. Are you a skeptic or one of the believers?
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 8:38 am
@utu:
I am warming up to the idea of writing a paper, or a series of papers, and this feels more and more like a dress rehearsal.
utu
November 3, 2015 at 8:47 am
Good. Do it.
Lilaleo (@Lilaleo)
November 3, 2015 at 1:18 pm
This is such a big letdown, Mr. Schmidt… I was so ready and willing to put aside your attitude issues and respect you for your brain and knowledge, but, after all the technical and “scientific” discourse, it just turns out that you are an intelligent, very knowledgable, but, at the same time, an unbearably shallow man. Your big excuse for the abrasive attitude you displayed here is “he did it first, how come you don’t call him a douchebag”???
So, all this nonsense about sol-gels and schmol-gels that you had us read through, was nothing but a bar-fight you intentionally picked for some personal agenda that seems to come from a place of childish insecurity on your part. Someone else a little more comfortable in his skin, and more confident of his science might have argued the same points, with the same exact data points, in a much more level-headed and productive manner, winning the readers’, including HR1’s, respect at the end of it all. Now wouldn’t that have been swell? Oh well… Instead, since you felt he was “being a dick” to you, you went ahead and decided to show us all that you can be a much bigger dick. Just imagine how much negative (human) energy we could have been spared if you had written what you wrote in your post that I am replying to from the get go, presented your position on the papers/studies that you cite, given your credentials as you just did…
HR1 is a known entity here, and stands tall on top of a mountain of his own words, available for all to see and read all over the Internet, and agree, disagree or rebut should they choose to do so. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can easily say even those of us who have occasionally been on the receiving end of his linguistic-ninja moves have eventually, through the test of time, learned to like and respect him for all that he is… Not for all that he is not. I genuinely hope that you would stick around long enough to earn the same.
So, if we take away all the mutual insults you two have exchanged and just look at the substance, what have we accomplished here? Or, rather, what have you accomplished? Showed us that we can neither prove or disprove the flakes are paint chips or that they are not paint chips??? Whoop deedoo!!! I could have saved both of you (and utu) a lot of time and told you this from the get go. We can’t prove or disprove a plane hit pentagon, prove or disprove mineta was telling the truth, prove or disprove , beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plane flew north of Citgo any more than we can prove it was not Bizarro Superman who did it all with his DEW eyes. Proving others’ work wrong is easy… Show us how you can prove your own to be right!
Which brings us to what I would consider are major misconceptions you seem to have about the so called truth movement. You correctly point out that most people involved in 9/11 research are amateurs, but fail to recognize the absurdity of this phenomenon in the arguably most technologically advanced nation on earth, and the reasons for it being so. You moan about how unsound the science behind the claims made by the people who cared to do work on the subject, without recognizing the twisted alternate reality of our times which either prevents, persuades or scares 99.9% of more capable scientists from asking very simple questions which may or may not have answers that contradict the official narrative. And while you talk about “people” with broad brush strokes and generalizing them, you seem to be unaware that you, yourself, are part of a different group of “people” who can’t seem to recognize the human factor to the shortcomings while they suffer from a different set of shortcomings themselves.
But, perhaps more importantly, you seem to treat the ‘movement’ as if it were a level-field scientific and forensic research endeavor, while we have a few pathetic grams of flakes out of hundreds of thousands of tons of WTC and Pentagon building material and dust, almost zero funds, lack of access to evidence, witnesses, cutting edge equipment and facilities to carry out any experiments, or the support of accomplished scientists and engineers who’d be well capable of producing some pretty conclusive evidence at least on some of the issues discussed. Not to mention the fact that the movement operates against a well oiled, military grade propaganda and cover up operation that functions with unlimited funds, absolute impunity and lack of accountability, and under the protective umbrella of the technocratic power structure, their military, intelligence agencies, news organizations, gatekeepers and an army of shills and trolls and moles, some of whom seem to have, by hook or by crook, plopped themselves at the highest (so to speak) levels of the movement.
I am assuming it is clear to most people here that you have an impressive intellect and IQ points to match (Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how I would describe HR1.) The question then becomes what you will do with these qualities of yours. If your purpose is to disprove some widely held ‘beliefs’, scientific or otherwise, within the movement, I’d say don’t bother. It’s a forgone conclusion. You can comfortably assume that at least half of the evidence and so-called scientific conclusions were purposefully inserted into the mix by agents, moles and charlatans, and the other half is seriously lacking sound science and professional forensics as they are guided by emotions and prejudices. Even then, as many people here have pointed out, the onus is on the manufacturers of the official narrative to prove what they are saying is the truth… Which, they can accomplish extremely easily by producing a video of the plane crashing into Pentagon, by making evidence and key witnesses from all levels of government available to researchers and investigators, etc. etc. The truth about the lies we have been fed is not within the paint chips, but in the pudding we have been served, and its tangy, rancid flavor of cover up.
The direct consequences of 9/11 has brought the world to a third world war in 14 years, and many millions have died, and many more will die in the next decade. For those of us who see the events in their historical context as opposed to seeing it as a scientific puzzle to be solved following error-free processes, and those of us who have spent years observing and analyzing the cover up, it’s size and its scope, feel that the exact science behind the collapses is far from being essential to identify the parties involved in this massive false-flag event perpetrated on not just the Americans, but the whole entire world. And, it is currently still in progress.
I’m glad to see that you are leveling off your attitude and stating you might write “a paper or a series of papers”. I would strongly urge you and encourage you to do so. But do not be fooled into believing this here was a dress rehearsal. It was anything, but, as there are no real scientists here to call you up on your arguments. It was totally the wrong venue. I don’t need to be a scientist to be able to recognize that fact.
What you choose to do with your intellect and IQ points is your business. But, what you have displayed here feels very misguided, immature, trivial, cocky, unwise, obnoxious, and outright a waste of your own time, as well as ours. So, if I may quote you, “THAT, my friend is douchebaggery.” It is sad, because you seem to be well capable of doing so much better, which, personally, was what I was hoping for. After all, good minds are hard to find, and it’s a shame to see it wasted.
——–
(One last thing… Just because I can’t resist asking… Were you the forest, or was HR1 in your little proverb there?)
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 2:29 pm
@Lilaleo
Long post read and acknowledged. You are right about a few things, even while I disagree with a few other things. Thanks.
“you have an impressive intellect and IQ points to match (Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how I would describe HR1.)”
I expressed that myself when I wrote “mostly the discussion was high-level, well informed and intelligent. That assessment expressedly includes HR1, who generally came across to me as an educated, well-versed person…”
“(One last thing… Just because I can’t resist asking… Were you the forest, or was HR1 in your little proverb there?)”
Yes, I would have been the forest in my use of that proverb that HR1 would have been calling into.
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 5:12 pm
@Clyde
“That is an odd generalized observation about “Truthers” and an odd conclusion about “the movement”.”
My perception – it may be different from yours, and it may be inaccurate, but it is my perception – is that within the truth movement, there are only two groups of people who reject Harrit et al’s “nanothermite” findings:
– People pushing “exotic” theories about the WTC destructions – DEW, nukes, that lot
– People who believe all the death and destruction was caused by planes hijacked by Arab terrorists – as the official theory says – but that was consciously allowed and enabled by government agencies. The abbreviation “LIHOP” roughly describes that group.
The mainstream of the Truth Movement believes there was explosive demolition, and within that mainstream, Harrit et al stands unopposed and almost sacrosanct.
Same goes with the Chandler-mantra “freefall at WTC7 proves explosives on perimeter walls“.
Would you agree or disagree?
There is a lot of intelligence and even technical expertise assembled in that mainstream – and yet no one sees through the bogus!
This raises an important question to me:
WHY are all these people incapable of seeing the errors in fact and logic?
It puts into doubt the epistemology that all these people apply.
“Harrit’s paper may well be incompetent … I fail to see how that leads directly to the conclusion that failing to accept the official explanation of the events is an act of faith.”
This is taking my statement farther than I intended. There are “schools” of thought in the movement, offering (partial) alternative explanations – such as nukes, DEW, nanothermite. I didn’t mean to say that “failing to accept the official explanation” is an act of faith, but rather that believing in those partial alternative explanations is. Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?
sockpuppet2012
November 3, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Jens Schmidt said:
“Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?”
Conversely:
“Do you know any cognitive infiltrators who don’t have FANATICAL faith in Caveman Highjackers, AND 3,000 degree office fires AND paint chips from Hell?”
sockpuppet2012
November 3, 2015 at 6:54 pm
“…..despite all these things being the looniest harebrained nonsense anyone pretending to sanity could imagine”
sockpuppet2012
November 2, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Jens Schmidt said:
“And so are your scurrilous efforts here at trying to hold a candle to me – and failing badly”
Willy, I don’t want to sound like I’m telling you what to do…..I’m just offering some advice that has always worked for me.
When Jens Schmidt says you can’t hold a candle to him…..just say:
“Nuh uhh”
It works for me all the time…..try it!
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 4:31 pm
@SP2012:
HR1 is at that level already.
Even below.
Saying “Nuh uhh” has the advantage of saving him from adding yet another stupidity on the large pile of false claims he hasn’t retracted in this thread ;)
Today I have been posting mainly for the entertainment value of seeing HR1 stumble from one failure to the next to the next.
This, while I am waiting for ruffadam to hopefully post links and sources where Jones and Harrit addressed this argument “about the red/grey chips being paint“.
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 7:11 am
@rediscover911com
“Iron sperules were not produced by the Basile studies, were they?”
You contradict yourself in the very next sentence:
“Iron sperules were produced by combusting the red/gray chips.”
Perhaps you mean Basile didn’t produce iron-rich spherules when burning paint? Probably – likely. I never claimed that it is the paint (the red layer) that produces the iron-rich spherules. I believe they come from heating the gray layer (oxidized iron).
Anyway, let’s look at Basile’s entire presentation. He starts talking about his work on red-gray chips a bit before the 30 minutes mark:
At 30:00 minutes, he shows a VLM image of chip #13. This is the chip that he later shows burning in the video.
At 39:30 minutes, he shows the XEDS plot of the red layer of this chip #13. He finds it is only about 1.3 to 1.7% by weight Aluminium, has about the same amount of Silicon, and 1.7 to 2.6% Iron. It has, however, >70% Carbon! Since the carbon can’t be elemental (the would be either intensely black then, or diamond), it surely is bound – mostly with oxygen and with hydrogen (the latter generally doesn’t show in XEDS) – it is a hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbons typically have densities of around or under 1 g/cm^3, while thermite would average about 4 g/cm^3. If you assume a perfect mix of iron oxide and aluminium, and do your math right, you will find that the chip would contain under 5% by weight thermite and ober 80% by weight hydrocarbon. Applying the densities, that means the chip would be only about 1% by volume thermite. Applying specific energies for thermite (under 4 kJ/g) and typical organic binders (at least 20 kJ/g), you will find that the thermite could contribute under 0.2 kJ/g to an exotherm (5% of 4 kJ/g), while the organic matrix would contribute 16 kJ/g or more (80% of 20 kJ/g). So thermite would contribute less than 1.25% of the total energy of combustion.
At 41:42, the video clip of chip #13 burning begins. Remember: 99% or more of the heat released in that video MUST have come from organic combustion! Unless you want to claim that Basile’s XEDS results are wrong.
At 43:00: VLM of same chip #13 after burning – it looks charred, proving that indeed much of the organic matrix did react.
At 43:07, a VLM image at higher resolution of some of the ash he collected from the same chip #13:
The first thing you should notice is that, as in Harrit et al’s experiments, there is still a lot of red material left – the 2.6% iron with oxide didn’t even react to completion, further lowering the maximum possible contribution of a hypothetical thermite reaction!
The second thing to notice is that the “iron droplets” are surprisingly large – it is difficult to discern what length the scale marke “200 µm” refers to, but it appears that several of these droplets are on that order of magnitude: A couple of hundred micrometers long. For a chip that started out only a dozen by two dozen hundreds of µm, that is a very significant percentage of the entire volume, especially considering that that less than 1% of the volume of the red layer would have been thermite, according to the XEDS data. With elemental iron being almost twice as dense as thermite, and iron being only 50% of the residue of the thermite reaction, the iron residue shoule be no more that 0.25% of the original volume of the red layer. That volume was approximately 1.6 mm x 2.1 mm x 0.05 mm = 0.168 cubic mm. 0.25% of that would be 0.00042 cubic mm. That is the maximum amount of elemental iron that would be possible if ALL the iron oxide in the red layer was involved in a perfect thermite reaction.
0.00042 cubic mm could form a cube of 75 micrometers in each dimension. Four of the five droplets that Basile points to appear larger than that. It is therefore impossible that the droplets formed from the iron in the red layer!
The third thing you should notice is that never accounts for the gray layer after burning. What happened to it? Where did it go? What does it look like?
There is an obvious answer: The larger “iron droplets” formed from the gray layer, not the red paint!
At 46:30, he shows a VLM of some particles, and at 47:00 a SEM image and corresponding elemental make-up from XEDS of the smaller particle in the center of 46:30. What do we have? 53% iron and 21.3% oxygen, or 2.5:1 by weight. That’s awfully close to the theoretical 2.33:1 you’d expect for fully oxidized iron (Fe2O3). Plus a good 8% of C, and 5 and 8% for Al and Si, respectively. Plus some Ca, Cr, and other bits and pieces. What’s this? Mostly iron oxide and aluminium silicate, with a good bit of soot. Best explanation would be that this did form from the paint. Too bad he didn’t zoom in with the SEM to show the nanoscale – I have little doubt we would see the familiar rhombic 100 nm iron oxide pigments and one of those kaolin (Si-Al-O) platelets.
Why didn’t Basile show one of the larger droplets? I have little doubt they have little to no Al+Si, and instead would reveal about 1% Mn.
Why doesn’t he show XEDS for the gray layer before and after? Harrit et al’s gray layer XEDS for chips a-d clearly has a small but significant hump at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha value of manganese – the gray layer is structural steel.
“You have ignored this, Jens Schmidt”
I have ignored nothing. You see, I know and understand ALL of his results – they actually contradict his conclusions.
sockpuppet2012
November 2, 2015 at 7:38 pm
“Jens Schmidt” ….. no, not that Jens Schmidt ….. the “other” “Jen Schmidt” said:
“Bla..bla..bla…bla…bla!”
Lilaleo asked:
“Others have asked, but no reply has come forward from you, Jens.
1. What is it exactly that you are after?
2. Why are you discussing extreme technicalities here with people who are obviously and admittedly not engineers or scientist?
3. Why here?
4. How exactly is this discussion “testing” your scientific chops about the subject matter.
5. How come you are wasting your “genius” on a page like this?”
Enquiring minds want to know. “Jens”
Your head seems large enough to hold an incredible amount of brains.
Do you think you might be able to muster up enough brain power to answer those five simple questions….hmmm?
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 8:22 am
@HR1
“I have to wonder if “our” Jens Schmidt watched the same video of Harrit, with the last part showing Mark Basile’s experiment.”
I sure had watched both presentation – both Harrit’s and Basile’s entire presentations, before. I just discussed Basile’s entire presentation on his red-gray chip work here:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36814
Bottom line: Basile shows there is both too little Aluminium and too little Iron in the red layer to account for the heat release or the volume of the “iron spherules” (which, no doubt, are iron oxide blobs). Basile’s data refutes his “thermite” conclusion.
“First Harrit clearly explains why the aluminum is so scarce”
What? Where? No. Why do you make up stuff again?
“and how it is separated from the silicon”
No. He shows an apple (chip a) that obviously has Al and Si associated in those hexagonal platelets (kaolin clay), then he shows a banana he soaked in MEK where Si and Al are not associated.
The proof that the latter chip is a banana and not an apple is Fig 14 compared to Fig 7. He acknowledges the obvious differences between the spectra – and then simply handwaves them! Claims “contamination” without providing evidence for that claim!
Do you have the the Harrit et al paper handy? Please open it at Fig 14!
Now please open this (December) 2009 presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, starting at about 1:14 hours:
He presents results from an analysis of actual WTC primer, scratched off of column that is part of a monument now. The XEDS result is shown at 1:14:50 (the larger chart on the right).
Now compare this to Fig 14, the XEDS of that banana chip before MEK soaking! Do you notice something?
– Both are dominated by C and O (the usual hydrocarbon matrix), then Ca (erroneously labeled “C” in the Jones presentation)
– Both have a LOT more Si than Al (this in contrast to chips a-d, which all have same amounts)
– Both have some sulfur
– Both have smaller but significant amounts of Zn, Mg (not labeled in Fig. 14), Al and Cr
That MEK-soaked chip sure looke very different from chips a-d, but surprisingly similar to WTC column paint – do you see that, HR1?
So Harrit clearly compares a banana with apples.)
“both of which are in minute quantities after the the chip is burned.”
They ought not be – elements don’t vanish, neither Al nor Si form volatile substances when burning. That is one main reason why Harrit, Jones and Basile FAIL: They fail to show the necessary residue of Al2O3., of which there should be a LOT more by volume than “iron droplets” (thermite residue is about the same masses of Fe and Al2O3, but Al2O3 only has half the density, so there should be twice the volume)!
Not finding large amounts of Al2O3 is another killer for the thermite hypothesis, which we have by now killed at least four times!
“Moving on to Basiles, experiment which clearly shows a thermitic reaction which results in the production of iron spheroids”
No. See my other post, linked above.
“Now why does this need to be explained over again to someone who actually watched and absorbed this video?”
You failed to watch and absorb and UNDERSTAND the entire presentations, which have more data than you knew.
Basiles own data kills thermite.
You also quietly dropped the Harrit letter “Why the paint chips aren’t paint” – why? He briefly touches on that in his failed presentation, but the real big fail is in that letter itself!
You should read the letter, fully, carefully. Check the premises, check the logic, check the math, check the conclusions.
If you are intelligent, and are capable of independent, free thought, you, too, can find the several severe blunders in that letter that totally kill the conclusion three times over.
In fact. as I will show you in due time, Harrit reveals new data in that letter that actually corroborates the “paint” hypothesis.
So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?
hybridrogue1
November 3, 2015 at 8:59 am
“So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?”~Schmidt
The primer paint when dry is:
> Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
> Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
> Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%
Put that on your heat strip and cook it.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 12:15 pm
@HR1
“The primer paint when dry is:
> Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
> Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
> Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%
Did you check the assumptions, the source documents, the logic and the math that led to these percentages? Did you verify they are all correct?
If you had done this (as I advised you to do at least twice), you might have noticed that
– Harrit hat one crucial base assumption WRONG
– Has another, less crucial, assumption very probably wrong
– Harrit MISREADS one source documents
– Harrit MISREPRESENT another source document
– Harrit has got his math FAULTY.
A chain of rather stupid mistakes led to this result. It is patently FALSE.
The primer, when dry, EITHER is
> 0% Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4)
> 0%Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2)
> 0% Calcium silicates or aluminates
(and instead: 16% iron oxide Fe2O3, 12% Aluminium Silicate Al2Si2O5(OH)4, 1.1% Strontium Chromate SrCrO4)
OR is approximately
> 13-14% Iron Oxide (Fe2O3)
> 7-8% Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4)
> 3.5-4% amorphous silica (SiO2)
> 12-13% other, unknown pigments, possibly including Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) and/or Calcium silicates or aluminates
OR
some other, as of yet unknown composition.
Why? Because Harrit’s first and worst FALSE assumption is that all paint chips would have a composition according to the Tnemec Red 99 recipe as reported by Sramek 1967. This specification however only applies to the perimeter columns above the 9th floor.
The floor joists were painted with another primer paint, one that has only the three pigments I listed in the first set of numbers.
And it is quite possible that core columns, perimeter below the 9th floor, the hat truss, the antenna, and all the steel assemblies of WTC7 were painted with other primer formulations.
The second (most probably) false assumption in Harrit’s letter is that he believes the Material Safety Data Sheet in Figure 4, valid I think for the year 2000, applies to the Tnemec composition of the late 60s or early 70s.
He misrepresent that MSD sheet as describing the ingredients of the proprietary “Tnemec Pigment”, which was 33.7% of the total pigment, but it actually described the ready, wet paint, including all the oganic resin and thinners.
He misreads the Tnemec composition (Figure 3): He thinks the percentages behind the individual pigments are based on the weigh of the ready wet painst as 100%. However, the four pigments add up to 100%, and the seven vehicle ingedients also add up to 100%! Zinc Yellow is 20.3% of the pigments, not of the paint! What is the proportion Pigments:Vehicle? We don’t know! But it is reasonable to assume that a proportion of 30:70 is plausible. Zinc Yellow would thus be 20.3% of the 30% that the Pigment are in the wet paint – that’s only 6.1% in the wet paint. Yes, thinners would probably evaporate during drying and curing, but because of the aforementioned blunders, Harrit overestimates the amount of thinners to subtract from the wet paint – his faulty math results in ~40% volatile ingredients, in reality it’s only ~22%.
See? The world renowned, excellently published Professor Dr. Harrit commits error after error after error – and yet, 6 years laters, no Truther ever spoted all these glaring errors, and Harrit himself has not retracted this letter, of which he should rightfully be deeply ashamed!
Now the floor joist primer composition
71.5% epoxy
16% iron oxide
11.5% Aluminium Silicate
1.1% Strontium Chromate SrCrO4
happens to be an excellent match for Fig 5 (right) where Harrit reveals what Harrit et al concealed in Figure 7: That Chip a has small but significant signals for Strontium and Chromium!
And the corrected Tnemec Red 99 composition seems to be a reasonable match for both Figure 6 in the Harrit letter (Fig 14 in Harrit et al) and the WTC column chip that Jones presented in Sydney.
So you see: Harrit’s letter backfires: it actually corroborates the paint conclusion, once you correct for all the stupid mistakes Harrit links together.
rediscover911com
November 3, 2015 at 12:24 pm
Jens wrote: “Blah, blah, blah”
Controlled demolition, Jens. Iron spherules, Jen.
hybridrogue1
November 3, 2015 at 1:12 pm
“Yes, thinners would probably evaporate during drying and curing,”~Schmidt
WTF do you mean “probably”??? I am a painter Schmidt, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.
> Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
> Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
> Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%
Comes to about 56% of the ingredients, the other 35% would be solvents.
As per your further assumptions asserted as facts…. well, as others have said here;
“Bla bla bla” & more “Bla bla bla”
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm
@HR1
WTF do you mean “probably”??? I am a painter Schmidt, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.
I am not a painter. I am not 100% sure how each paint is applied and how each paint reacts when curing.
There are paints where nothing evaporates and no weight loss occurs.
I am merely hedging my claim with the qualifier “probably”.
But I am glad that you agree with Harrit and me on that particular point.
Comes to about 56% of the ingredients, the other 35% would be solvents.
LOL
56+35=100?
Harrit did not list the other pigments – the iron oxide and and the diatomaceous silica. He arrived at those numbers by dividing the listed pigment content by 0.6. Do that to the other pigments:
Iron oxide 35.9% -> divided by 0.6 -> 59.8%
Silica 10.1% -> divided by 0.6 -> 16.8%
Add those to the 56%, and the pigments are 133% of the ingredients.
LMAO!
As per your further assumptions asserted as facts…. well, as others have said here; “Bla bla bla” & more “Bla bla bla”
You have finally hit rock bottom.
hybridrogue1
November 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm
“LOL 56+35=100?”~Schmidt
Lol, yea, okay next time I will pick up a pencil instead of guesstimating off the top of my head.
We are in the ballpark anyway.
So you posit, GUESS, that the primer has some micaceous iron oxide. And you are obviously proposing that this could in some way account for the microspheres in the residue of burning a primer of such.
How?
How to you propose this would happen without subjecting it to temperatures in the range of 1,150 to 1,200 °C? Are you seriously contending that the approximate 450° ignition range used in Basile’s experiments could possibly achieve this? These are dried chips, there is no benzine available for coking them.
\\][//
@utu
“Not true. Harrit claims that microsphers are Fe rich products left by thermitic 2Al+F2O3 reaction.”
He claims, but doesn’t prove, and in fact we have been over the many reasons to reject the “thermite” conclusion – haven’t we?
Harrit essentially claims that “thermite” is the ONLY process that could form such spherules. It is a bare assertion. He hasn’t demonstrated that the iron-rich particles are really iron, he hasn’t demonstrated Al2O3 as the other necessary thermite product, he hasn’t shown that there was a sufficient quantity of elemental Al before the reaction, if any at all.
He speculates.
With so much organic matrix surrounding the pigments, there is also a significant heat sink that would make it very difficult for the brew to reach the melting point of iron or iron oxide.
He speculates, and for all that you can see, I speculate about the formation of those round shapes.
“ Burden is on you since you reject thermitic reaction you speculate on some exotic to me chemical reactions. Benzene?”
No, burden is on them for their claim.
Burden would be on my for my claim.
I do not “claim” benzene, I suggest it as one of many possibilities. Epoxy is a heavily crosslinked hydrocarbon network with plenty of benzene rings. I don’t know if benzene is released when epoxy decomposes at a bit above 400 °C, but if it does, it could reduce iron oxide. That would change the crystal structure of the gray layer lattice, and could give rise to shape changes, with spherical being the energetically prefered.
“If the spheres were formed in the process (i.e., they were not pre-existent and hidden) high temperature is implied.”
I agree that they probably weren’t pre-existent.
We do have high temperatures;
DSC went to controlled 700 °C
Flame test by Harrit et al could exceed 2000 °C just from the flame tip
We have not the slightest idea how hot Basiles steel heating strip got – might exceed 700 °C – we don’t know.
So there WAS heat, plenty of heat to enable a lot of reactions.
“So it was melting or release of Fe by one of the oxides. To form a sphere a melted Fe had exist for a brief moment but long enough that surface tension could form a sphere”
I don’t think that bulk melting is the only process that results in round shapes. Condensing and sintering are two others.
But again, I don’t have an explanation yet.
And neither does Harrit, because they have failed to identify thermite or thermite residues.
utu
November 4, 2015 at 1:30 am
Harrit claims that he has thermite and on basis of thermite he explains iron rich spheres.
You claim there is no thermite and you do not know how to explain spheres.
On the basis of evidence (Harrit +Millette) at best you can prove that Harritt did not prove what he claimed but you cannot disprove his claim.
You got to accept that even if you can demonstrate all the faults in Harrit et al. methodology you cannot prove there was no thermite. But for some reason you blur this distinction and keep sneaking in arguments for the stronger case. And you do not have it.
I am glad that at least you admit you do not how to explain iron rich spheres without invoking thermite. Harrit et al. invokes thermite so he does not have your problem.
hybridrogue1
November 4, 2015 at 7:28 am
Utu,
I owe you an apology, so here it is. Although I do not agree with your final assessment here, and do think that the Jones-Harrit paper sufficiently proves the presence of a sol-gel energetic; I no longer think that you have been disingenuous here.
I accused you of being in partnership with Schmidt. I no longer think that is so. You were no more in partnership with him than I was. We were both duped into a long squabble that ended up in the weeds of uncertainty.
\\][//
utu
November 4, 2015 at 8:02 am
Thank you for writing this comment. I do not know what to think of Jens Schmidt but he is not trying to find truth as I thought initially or convince other of his truth as I began to suspect later but he is on some warpath. He was all the time at each stage of discussion disingenuous in some way.
ruffadam
November 4, 2015 at 4:54 am
I estimate that the number of “dumbed down” people vs the enlightened ones runs anywhere from 90% to 97% dumbed down with 3% to 10% being enlightened.
In my opinion those ratio’s have always been about at that level from as far back in time as you want to look.
That is not a bad thing though and here is why: Even if the full 97% of the population is “dumbed down” that still leaves 3% who are wise to the game that is being played here. The American revolution was fought and won by 3% of the population and 3% of America today is about 9.5 million people. That is an army of 9.5 million really smart people vs a very tiny cabal of arrogant criminal scumbags who happen to be in positions of power.
This tiny cabal may count the 97% as being on their side but here is why they are wrong: The 97% are not on anyone’s side simply because they are sheep and they will go wherever the sheep herder leads them. So who is the sheep herder? I think it is us the 3%. I think we are winning the information war and winning it BIG. That makes us the sheep herder and ultimately the victorious side. The cabal who pulled off 9/11 are dead meat and the noose is tightening around their necks. They have already lost the information war and that means that slowly but surely they are going to lose control over everything. The guilty will swing from trees soon enough the only question remaining is how much damage they can do on their way to the gallows. Make no mistake their ass is grass.
Hell we already know who most of the perps are for 9/11 and there is a growing population of people who are learning the truth. Their fate is sealed, they are going to swing.
ruffadam
November 4, 2015 at 4:32 am
Just to point out once again the original topic of discussion here was Jenkins using deceptive language to imply that A+E support his and Chandlers pentagon position. Well that is indeed deceptive and dishonest and I think Jenkins should respond to this serious allegation. Since Jenkins is very unlikely to respond and Chandler has no intention of responding I consider the allegation to be unchallenged.
I find it just a bit too convenient that at least one new person has shown up here on T+S who seems very intent on changing the subject to a very technical one involving the red/grey chips identified by Jones and Haritt. More than half the thread is now flooded with this off topic discussion. In previous threads it would have fallen to agent Wright to disrupt the thread and challenge the truthers positions with an off topic post. Now it seems to have been kicked upstairs to a more sophisticated agent of disruption who has none the less succeeded in derailing the discussion.
Bottom line for me at this point is that T+S must be a real thorn in the side of the bad guys to attract so many and such sophisticated disruptors.
I do not think Jones findings have been challenged at all. Personally I think it is an argument meant to baffle us with bullshit and a lot of it. The towers were clearly blown up with explosives and clearly thermite/nano-thermite was involved in the destruction at some level. However that is NOT the topic under discussion here. This topic is about Jenkins and his pentagon position.
Does not anyone else see what is going on in this thread? Schmidt needs to take his argument up with Jones and Haritt where in my opinion he will be quickly and decisively dispatched. I want to talk about Jenkins and the disinfo team that this article is all about. I am not interested in a highly technical argument about what certain lab equipment can and cannot detect because frankly Schmidt could say literally anything about it and I have no real way to evaluate his statements. Jones and Haritt are the ones to talk to. Frankly I am sick of this discussion being derailed.
hybridrogue1
November 4, 2015 at 7:20 am
“Jones and Haritt are the ones to talk to. Frankly I am sick of this discussion being derailed.” ~Adam Ruff
As one of the main participants in this derailment I am in total agreement with Mr Ruff.
Learning not to get suckered into these carousels is difficult, even when you realize that is all it is, an endless carousel ride to the boondocks of distraction.
As an excuse, and that is all it is in this context, I felt that logic and proportion should be defended. Oft times revealing the techniques of a provocateur are beneficial.
And on that note, although I don’t agree with Utu’s final assessment, I have changed my mind as to him/her being in a covert partnership with Schmidt. I think Utu was taken in and is honestly trying to figure out the truth of a fairly complex argument.
As it is said, “we live and learn” — sometimes redundantly, over and over again!
\\][//
x227 ruffadam : trolls are tripping all over themselves to post their garbage here
2015-10-19 through 2015-11-05
ruffadam
October 19, 2015 at 7:07 pm
I think the fact that trolls are tripping all over themselves to post their garbage here is a very positive sign. The more of them that show up and the harder they try the more damage I know these recent articles are doing to the perps. It seems to me that when there is a really hard hitting piece done here, or elsewhere for that matter, that the trolls just gurgle forth from their caves in mass and try every trick in the book to ruin the discourse or to distract from the point. The more the trolls get worked up into a lather the more I know we are having an effect on them, the more I know the noose is tightening around their necks. Great article Craig. I think I am going to buy a copy of Massimo’s film today! The unedited version of course, not the Jenkins cut.
ruffadam
October 20, 2015 at 6:59 am
Sheila,
Legge and crew simply used the CD argument to build up credibility capitol since the truth movement had already proved that the towers were demolished. This way the agent(s) lose nothing by admitting to or even appearing to support CD. Later on they trade in their free credibility capitol so they can do more damage to the truth movement on issues that are more dangerous to the perps, like the pentagon for example. Chandler and some of the others may just be dupes fooled by Legge’s flim flam or they may be operatives too. We will never know for sure without a whistle blower coming forward. I do know one thing though, one or more of these people are working for the other side and they are doing everything in their power to suppress the pentagon evidence. The good news is their mission is a failure and they are completely and utterly discredited.
f
ruffadam
October 31, 2015 at 7:42 pm
Jens,
I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
Have you done so already? If so please direct me to your paper/presentation. What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time. I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
So far though, and this is just my opinion, Jens it seems to me that you are missing the forest because of the trees. There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos. Surely you are not saying that was caused by office fires reacting with (take your pick)? It seems very clear to me that this was molten metal pouring out which from my understanding could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer. Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower? Jones and Harrits theory does.
ruffadam
October 31, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Several typo’s in the above which I could not correct after it was posted. They are as follows:
I said: “I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
I meant to say: “I have seen this argument before about the red/grey chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”
I said: “could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer.”
I meant to say: “could not be produced by burning office contents or paint or primer.”
Jens Schmidt
November 2, 2015 at 4:31 pm
@SP2012:
HR1 is at that level already.
Even below.
Saying “Nuh uhh” has the advantage of saving him from adding yet another stupidity on the large pile of false claims he hasn’t retracted in this thread ;)
Today I have been posting mainly for the entertainment value of seeing HR1 stumble from one failure to the next to the next.
This, while I am waiting for ruffadam to hopefully post links and sources where Jones and Harrit addressed this argument “about the red/grey chips being paint“.
ruffadam
November 4, 2015 at 4:54 am
I estimate that the number of “dumbed down” people vs the enlightened ones runs anywhere from 90% to 97% dumbed down with 3% to 10% being enlightened.
In my opinion those ratio’s have always been about at that level from as far back in time as you want to look.
That is not a bad thing though and here is why: Even if the full 97% of the population is “dumbed down” that still leaves 3% who are wise to the game that is being played here. The American revolution was fought and won by 3% of the population and 3% of America today is about 9.5 million people. That is an army of 9.5 million really smart people vs a very tiny cabal of arrogant criminal scumbags who happen to be in positions of power.
This tiny cabal may count the 97% as being on their side but here is why they are wrong: The 97% are not on anyone’s side simply because they are sheep and they will go wherever the sheep herder leads them. So who is the sheep herder? I think it is us the 3%. I think we are winning the information war and winning it BIG. That makes us the sheep herder and ultimately the victorious side. The cabal who pulled off 9/11 are dead meat and the noose is tightening around their necks. They have already lost the information war and that means that slowly but surely they are going to lose control over everything. The guilty will swing from trees soon enough the only question remaining is how much damage they can do on their way to the gallows. Make no mistake their ass is grass.
Hell we already know who most of the perps are for 9/11 and there is a growing population of people who are learning the truth. Their fate is sealed, they are going to swing.
ruffadam
November 4, 2015 at 4:32 am
Just to point out once again the original topic of discussion here was Jenkins using deceptive language to imply that A+E support his and Chandlers pentagon position. Well that is indeed deceptive and dishonest and I think Jenkins should respond to this serious allegation. Since Jenkins is very unlikely to respond and Chandler has no intention of responding I consider the allegation to be unchallenged.
I find it just a bit too convenient that at least one new person has shown up here on T+S who seems very intent on changing the subject to a very technical one involving the red/grey chips identified by Jones and Haritt. More than half the thread is now flooded with this off topic discussion. In previous threads it would have fallen to agent Wright to disrupt the thread and challenge the truthers positions with an off topic post. Now it seems to have been kicked upstairs to a more sophisticated agent of disruption who has none the less succeeded in derailing the discussion.
Bottom line for me at this point is that T+S must be a real thorn in the side of the bad guys to attract so many and such sophisticated disruptors.
I do not think Jones findings have been challenged at all. Personally I think it is an argument meant to baffle us with bullshit and a lot of it. The towers were clearly blown up with explosives and clearly thermite/nano-thermite was involved in the destruction at some level. However that is NOT the topic under discussion here. This topic is about Jenkins and his pentagon position.
Does not anyone else see what is going on in this thread? Schmidt needs to take his argument up with Jones and Haritt where in my opinion he will be quickly and decisively dispatched. I want to talk about Jenkins and the disinfo team that this article is all about. I am not interested in a highly technical argument about what certain lab equipment can and cannot detect because frankly Schmidt could say literally anything about it and I have no real way to evaluate his statements. Jones and Haritt are the ones to talk to. Frankly I am sick of this discussion being derailed.
x228 Maxwell Bridges : Blessed for having read? Did they find any good on which to hold fast?
2015-10-29
2015-10-29
2015-10-29
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.
//
x229 Maxwell Bridges : a provocateur very good at rhetoric
2015-11-18
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/
hybridrogue1
November 18, 2015 at 11:15 am
“You think that I am a stooge and shill, don’t you?”~Jen Schmidt — in a comment to me higher above.
Yes indeed I do Schmidt. I am convinced that you are a provocateur. One that is very good at rhetoric. And by rhetoric, I mean bullshitting; making seemingly plausible arguments out of hot air.
You assert that I find anyone who disagrees with me a stooge and shill. This is a statement drawn from how long a familiarity with me? If it is a familiarity longer than a couple weeks now, then I would suspect you have a file on me.
Your complaint is more one of a tepid attempt at self defense against those of us who are intimately familiar with the Intelligence community, who know and recognize the MO of agents provocateur. Your profile is unmistakable Schmidt.
While there is the benefit of the doubt for Uto and Brotherton, in that they are likely just lazy thinking fools, you are a different creature all together. You are an apologist and toady for the criminal state.
\\][//
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: Willy Whitten
cc: unspunnewz
bcc: Craig McKee
date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM
subject: [New comment] Going full debladder: provocateur
Dear Mr. Whitten,
You should be grateful that I am not participating on T&S. Mr. Jens Schmidt is more than a match for you, doesn't need my help, and pings my curiosity in his true underlying vector in the discussions with you. I considered his points (and yours) objectively, and I agree with his arguments [including the shill take-down.]
Demonstrating my continued naiveity, I am astonished that you aren't having any "ah-ha moments" from your discussions with Mr. Schmidt, which would have you ratchet back the autodictat snark and coolly reconsider your position on NT. Remember that I had found NT unreasonable as the primary cause from other directions. If you were a sincere and honest participant, by golly these would be two data points in a trend line to get your hard-and-fast opinions waffling (if I didn't suspect those opinions were really "agendas").
Although I don't know whether or not Mr. Schmidt is a duped useful idiot like myself, I do know that he rings more sincerity and technical understanding than you, in part because I have known you way longer. [Whatever inspired you to perpetuate the lie about having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book for literally years? El-oh-el, talk about the gift that keeps on giving and a cherry-on-top of failing a simple objectivity test.]
I don't know what to think of Mr. Utu. But you've got Mr. Sockpuppet2012 and Mr. RuffAdam slapping you on the back. "Projecting" is a recent theme that they discuss, but interesting that you seem to exhibit in this very comment below.
Mr. Utu gets it right in calling you out for your got-it-in-the-morning-all-day sour attitude. You are rude. On purpose to derail discussion topics that are uncomfortable or that you can't control. Data points in your trend line, Mr. Whitten.
Reminds me of an experience I had with an agent before your time. He had cornered himself with banning worthy offenses in a forum; I escalated with the admins because it was aimed at me. Ironically parallel with Mr. Whitten's near banishment from COTO and self-imposed exile. But the banishment didn't stick, and the agent bounced right back. And not under some new alias, which would have been so easy for this admitted IT professional to do, having access to multiple email accounts and IP addresses. No, he bounced back in less than a week with the exact same alias. When confronted about his return, he said that he didn't want to but he was asked to come back. The implication was the establishment hosting the forum asked him to participate and to continue to stomp his black-boots down on the voices of others [non-traditional themes]; the establishment enabled through IT means his return, because somehow his "services" were deemed beneficial.
The moral of that story is also a lesson from Hollywood. Namely, your production has to have an antagonist -- the nastier the better -- or you won't inspire interest and emotions in the audience requisite for them to get attached and follow.
So Mr. Whitten, I can rationally understand why Mr. McKee tolerates you. Your posting count alone increases the page hit counts [useful bragging rights for job seeking in Mr. McKee's profession and for advertisement], and you are the circus act, the carnival barker, the provocateur.
I look forward to the new article about Mr. Schmidt on your blog and its dedicated comments, Mr. Whitten. You're going to need it, sooner than later. Use it to gather your arguments. If you've learned nothing from your blog postings in homage to me, your off-T&S efforts against Mr. Schmidt need to be clean and void of your clever "whitten" ad hominem, otherwise links that you make from T&S to it will ultimately discredit you (further). Clean slate for Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Whitten. Resist the urge to post about him under your blog entries dedicated to me. FTR, I state again that I am not Mr. Schmidt, uttered out of fairness so you can avoid alias-ASS-ociating whomp-ass from two directions.
Where is Mr. Schmidt's argument headed? His nuclear statements to date straddled the fence. What is important is that he is legitimating taking down NT, so that the true causes of the WTC destruction can be discussed. Maybe he's championing 4th generation nuclear devices. Or maybe another shoe will drop. I don't know.
Stooge Larry or Curly you seem to be, Mr. Whitten, with your "Moe! Moe! Moe!" comments. Or was it M.O.? El-oh-el.
There is also at your disposal as an option: STFU. Given your sour attitude and your repeated expressions of being tired of the same types of carousel rides, maybe you are the one who should get off, get out, and go some where else. [Facebook calls you.]
//
x230 David Hazan (@Lilaleo) : put dicks back in pants
2015-11-18
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
November 18, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Jens, Utu an HR1,
OK, gentlemen (so to speak)…. Time for everyone to put their dicks back in their pants. This has become a ghastly sight, and a discussion that no one is benefiting from… (and I really wish someone on this blog with bigger feathers than myself would have intervened)
Jens… From almost your first few comments here at T&S, it was clear to me that you were not only a douchebag, but you also had some ulterior motive to your toxic dickishness… A very common mistake that smart people make is that they assume they can, and will outsmart everyone, forgetting that their words are a window into there souls, character, intentions and motives…. And god knows you have exposed way too many of your windows here… That is your biggest weakness my douchebag friend… And that is exactly why all your IQ points will never yield any wisdom, which, for civilized argumentation, is a pre-requisite. If you are saying, “forget about my character and/or wisdom, you can’t prove me wrong on my scientific analysis”, then take your analysis to a more appropriate venue. You can decide where.
(And, if you are gonna go “how come you don’t call HR1 or Utu douchebags?” like last time, it’s because Utu is not one… He argues all his points with decorum, whether I agree with them or not… As for HR1, you are welcome to reread my previous reply to that question)
Watch out with that zipper now…
All the best.
x231 Maxwell Bridges : Why doesn't Mr. Whitten get legitimately pegged as a "douchebag" too?
2015-11-18
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: Willy Whitten
cc: unspunnewz
bcc: Craig McKee
date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:36 PM
subject: [New comment] Going full debladder
I forgot to mention Mr. Hazan (Lilaleo), a person Mr. Whitten allows to post comments on his blog. Now a good buddy.
Mr. Hazan writes that Mr. Utu argues his points with decorum, thus being spared being called a "douchebag". However, the same cannot be said about Mr. Whitten. Why doesn't Mr. Whitten get legitimately pegged as a "douchebag" too?
In a word: hypocrisy.
In a phrase: team work.
Mr. Schmidt has legitimately trounced Mr. Whitten on the topics. Mr. Whitten has shot his wad by promising to get off the carousel. Therefore, tag-teaming Mr. Hazan must step in.
But I still look forward to Mr. Whitten's new blog entry focused on Mr. Schmidt's argument. Of course, we know this man-date will be beyond Mr. Whitten's abilities and a character assassination (has and) will ensue.
//
x232 hybridrogue1, sockpuppet2012 : carousel has gone on too long; I have had enough
2015-11-18
hybridrogue1
November 18, 2015 at 3:13 pm
“There is no need to address any of the content in the previous context, as HR1 failed to provide any evidence to support his fantasies about me.”~Schmidt
We are supposed to take your denials of being a stooge at face value? Lol
Preposterous. The permanent members of this site are not so childish as to believe such empty denials.
This carousel has gone on too long. Blab on as you will. I have had enough of your bullshit.
\\][//
sockpuppet2012
November 18, 2015 at 6:12 pm
HR1 said:
“We are supposed to take your denials of being a stooge at face value? Lol
Preposterous. The permanent members of this site are not so childish as to believe such empty denials”
Jens Schmidt said:
“The non-childish members of this site will see that your accusations are empty, as they are void of supporting evidence”
Wrong, Mr. Schmidt!
HR1 has already said “it’s your MO”
It is not necessarily the content of your comments…..it is the fact that you are here at ALL that brands you as an Agent.
We wonder what you are doing here.
You were asked before what you were doing here on a PENTAGON thread talking about nano-thermite.
Your limp answer was:
“I just wanted to see how my information would be received”
But you saw how it was received in the first hour…..what was your excuse after that?…..and why on a Pentagon thread?
What could possibly motivate you to spend hours a day…..day in, day out, arguing with people you seem to see as delusional?
By your comments, I get the impression that you see Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer and others as crack-pots or attention seekers.
What, in the name of sanity do you hope to accomplish here???
Are you motivated by magnanimity?…..are you sacrificing your leisure time that you could be spending with your wife and children, in hopes of delivering one or more of us from our delusions?
Are you motivated by Narcissism?….do you “get off” by showing how “smart” you are?
I compare your actions to my own actions if I was to spend hours a day, day in, day out, arguing on a Crop Circle forum.
I can imagine the Crop Circlers finally asking me:
“Uhh…..excuse me Mr. Sockpuppet, but the people on this Forum have been discussing you in private conversations, and we have come up with some questions we would like you to answer before we engage in any more debate with you”
1. What could possibly motivate you to come onto this Crop Circle Forum and spend hours and hours, day after day showing off your vast knowledge of geometry, trigonometry, botany, horticulture and geology, when you seem to think we are nuts?
2. What do you hope to accomplish?
3. Is your life so empty and meaningless that you are driven to prove yourself superior and more intelligent than others?
4. Are you religiously motivated?….do you hope to win some souls from the “deception” of Crop Circles?
Ok, Mr. Schmidt…..what could my answer possibly be to the Crop Circlers?
How could I possibly explain my actions if I wasn’t religiously, magnanimously or Narcissistically motivated?
What is motivating you, Mr. Schmidt, to devote so much time on a blog where you seem to think the people are nuts….unless you are an Agent?
That seems to be the only possible explanation.
I lay a hundred to one that you don’t spend a single minute of your life on Crop Circle, Big Foot, Loch Ness or Flat Earth websites.
x233 Maxwell C. Bridges : questions should really be aimed at Mr. Whitten
2015-11-18
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: Truth and Shadows
Willy Whitten
bcc: Craig McKee
date: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:42 PM
subject: Re: [New comment] Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story
Nice team work, Mr. Sockpuppet2012.
Alas, your questions should really be aimed at Mr. Whitten. Just tally the number of posts that he has and a different picture will emerge as to who is spending all of his time here.
I could be wrong, but Mr. Schmidt may be in Europe, which would make his participation here an after work hobby, as opposed to the day job that Mr. Whitten makes it out to be.
//
x234 hybridrogue1, sockpuppet2012 : Schmidt is a squamous faced toadyboy
2015-11-18
hybridrogue1
November 18, 2015 at 10:07 pm
Yea Sock, I agree that Schmidt is a squamous faced toadyboy. I just see nothing profited by continued dialog with the stooge.
\\][//
x235 Maxwell C. Bridges : Hold Mr. Whitten to his promise
2015-11-19
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: Truth and Shadows
Willy Whitten
unspunnewz
bcc: Craig McKee
date: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:43 AM
subject: Re: [New comment] Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story
Dear Mr. McKee,
Hold Mr. Whitten to this promise and others he has made in the thread to avoid Mr. Schmidt and any comments about him.
Mr. Sockpuppet, too. Amazing the cheat he attempted that both Mr. Utu and Mr. Whitten tried to set him straight about, but without an apology from Sockpuppet. (Just because Mr. Schmidt was disproving elements of the "concensous" 9/11TM position.)
Mr. Schmidt is very much a truther. Unlike the tag-team above, he's not afraid of chasing truth all the way to the kernel even if it means taking on the questionable work of PhD's from the TM.
Let's be objective. Look at the politicians; look at the media; look at the delayed and then stilted -- if not outright missing -- official reports... Ample circumstantial evidence exists as to the extent the PTB went to in order to control the message.
Why then do we give a small handful of PhD's in the truth movement a free pass? Why is the work of Dr. Jones and his cabal (including Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Legge, and Mr. Ryan) somehow above questioning? Sure, Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood have more glaring issues, but this doesn't mean that Dr. Jones and NT are beyond reproach.
If the PTB wanted to control and steer the 9/11TM, what form would that take? Where would they try to park investigations?
My research found NT seriously wanting from one direction: its inability to achieve pulverization and hot-spot duration without massive quantities.
Mr. Schmidt is proving NT seriously wanting from other directions, and finds significant faults in the analysis and conclusions of those PhD's.
Yet Mr. Whitten won't hear it. His painful cognitive dissonance (in deference to PhD's) leads him to ad hominem instead of step-back re-evaluation of beliefs. Same "Larry, Curly, and M.O." with me when I had him cornered.
In the past, I've brought up pictures of steel "arches" mined from Dr. Wood's work. Silly me in allowing Dr. Wood's "arches" description sway my understanding and word choice. I don't think they were arches at all, but "sags". The steel beams were heated end-to-end so hot, they sagged.
NT in combination with any other chemical incendiary or explosive -- short of massive, unreasonable quantities -- CANNOT explain these sagging steel beams. Dr. Jones and company should have their feet held to the fire with regards to how their mechanisms could achieve those "steel sags".
4th generation nuclear devices easily explain those "steel sags", hot-spots, hot-spot duration, the high percentage of iron spheres in the dust, the tritium, the noise levels, etc. and even the obnoxious ignorant tag-teaming in your forum.
Religious fanatic that I am, truth needs to be followed all the way.
//
x236 hybridrogue1 & Jens Schmidt : ruled entirely by hubris
2015-11-23
hybridrogue1
November 23, 2015 at 11:39 am
Among Schmidt’s tactics is a mode of rhetoric that makes an attempt to APPEAR to contain such diverse elements as facts, logic and a fanatical devotion to the rule of reason.
Schmidt is ruled entirely by hubris.
\\][//
Jens Schmidt
November 23, 2015 at 12:14 pm
@HR1
Since you regularly fail to refute my arguments, and in fact most of the time don’t even dare touching them, I guess they stand as unrefuted facts, logic and reason.
Personal attacks are the tactic of choice for those who come unarmed to a reasoned debate.
hybridrogue1
November 23, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Taunts to engage someone who is clearly merely provoking further dialog with that someone who is clearly here for covert purposes is just another indication of a shill and stooge.
Schmidt makes many claims here that simply do not stand up to reason as he would have us presume. We have in fact been roun’n’round on this carousel enough times.
Why are you here Schmidt? What ends to you hope to achieve? If you are attempting to prove that the official narrative of 9/11 is true, you are bound to fail.
\\][//
Part 5: HR's self-inflicted implosion
x238 James Fetzer, hybridrogue1, Craig McKee, & other T&S Participants : “The Real Deal”~Fetzer
2016-01-02
James Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 2:29 am
As someone who has published extensively on the Pentagon, who has offered good reasons for concluding that “no planes” theory is correct and who has advanced objective and detailed proof that the “official” narrative of the Holocaust cannot be sustained, I am impressed by the thorough and sensible fashion in which Craig McKee has taken apart the irresponsible and indefensible allegations of Mike Collins, which appear to have been fostered by Ken Doc. This is disgraceful.
One of the common mistakes committed in ordinary language is to confound false assertions with lies, where false assertions properly qualify as lies only when those asserting them know they are false but assert them anyway in a deliberate effort to mislead their target audience. On the basis of my knowledge of the 9/11 research of John Lear, Ace Baker and Craig McKee, I am dumbfounded that such irresponsible attacks would be made upon any of them. I have had my differences with Ace Baker, for example, but I have never doubted his sincerity in his research.
I would be glad to invite Mike Collins or Ken Doc (or both together) to come on my show, “The Real Deal”, and debate what did and did not happen at the Pentagon, what can explain what we have been shown in relation to the purported “hits” on the Twin Towers and the official narrative of the Holocaust. On that subject, search for “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”, which also appears in AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015). On the Pentagon, here are links to 4 articles that, in my judgment, leave no room for doubt about it:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/reflections-on-pentagon-911.html
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates.html
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/06/official-account-of-pentagon-attack-is.html
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-aeronautical-engineer-no-boeing-757.html
On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal Ep. #100 The 9/11 Crash Sites with Major General Albert Stubblebine (USA, ret.)”, formerly in charge of all US military signals and photographic intelligence, with whom I discuss each of the alleged crash sites in considerable detail at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65H8XbrQHBg And for a shorter summary of the evidence that none of the alleged 9/11 aircraft crash sites were real, see “The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, Part 2”, on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEvw2CjAYQ
For added measure, we can throw in Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing. I have YouTubes about both entitled “The Real Deal must see Sandy Hook Update” and “The Real Deal must see Boston bombing update”, which you can easily find by searching their titles on YouTube. I also have an edited book, NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), which was banned less than a month after its appearance by amazon.com, which I immediately released to the public for free as a pdf. Anyone should be able to find it without effort, such as at rense.com, to download.
My opinion is that Craig has exposed some of the most ignorant and irresponsible figures in the 9/11 Truth movement. Neither Mike Collins nor Ken Doc appear to have any idea what they are talking about. From what Craig has outlined here (with copious documentation) strikes me as a veritable encyclopedia of elementary fallacies compounded by deliberate deception. I therefore invite them to come on my show for a two hour debate with me. Like Bush and Cheney, they can come together and hold each others hand. I stand ready, willing and able to expose them both.
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm
“On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal”~Fetzer
Hahahahahaha…still peddling that bullshit aye?
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 2:27 pm
You couldn’t resist, could you? You can have this one, but from now on, no unspecific comments about peddling bullshit.
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 2:58 pm
You would be even less happy should I be specific Mr McKee.
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Yes, one has things to be grateful for. But I dream of a day when Mr. Fetzer will comment or be mentioned and you will let it pass. You may say I’m a dreamer …(I’d put lol, but I hate lol)
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 3:23 pm
So be it Craig. Your wish shall be granted.
\\][//
James Henry Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 4:51 pm
Craig, You should not give him ANY of these snide and disgraceful ad hominem comments. If you want to foster respect, you have to ENFORCE IT. He ought to be banned for life; but for now, I would recommend that you simply delete his remark, which was clearly intended to distract attention from the abundant and compelling proof I have advanced that what Mike Collins and Ken Doc are peddling is not only false but provably false and, indeed, in relation to the Pentagon and the “hits” on the Twin Towers, not even scientifically possible. This guy has a designated role to attack and distract anything I post here lest others follow up and discover truths that he and others, such as Collins and Doc, would prefer that the public never know.
Paul Zarembka
January 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm
Jim, there is a query of you RE: Roth/Ram Jet shortly after 1 p.m. this afternoon at https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/a-novel-idea-rebekah-roths-methodical-illusion-and-what-happened-to-the-planes-on-9-11. Just thought you might want to answer.
Joe
January 2, 2016 at 8:05 pm
paul, I do like your article on roth and westover, if this is not the right place to comment, I am sorry.
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.
This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.
And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.
If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!
James Henry Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm
For those who care about truth as it relates to 9/11 as opposed to attacking Truthers, here is an outline of the proof that no real planes hit the North or the South Towers. This should make it all the easier for those who believe they were real planes to identify where we agree and disagree. I begin with some reflections on the construction of the Twin Towers and why the official account cannot be sustained.
Notice that the windows were deliberately designed small to avoid overheating the buildings and placing too much stress on the air conditioning system. The alleged plane in the North Tower was intersecting seven (7) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel support columns at the other filled with 4-8? of concrete. In the case of the South Tower, it was eight (8).
At 208' on a side, each floor represented an acre of concrete. So Flight 11 would have been encountering seven acres of concrete on steel trusses, but Flight 175 eight. We know what happens when a commercial carrier hits a tiny bird weighing only a few ounces in flight. Imagine what would happen if one of the were to encounter a single acre of concrete on a steel truss?
Any real plane of any kind would have crumpled against the building, with its wings, tail, bodies and seats falling to the ground. But we have photos of the areas beneath and there is no airplane debris. You could have relined in a lounge chair sipping Pina Coladas and have been perfectly safe. The laws of physics and of engineering have a contribution to make to 9/11.
There were multiple reasons they had to fake it to make sure everything would go as planned:
(1) It’s very difficult to hit a 208' wide target at over 400 mph. Some twenty pilots tried it where only one managed to do it one time.
(2) They needed to have the planes explode after they had entered the buildings to provide a pseudo-explanation for their “collapse”.
(3) They had to coordinate them temporally with massive explosions in the subbasements, designed to drain the sprinkler systems of water.
(4) The original plan was to use drones until they discovered that it was physically impossible to get them into the buildings before they exploded.
(5) Indeed, the friction of their collisions with those massive buildings would have generated so much heat that they would have exploded externally.
(6) Even using images of planes under their control, they missed the mark by 14 and 17 seconds, with the subbasement explosions going off too early.
(7) The idea was to claim that jet fuel had fallen through the stairways and caused those explosions. It was crude but the public is very gullible.
(8) They had previously positioned jet fuel/napalm prepared to be set off when the images of the planes had entered all the way into the buildings.
(9) They had mini-incendiary charges in elaborate arrangements to create the cookie-cutter cut outs on the sides of the buildings (set by the Gelatin Group).
It was a clever use of the post hoc-ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy, which took in the vast majority of the people. They even planted an outmoded engine at Church & Murray, which would not have been necessary had real planes been used. And a landing gear was found years later, still attached to a piece of rope that had been used to help lower it into place. How dumb are we supposed to be?
But the public hasn’t caught on. The laws of physics and of engineering cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The official account of the planes in New York is no more physically possible that the official account of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, as an aeronautical engineer has explained in the fourth of the articles I linked above. It’s time for the 9/11 Truth community to acknowledge that science matters to our research.
hybridrogue1
2016-01-03
{mcb: removed from T&S.}
in response to James Henry Fetzer:
For those who care about truth as it relates to 9/11 as opposed to attacking Truthers, here is an outline of the proof that no real planes hit the North or the South Towers. This should make it all the easier for those who believe they were real planes to identify where we agree and […]
Here you will find the real crash physics explained as per real aircraft hitting the World Trade Towers:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2016-01-03
{mcb: removed from T&S.}
Here you will find the real science and technology on CGI and so-called “projected holograms”:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm
Let’s keep the discussion on topic. I understand you oppose the position on the evidence taken by Collins and Doc, but the post is not about arguing those scientific details. It’s about how they have used dishonesty and disinformation tactics to distract and intimidate. And it’s about how the exaggerated focus on “disinformation” is doing harm to the movement.
Sheila
January 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm
So we have 7 acres of steel trusses, attached at each end to a steel support column, and filled with 4? to 8? of concrete. This comprises the 7 floors (one acre each) that the planes supposedly smashed through when they disappeared into the towers like a hot knife through butter, with nothing falling into the street.
This alone, with no other evidence, is proof positive that the images we saw on TV were fake. It is time that the truth movement offer a big apology to the “no-planers” that have been derided for so long, such as Morgan Reynolds.
I am reminded that the 3 topics that 9/11 blogger forbade were: 1) no planes, 2) criticism of Israel and 3) support for CIT.
I realize that this is a bit of a hijack of this thread, but WRT Doc and Collins, I don’t know that there’s much more to say. I think we all agree that they are reprehensible people, or possibly paid agents.
They are attacking you Craig because they hope that you will be intimidated and back down from presenting evidence they don’t want people to see. In case Doc and Collins are reading this, I can only say, don’t hold your breath.
James Henry Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 10:39 pm
Sheila, You begin to appreciate why 9/11 Blogger did not want any discussion of “no planes”, where even easily verifiable facts about the design of the buildings defeats the official account. Consider the genius of making points of vulnerability “off limits” for discussion: 1) no planes; 2) criticism of Israel; and 3) CIT. There is a mountain of proof of Israeli complicity, such as the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” (though it was done with the complicity of the CIA and the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense). And toss in CIT, which uncovered a host of witnesses to a plane approaching the Pentagon north of the Citgo station, when the “official account” required that it approach south of the Citgo station. (That plane, by the way, flew over the Pentagon at the same time explosive charges were set of inside it.) What more elegant and effective technique than to declare those subjects “too controversial” and therefore “off limits”. How much more proof could we require that the 9/11 Truth movement has been compromised?
James Henry Fetzer
2016-01-03
{mcb: comment removed from T&S.}
in response to veritytwo:
And that’s where common sense comes into play. From the 5 frame video that doesn’t show something as big as a Boeing 757 to the lack of scattered crash debris from a 200,000 plus pound aircraft hitting a reinforced wall is a lot of kinetic energy that isn’t explained by the overview of damage inflicted. […]
The lack of consensus is by design. We have two prominent groups, for example, A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs, who will not even address who was responsible and why. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made some important contributions, but do not appreciate that their proofs that Flight 175 was traveling faster than aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767.
Using ground-air communications, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also established that Flight 11 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was detected over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had officially hit the South Tower are proof of video fakery and support “no planes” theory, which is the conjunction of the four claims:
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville; and,
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Indeed, I have FAA Registration data showing the the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not even deregistered (formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005. There is more than enough proof that none of those crashes took place. But look around you. The Pentagon links I provided offer empirical evidence and aerodynamic proof no Boeing 757 hit there, yet we have members of the community attacking those who provide it. We have been infiltrated.
ruffadam
January 3, 2016 at 9:56 am
Just on a side note I think I saw you Jim at LAX a week or two ago. I drive a taxi at LAX and I was waiting there at the curb and I think it was you that got into a taxi right near me. The person I saw was a spitting image of Jim Fetzer and he seemed to recognize me a bit as well. Anyway if it wasn’t you no worries. On another side note to this thread I will say that I disagree strongly with many of Jim Fetzer’s positions such as mini nukes among others. Back to Ken Doc though, I am NOT going to engage with Jim on this thread about anything but the topic.
stuartbramhall
January 2, 2016 at 6:25 pm
My personal impression is that 60-70% of the really active 9-11 Truthers are paid government disinformation agents. That’s a pretty characteristic proportion for any successful dissident/resistance movement.
Reply
Adam Syed
January 2, 2016 at 6:46 pm
I doubt it’s that high. You only need one or two drops of poison to contaminate an entire well. I’d say the percentage is well under 50 but for sure, there are definitely paid agents out there that are assigned full-time to dominate at certain high profile sites.
Reply
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 6:43 pm
Thanks Craig, Mr Fetzer’s wish shall be granted. So long!
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 6:57 pm
You’re being very childish, and you’re making a small problem into a huge one. I don’t know what you mean by “so long” but I think you should take the rest of the day off.
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 7:16 pm
No no, That’s all right Craig, Let the pseudoscience win the day here on T&S. It’s your site, play it as you please.You’ve got Sheila popping in supporting the same nonsense Fetzer is promoting.
You can either quash this crap, or let it stand. It seems to me you want to let it stand.
I will not stand by silently as this takes place. If you are going to throw my commentary back into moderation, YOU are making the choice, not me.
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm
I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU TODAY. HR, YOU MAKE THINGS SO MUCH WORSE AND YOU PAINT ME INTO A CORNER EVERY GODDAMN TIME.
I WON’T BE LECTURED ON MY OWN BLOG AND YOU ARE NOT THE COMMENT COP HERE. IF YOU COULD JUST KEEP YOUR KEYBOARD QUIET LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO READ THE COMMENTS AND MAKE A DECISION, THINGS WOULD BE FINE. BUT NO, YOU HAVE TO SCOLD ME BEFORE I’VE EVEN HAD TIME TO POST A RESPONSE. I’VE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. MEANWHILE, I AM ALSO DEALING WITH RESPONDING TO JOE, WHO IS AT LEAST ADDRESSING THE TOPIC AT HAND.
Sheila
January 3, 2016 at 9:48 am
Maybe this expression is not used in Canada. In the US, “so long” means good-bye.
Joe
January 2, 2016 at 8:37 pm
interesting, comments of mine are vanishing.
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 8:40 pm
Which comments are vanishing? I have not removed anything.
ruffadam
January 3, 2016 at 6:18 am
I seriously doubt that you are being censored Joe. Craig is not a petty dictator and he actually wants to talk this out and resolve it unlike El Presidente Ken Doc.
Take a screen shot of your post and then show it as evidence.
Just so you are aware Joe all posts go into a moderation queue if they contain more than two links. Perhaps that is the issue?
Craig McKee
January 3, 2016 at 11:29 am
Joe is not being censored. If he has sent a comment that hasn’t appeared I think I know what might have happened. I put hybridrogue1 on the blacklist yesterday because of a series of comments that went beyond what I was willing to tolerate. I had put him on moderation and his comments continued directly to me and I had had enough. But in blocking him, I would also, unintentionally, have blocked comments where his name is mentioned. if Joe’s comment mentioned HR, then it would not have gotten through. If he resends it then it will appear. My apologies.
veritytwo
January 2, 2016 at 8:56 pm
More DEW doo doo. The nukie doo doo is sure to come up in this posting now that this kettle of rotten fish has been dumped on the stage. Wouldn’t piss on O’Reilly if he was on fire but the scum left Fetzer gasping and blubbering here.
I don’t have time for this, there’s a greater need in exploring and exposing the end play being foisted in the geopolitical landscape in the current sense, bullshit put aside. This innuendo is just more round and round here. No time to be dragged into an ambiguous undiagnosed past. There’s bigger issues in the present that beg to be understood to thwart dark possibilities rather than infighting over points of view that are only that, points of view.
https://youtu.be/9-KylM1XlqM
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 9:06 pm
What are you talking about? More DEW doo doo? Dumped on the stage?
veritytwo
January 2, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Read what I said Craig. I have a great respect for you but this is just leading to another round of infighting that’s a complete waste of time that just leaves me with the taste of bad bile in my gut.
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 9:36 pm
I read what you said but I asked you to clarify. Are you blaming me for quoting Ken as saying I support space beams? That’s the only DEW reference I’ve seen.
As for it being a complete waste of time, that may well be, but I had little choice other than letting false charges stand and waiting for more of them. Perhaps you should address your frustration to Joe or Ken or Mike.
James Henry Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 9:49 pm
For reasons of his own, veritytwo introduces a completely irrelevant and distracting post about my appearance on “The Factor”. Others viewed it completely the opposite. After I spoke at The Great Hall of Cooper Union, my wife and I made a visit to a local theater when Alex Jones was producing a 9/11 program. They were very hospitable and ushered us in, placing me on a podium with first responders, which I regarded as an honor. The fellow sitting next to me leaned over and said, “It was watching you on O’Reilly that convinced me 9/11 had been an inside job.”
James Henry Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 9:51 pm
No, he’s ignorant of the evidence that supports the use of mini or micro nukes to take down the Twin Towers. This is the kind of remark that gives 9/11 research a bad name: no argument, only a derisive dismissal based on his personal lack of knowledge. There’s a lot of that going around
veritytwo
January 2, 2016 at 11:01 pm
Come on Craig. I don’t do Facebook and I certainly don’t hold it against you for this posting. I certainly would have contested it with my whole being given your position. What I see happening is just more round and round with a big clash of ego’s trying to put their read into what they’ve bought into. I see you as being a gracious moderator that tries to maintain a level field which gets difficult when people get their dandruff up. I realize this blog centers around 9/11 but it needs to move forward with insight and good intent.
9/11 is a symptom, as horrific as it is of an underlying grave deep issue that needs to be brought to the surface to the here and now. By infighting, all it does is create division, after all, isn’t that what the dialectic is all about, divide and conquer?
We’ve got to consider, the perpetrators that would do such a thing are focused as a lazar, as Adrian Salbuchi said. While we, in our vast multitudes are like fireflies over a field or pond with our lights illuminating in different directions, not focused. We are many, they are few. Should we ever throw off the garb of garrulousness, we’re unstoppable. I just find it disappointing to see that we can’t seem to find a consensus. We’re going into year 15 after the event, we’re still infighting amongst ourselves. A pity, there’s some dedicated brilliant people in the movement.
Adam Syed
January 2, 2016 at 11:23 pm
“By infighting, all it does is create division, after all, isn’t that what the dialectic is all about, divide and conquer?”
This isn’t a question of infighting. It’s a question of responding to libel. Ken Doc has an entire URL devoted to lies about Craig.
Adam Syed
January 2, 2016 at 11:31 pm
And just to be clear:
“I don’t do Facebook and I certainly don’t hold it against you for this posting. I certainly would have contested it with my whole being given your position.”
Are you saying that you support Craig posting the piece but that the comment section is where the real bile is? Should commenting have been disabled for this blog post? He is contesting the lies “with his whole being” just like you said you would if in his position.
Craig McKee
January 3, 2016 at 12:42 am
I am interested in the answers to those questions also. I think it’s pointless to talk about in-fighting unless you break it down more than that. Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?
You know, I was prepared for an onslaught of hostility from the subjects of this post and their supporters. But it turns out that most of the opposition has come from other supposedly “friendly” sources.
Two things I will leave everyone with:
If you have a problem with a comment that someone else has made, as in you think it should be deleted, email me privately and explain what your issue is. Those who don’t have my private email can use truthandshadows@yahoo.com. What I will not put up with any more is someone posting a comment publicly demanding that I discipline another commenter or ban them or delete a particular comment. No more.
The other thing is that for the rest of this comment thread I don’t want to hear one word about the details of physical evidence concerning how the towers were brought down. It’s not the appropriate venue for that discussion. I don’t care if it’s nukes, DEW, nanothermite or anything else; this thread is not the place to argue it. Anyone who does not respect this will have their comments deleted.
veritytwo
January 3, 2016 at 8:47 am
What I’m saying relates directly to this blog. There’s a freshness here that occasionally gets bogged down by what appears to be bruised ego’s as to those participants personal beliefs. I come here for knowledge and fellowship, I try to keep an open mind. I have my perceptions of 9/11 tempered by much background research but that is my personal view.
It doesn’t matter, there’s something to be gleaned from each perspective but things don’t have to get nasty. The one thing we’re all in consensus on is that a criminal act was performed on that day that leaves much to be critically answered to.
The way TPTB handled the whole investigation speaks of a blatant criminality by those sanctioned to public trust in escrow. That trust has been broken leaving us that have become unglued from the status quo to try to find answers amid speculation and innuendo.
My point of view is to ask the question, why the derogation? When in fact we’re in consensus to the fact, we’re all onside that there’s too much being hidden by those that are sanctioned to public trust.
The division that’s been created all through society by the event and all their other false flags is in no doubt to keep we the people offside while they engineer their technocratic vision of how they envision things to be. What I believe we’re all in agreement to is in the recognition that their hubris has created a sickness throughout all society and the very nature of the planet herself. Funny how “lived is the devil spelled backwards”, there’s devils on the loose, a prevalent psychopathy. This is to be viewed across many different spectrums of information sources.
veritytwo
January 3, 2016 at 11:22 am
This just about explains my stance in a large way. As with you Craig, I live north of the 49th, there about living out in the rhubarb patch. My bug out bags have wings attached. Just waiting for the marathon to begin.
https://youtu.be/tBU01akf688
James Henry Fetzer
2016-01-03
{mcb: put back into moderation.}
in response to ruffadam:
Just on a side note I think I saw you Jim at LAX a week or two ago. I drive a taxi at LAX and I was waiting there at the curb and I think it was you that got into a taxi right near me. The person I saw was a spitting image of […]
Not so fast, Ruffadam. When you insinuate that comments of mine are false or misleading, you are implying that I may fall to the same category as Ken Doc or Mike Collins. You have to be specific. I deny that anything I have written in any of my posts here qualifies either as false or as misleading. On the contrary, unless you can substantiate these claims, your own comment here would seem to fall into that category. Tell me precisely what have I said that qualifies as either? I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of the evidence that substantiates mini or micro nukes, but that most certainly does not make my defense of their having been used false or misleading
ruffadam
January 3, 2016 at 2:24 am
Joe I have a question for you. Why is it that Ken Doc himself does not discuss this issue openly in an environment where people are allowed to speak freely without being silenced? I find it strange that Ken Doc is comfortable silencing people he doesn’t agree with yet pretends to be a fair and benevolent leader of the truth movement who is being attacked.
Get this one thing straight Joe your group did the attacking and all Craig has done is defend himself. You and your group are the aggressors, you allow that poison pill Collins to attack others and do nothing. You are therefore condoning his behavior and supporting it. Ken Doc banned me and others without cause and that is a fact. Now if we respond to the petty tyranny you have all either condoned or initiated we are NOT attacking you we are defending ourselves. There is a big difference between those who initiate a fight and those who defend themselves. Think of it this way Joe, if you take out a gun and start shooting at me I am then free to take out my own gun and blow your head off in self defense and no criminal charges will be filed against me. In that scenario you are the guilty party Joe because you initiated the attack.
Ken Doc was not guilty of anything UNTIL he applied different rules to Collins than he did to other people. Once he did that and once all of the admins went along with it you all became guilty of doing an immoral act. Ken Doc compounded his guilt by banning other people, like myself, who tried to initiate a conversation about the issue and hopefully resolve it. Doc obviously doesn’t want it resolved. If he did want to resolve it he would be here himself trying to do so. Instead only you Joe, his henchman and apologist, are here discussing it.
The truth of the matter is that Ken Doc would like us all to just go away quietly and say nothing about his tiny tyrannical regime on FB. He would love to be able to lob his insults from behind a big electronic wall and have everyone else be incapable of responding back. Well guess what Joe this is the real world and not only can we respond but we can do so publicly. In fact Joe we can shout from the rooftops about what a petty little tyrannical kingdom Ken Doc has going there on FB. That is what I intend to do Joe because frankly Ken Doc and his henchman picked a fight with the wrong God damned people. There is zero justification for what you did. ZERO!
Now Joe here is a video I made which expresses my feelings about censorship which I dedicate to Ken Doc and his henchmen who are all vile disgusting book burners in training.
https://youtu.be/JFTHRj7luA0
Censors are just evil dictators that lack the power and the armies to slaughter the people they don’t like. Ken Doc is just another Stalin without the army, but hey at least he has you Joe.
x239 hybridrogue1, James Henry Fetzer, & Craig McKee : overstayed welcome
2016-01-03
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 2:15 am
Craig has me on moderation, and Uncle Fistfucker is still posting; fuck both of them.
What is really stooooooooooopid is Craig has his panties all twisted in a knot over fucking Facebook bullshit!!! He has lost all perspective. He has fucked himself and T&S with this self-gratifying post.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 4:21 am
Yea, Uncle Fetzer giving the finger may be Photoshopped, but it catches his character nicely nevertheless.
He is one of the most arrogant charlatans on the Internet. So fuck’em if he can’t take a joke.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 6:17 am
“I am interested in the answers to those questions also. I think it’s pointless to talk about in-fighting unless you break it down more than that. Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?”~Craig McKee
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38764
Of course Craig cannot see his own hypocrisy in saying that! Astonishing!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 6:30 am
“You know, I was prepared for an onslaught of hostility from the subjects of this post and their supporters. But it turns out that most of the opposition has come from other supposedly “friendly” sources.”~McKee
Hmmm..You might think he would catch a clue there!
And if you happen to read these words here Craig, what to you expect after silencing me on T&S?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 10:24 am
James Henry Fetzer
January 2, 2016 at 4:51 pm
Craig, You should not give him ANY of these snide and disgraceful ad hominem comments. *If you want to foster respect, you have to ENFORCE IT. He ought to be banned for life; but for now, I would recommend that you simply delete his remark, which was clearly intended to distract attention from the abundant and compelling proof I have advanced that what Mike Collins and Ken Doc are peddling is not only false but provably false and, indeed, in relation to the Pentagon and the “hits” on the Twin Towers, not even scientifically possible. This guy has a designated role to attack and distract anything I post here lest others follow up and discover truths that he and others, such as Collins and Doc, would prefer that the public never know.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38654
*Fetzer is of course speaking to Craig about me there.
“What I will not put up with any more is someone posting a comment publicly demanding that I discipline another commenter or ban them or delete a particular comment. No more.”~Craig McKee
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38764
You will find I never demanded that Fetzer be banned, not even disciplined. All I wanted was the right to confront Fetzer for being the arrogant lying son-of-a-bitch that he is.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 11:26 am
“Using ground-air communications, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also established that Flight 11 was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was detected over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had officially hit the South Tower are proof of video fakery and support “no planes” theory, which is the conjunction of the four claims:”~Jim Fetzer
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38664
This is the kind of bullshit that Ken Doc can turn around and say with honesty the Craig supports, whether Craig has said these things or not – because Craig allows this nonsense to be spewed on his blog without comment, or allowing Fetzer to be confronted.
It is naive that Craig should be in anyway surprised that some rhetorical spinmeister like Ken Doc can point to such Fetzerian bullshit posted on T&S and give Craig credit for the statements. If Craig isn’t going to criticize Fetzer for his nonsense, then he is responsible for allowing it on his site. ESPECIALLY when Craig won’t allow others to criticize Fetzer for his bullshit.
\\][//
January 3, 2016 at 11:42 am
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.
This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.
And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.
If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.
\\][//
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38658
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
“I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And so it has been all night long and Craig never posted a response addressing my points; instead he put all of my commentary into moderation and went off on me with this:
Craig McKee
January 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm
I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOU TODAY. HR, YOU MAKE THINGS SO MUCH WORSE AND YOU PAINT ME INTO A CORNER EVERY GODDAMN TIME.
I WON’T BE LECTURED ON MY OWN BLOG AND YOU ARE NOT THE COMMENT COP HERE. IF YOU COULD JUST KEEP YOUR KEYBOARD QUIET LONG ENOUGH FOR ME TO READ THE COMMENTS AND MAKE A DECISION, THINGS WOULD BE FINE. BUT NO, YOU HAVE TO SCOLD ME BEFORE I’VE EVEN HAD TIME TO POST A RESPONSE. I’VE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. MEANWHILE, I AM ALSO DEALING WITH RESPONDING TO JOE, WHO IS AT LEAST ADDRESSING THE TOPIC AT HAND.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38705
\\][//
January 3, 2016 at 4:59 pm
Craig still won’t put a lid on this motherfucker Uncle Fetzer!
He has essentially banned me, and now will do nothing about this charlatan Fetzer, regardless of how off topic, or tending toward the issues that Ken Doc was hoisting upon Craig.
By giving Fetzer a platform to spout these bogus theories, Craig is playing right into the hands of Ken Doc. Ken Doc has every right to assume that Craig agrees with this nonsense, seeing he has gone out of his way to protect Fetzer the promoter of these ideas.
As an outsider what conclusion would you come to?
Craig STILL has not stood up and denounced “No-planes at WTC”, “Video Fakery”, “Nukes at WTC”, “Projected Holograms”.
WHY THE FUCK NOT?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
James Henry Fetzer
January 3, 2016 at 10:26 am
“Not so fast, Ruffadam. When you insinuate that comments of mine are false or misleading, you are implying that I may fall to the same category as Ken Doc or Mike Collins. You have to be specific. I deny that anything I have written in any of my posts here qualifies either as false or as misleading. On the contrary, unless you can substantiate these claims, your own comment here would seem to fall into that category. Tell me precisely what have I said that qualifies as either? I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of the evidence that substantiates mini or micro nukes, but that most certainly does not make my defense of their having been used false or misleading.”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38787
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As far as I’m concerned, Craig has lost his bearings and sense of judgement. I sure as hell am not going to apologize to him for anything I said to him or Fetzer.
At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit.
I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 5:59 pm
Kim McLaughlin
January 3, 2016 at 12:42 pm
“Craig, I am sorry that you think me defending Ken is ridiculous. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on that. I have never seen, heard, etc, Ken lump you personally into supporting Space Beams, etc, so honestly I am not sure what all of that is about? I have never seen you support Space Beam and Holograms. My understand of your disagreements on the truth page have always been the Pentagon and Mike Collins. I will let Ken speak for himself on what he thinks… So again, you are saying my only choice is to change Ken and other admins minds or walk away from the truth movement. You write “So if anyone had done the right thing then, this post would never have happened.” Craig, you have no idea what I have or have not done… Instead of walking away, I chose to block certain people. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if you would have also blocked Mike. You say “Do you remember me passing along a note to you telling all the admins that Mike was routinely posting lies about what I believe?” Yes, I remember that, if you would have blocked him none of that would be an issue. You write “I don’t give a shit about Ken or Mike or Joe or Cal or anyone who spews ignorance,” If that’s true Craig, why do you keep writing about it? I used to be a huge supporter of your articles. Sorry, I don’t support this, and I stand behind everything I have said about it.. If your articles go back to focusing on things that help this movement, I will support those. You keep this fight alive though, and by doing so, in my opinion, you are damaging your credibility…”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38793
I agree with Kim here, whom I have never encountered, or know at all. But she makes all the sense in the world in her commentary there. Craig has really lost his bearings, he has gone ballistic over trifling matters and spent an inordinate amount of effort and words pumping it up into a giant blimp of utter bullshit.
I emailed Craig what is essentially my resignation from Truth & Shadows just a few minutes ago. Craig and his remaining crew can go their own way. I have had enough of this namby-pamby horseshit.
I want nothing more to do with a site that gives credence to Jim Fetzer, one of the most obvious shysters in the so-called “Truth Movement”.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 6:55 pm
Craig McKee
January 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm
“Thank you so much for that support, Michael. I could use it about now.
It’s interesting to me that the most obnoxious and ignorant comments to me since I posted this – both public and private – are from people I thought were fair and reasonable. These aren’t the people I thought would be this way.”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38800
Hahahaha!! Yea, that’s it “obnoxious and ignorant “. Sure Craig, everybody else has changed, and turned against you out of the clear blue sky. You have flipped out and are in denial now, and to you it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s your hubris McKee, simple and obvious ego borne arrogance.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 7:05 pm
You can “rest your case” on your own blog now McKee. You don’t have posting privileges here anymore.
\\][//
Craig McKee
2016-01-03 email
Well, the truth movement continues to fascinate me, as does human nature.
Willy will never, ever, ever, be allowed to post on TS. Never.
Craig McKee
2016-01-03
{mcb: posted but removed from HR's blog.}
You emailed your resignation? Are you kidding? Have you lost your mind? Or were you always like this and I didn’t notice.
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 8:27 pm
James Henry Fetzer
January 3, 2016 at 3:08 pm
Kim, I don’t know you from Adam, but I find your attacks on Craig for objecting to a mountain of false claims being deliberately disseminated from a site that you defend to be indefensible. Why in the world–when Craig has so meticulously documented the false allegations against him–would you want to defend that practice? I reaffirm my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show and debate 9/11 (planes/no planes, the Pentagon and anything else), what happened at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, even the Holocaust and the Moon hoax. I have published and done shows on all of them and more. For the video program archive, see https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3 For the audio, go to radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Take me on, if you like; but Craig McKee does not deserve this.
REPLY
Kim McLaughlin
January 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38805
. . . . .
Hahaha!! This is hilarious! Now Craig’s new “celebrity” pal, Fetzer rides to his defense like a knight in shining armor. This is like something out of Kafka!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 8:38 pm
“Kim, I really don’t want to fight with you because you seem to be in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding your reason. But you’re saying some very ridiculous and untrue things.”McKee
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38809
There we have it, full blown projection from Craig McKee, who in fact is the one in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding his reason!
Good Gawd y’all..!!!
Lol
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 3, 2016 at 8:44 pm
“Jim Fetzer’s detailing of the no planes evidence on this post is probably one – not because I disagree with his view, but because it was off topic.”~Craig McKee
Well, there we have it; ‘not because he disagrees with the no planes evidence’…
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 3, 2016 at 10:02 pm
That’s the lowest yet. You know full well what I meant. Shall I rephrase in a way that’s harder for you to twist? Okay. And I’ll offer some needed context: “Are there times I would have been better not to allow certain comments? Absolutely. Jim Fetzer’s detailing of the no-planes position on this post is probably one – not because I disagree with him, which I have made clear hundreds of times that I do, but because it was off topic.”
There. Is that clearer to you? Have I not said hundreds of times that I support the AE911Truth position on controlled demolition? It turns out that truth is a much murkier concept for you than I realized. For years I have treated you as fairly and decently as I could, and this is what I get.
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 12:57 am
I am letting this one stay visible and published Craig. Because you have finally made it crystal clear. No you have NOT made it that clear before anywhere that I have read it.
I apologize for not ‘remembering’ if I should have. But as far as “knowing full well what you meant” when I wrote that — not so Craig, simply not so.
As far as Fetzer, I refuse to keep my mouth shut when he spouts his bullshit. it doesn’t matter who’s yard we are playing in at the time. That’s just the way I am. We have different sensibilities on what we can put up with. It is time I go my way since you don’t understand that.
Fare thee well Craig…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 1:12 am
This is one of the things allowed to be posted on the thread, even after all that has come down. No one will dare answer or confront this known disinfo agent. I would have, if still allowed to comment there. But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.
Anyone who does not grasp that Fetzer is a mole and a disinfo agent needs to review the beginning of this page – and pay close attention:
James Henry Fetzer
January 3, 2016 at 6:10 pm
“And what, precisely, is supposed to qualify me as a “know disinfo agent in this movement”? Because I offer scientific explanations for events that are otherwise inexplicable, but which they apparent do not understand or want to obfuscate? and that makes ME “a disinfo op”?”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38828
. . . . . . .
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 1:41 am
I just have one more question Craig. Is there some reason you won’t make this clarification more publicly by restating it on the current thread there? Is the fact that Fetzer is there supporting you keep you from saying anything that might bring on his displeasure?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 2:45 am
In a way, I find it ironic that I ended up being banned from Truth & Shadows during this recent fiasco on the Ken Doc thread. I don’t blame Craig for his frustrations there, but I do think he over reacted and was heavy handed with me precisely because I have been such a constant supporter, and “should have” supported Craig in his hour of troubles.
But I cannot, will not, never ever stand silent in the face of Uncle Fetzer’s scurrilous bullshit. It is a matter of principle to me. Fetzer is a charlatan needing to be exposed and outed anytime and anywhere he surfaces.
\\][//
Craig McKee
2016-01-03
{mcb: published but sent back to moderation queue.}
I can’t believe you say: “But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.” You know that is not the case. I simply asked you not to call names in unspecific comments about him because it achieves nothing except starting a fight. Is that too much to ask?
You have posted thousands and thousands of comments at Truth and Shadows over the years, and I have given you great leeway. I let you and Fetzer argue for more than 500 comments on one post alone. I would not do that again. There are a lot of things that I wouldn’t do again. But every decision I made was sincere even if sometimes off the mark.
Anyway, if you want to keep saying false things and sounding like a more articulate version of Mike Collins, then go right ahead. In fact, I know a Facebook forum you might enjoy… Sorry, couldn’t resist. On the bright side, you can call Fetzer all the names you want now – full time!
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 3:32 am
Craig,
You have overstayed your welcome here. I now return to you the favor you offered me of banishment.
You can say whatever you want to say at your own blog.
Cheerio sweetheart!
\\][//
x240 Señor El Once : display no grace, and certainly no fairness
Dear Mr. Whitten,
The irony is thick, as is my schadenfreude at your situation: banned from T&S.
You display no grace, and certainly no fairness. Ask Mr. McKee a question, then deep-six his response. Par for your course and your brand of being well adjusted in a pathological world.
I know you've already got your sockpuppets planted on T&S, so you won't be missing the commentary. Mr. Ruff and Mr. Verity are also available to keep you informed, although Mr. Verity doesn't do Facebook either.
Looking forward to your new blog posting that aims at Mr. McKee and T&S. Don't be burying your dings on T&S under a blog dedicated to Dr. Fetzer. Such is not very sporting.
Nifty way to change the guard: cause a rumpous to get yourself purposely banned.
// Herr der Elf
x241 hybridrogue1, David Hazan (@Lilaleo), James Henry Fetzer, & Craig McKee : banned to the shadows
2016-01-04
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 11:18 am
” can’t believe you say: “But confronting Fetzer is verboten on T&S for whatever mysterious reason.” You know that is not the case. I simply asked you not to call names in unspecific comments about him because ~Craig McKee
Let me be perfectly clear here; I was talking about the current situation on the thread about Ken Doc. I do not see why you don’t get this. Context is important in understanding the situation; I have never denied that I was allowed to confront Fetzer previously.
Secondly on the issue of “calling names”; I have never called Fetzer any name that does not describe exactly what he is, a mole, a charlatan, and an agent of cognitive dissonance. After all this time it is simply incredible that you do not see this Craig! Fetzer is far more dangerous than some small time clown like Ken Doc. Fetzer has duped hundreds of thousands of people with his nonsense. It is clearly nonsense. You yourself admit it is nonsense. So…what? Do you actually believe that Fetzer is merely MISTAKEN???
Seriously? That is simply naïve.
So Craig, is calling you naïve an empty slur? Do you really think I say that in meanness simply to insult you? After all of these years Craig? That is an incredible position to take.
Addressing the second part of this sentence; let me remind you of something you said on the very thread we are discussing:
“Does it mean don’t say anything that might prompt an argument? Don’t criticize anyone because they’ll react and then we have a fight?”~Craig McKee
In combination now: “it achieves nothing except starting a fight. Is that too much to ask?”
Yes by God it IS!
I have addressed your middle paragraph already in my remarks above. I will not address your third and final paragraph, as you yourself must know it you only said it to be hurtful. I have not said any “false things”. I admit I have taunted you, trying to get you to see that Fetzer is playing you for a fool. I have tried to get you to explicitly denounce the crazy “theories” he is spewing – denounce IN REAL TIME, while it counted, during the current debate there – no matter how many times you have said that you “disagree” with various things I felt you needed to be FIRM and outspoken beyond “the call of duty” so that even the most dense reader could not mistake what you think.
Finally, I must repeat again; I do not have a problem with anything you believe about 9/11 Craig. My whole problem is the way you handle Jim Fetzer with kid gloves. I simply don’t get it. I haven’t been able to understand this for a long time – I still do not understand it.
So again I ask: Do you actually believe that Fetzer is merely MISTAKEN?
This is the thought I want to leave you with here Mr McKee. Because this is something that you are going to have to figure out sooner or later:
Is Fetzer a genuine seeker of Truth, and he is simply mistaken in his views?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 11:46 am
Here is an exchange on the Ken Doc page that illustrates what I am talking about:
. . . . . . . . .
Kim McLaughlin
January 3, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Mr. Fetzer, as an admin on the Truth Page I really only have one thing to say to you. Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here!
James Henry Fetzer
January 3, 2016 at 3:20 pm
That’s the kind of reply I would expect from a troll or a shill: an ad hominem with nothing to back it up. You cannot show that I have anything wrong, so you don’t even make the effort. I think we can see why you belong with Ken Doc and Mike Collins. Something about “birds of a feather”.
Craig McKee
January 3, 2016 at 3:35 pm1
I am going to leave this comment up because Jim has already responded to it in a fair way. But it is a bullshit comment that adds nothing of value.
. . . . . . . . . .
REALLY Craig? You claim Jim responded in a fair way? He called Kim a “troll” and a “shill” and claimed she was using “ad hominem” — that is “fair” in your view? You know how utterly incredible I find such things.
You get pissed at me for defending Kim McLaughlin from Fetzer’s defaming bullshit, and take it to mean that I am insulting you!
This is how mixed up it becomes when you do not recognize an agent of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ in action. You are duped by Fetzer and lash out at both Ms McLaughlin, and me for defending her! That is the very Divide and Conquer technique of cognitive infiltration that Fetzer is a master at- AND YOU FALL FOR IT!
And I know that you take these remarks as further “attacks” on you!!!
Craig, it is bloody nonsense! Both Adam Ruff and myself have attempted to warn you about Fetzer. Why oh why can you not get it? It just breaks my heart to watch this.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 3:32 am
Craig,
I have changed my mind. You can comment here if you wish. I am not going to simply act out of spite. Just remember I will answer anything you say frankly, and will hold nothing back.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm
{mcb: original #comment-11194.}
I browsed through this – not sure what to make of it. Seems like it is more of techniques of collecting info off the internet than it is for agents of Cognitivie Infiltration, like Fetzer, Sunstein et al.
\\][//
The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm
{mcb: The original #comment-11194 above was replace with this.}
After reviewing the row on Truth & Shadows about Ken Doc, I come back to my first impression and thoughts on the story.
Frankly Ken Doc isn’t worth the ink it would take to print out Craig’s article. He is a nothing, a nobody when it comes to the totality of things 9/11.
What did Craig accomplish with this article besides some temporary ego gratification? What were the costs of this article? For one thing Craig promoted the name of someone I certainly never heard of, Ken Doc… who? My first thought was and remains, who the fuck is Ken Doc and why should I care? Well now we know who Ken Doc is don’t we?…some punk on a Facebook forum spouting bullshit about Mr McKee, and who knows or cares what else.
So now EVERYBODY that reads Truth and Shadows knows the name of Ken Doc.
A Hollywood agent once remarked “Publicity is what counts, it doesn’t matter whether it is good publicity or bad publicity”; publicity makes for notoriety or celebrity, and little divides the two forms of being famous.
So now because of Craig’s clever PR he has inadvertently made Ken Doc a person of substance. A substance he did not have prior to Craig’s article on T&S.
Are there other consequences? Perhaps ones that will last far beyond the temporary gratification Craig feels today? I can name one that I think will haunt Craig for a long time to come: His coddling of Jim Fetzer during the first day and a half of commentary. Fetzer is like a South American Poison Dart Frog. You handle it, you die. Whether Craig agrees with anything Fetzer says or not, Craig now carries the stench of Fetzer attached to his name and the blog Truth and Shadows, that has hosted this vile pretender and lying agent of cognitive infiltration.
Craig has also lost a true friend in tossing me. He may never come to realize it. I was attempting to get Craig to see beyond the moment, to think of what seeds he may be sowing that might come back to haunt him. My efforts may have been clumsy, but I held and hold no contempt for Mr McKee. Was I mad at him for sending me to the cooler? Yes enraged, and I am still sore from that. But those bruises with fade and are already. I fear the wounds Craig has suffered will fester with time and become a heavier burden than now.
As there seems nothing further I can do about the situation as it has panned out, I will try to move on and put it behind me. I wish Craig the best of luck! I hope he and Truth & Shadows flourish in the coming new year.
Peace, Willy Whitten
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 5:21 pm
“Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that war is criminal or that accepting it is criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed…War and the large military establishments are the greatest sources of violence in the world. Whether their purpose is defensive or offensive, these vast powerful organizations exist solely to kill human beings… We should all be horrified… but we are too confused.”~Dalai Lama
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 7:20 pm
This is the original Facebook page attacking Mr Mckee:
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/craig-mckee/
It is indeed squattle and rhetorical bullshit, to frame Craig in such a manner. But I will tell you what: I would never have laid eyes on this junk by KenDoc had it not been promoted on T&S.
The purported numbers for the Facebook are impressive, but I think deceptive, in that most readers are likely part time facebook dumbfucks who join facebook as a “party-place” — these are NOT serious people for the most part.
However this “conclusion” of KenDoc is indeed utter tripe:
“Either Craig McKee is not a very good researcher or he is a plant in this movement trying to divide and conquer it. Does Craig McKee want to be the next James Fetzer of disinfo? Because all Craig does is attack real information and promotes false theories. Last point, make sure you believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon, otherwise, Craig’s next blog might be about you! Craig McKee is a Troll and he runs a conspiracy site known as Truth and Shadows.”~KenDoc
The truth of the matter is that Craig runs an open forum addressing many points of view, he doesn’t necessarily condone the point of view of the theories or personalities he profiles on his blog. he allows and extraordinary span of freedom of speech, and is one of the most fair of any moderators I have ever Encountered. I fully support Mr McKee in his efforts to provide the movement with timely reviews of various points of view that are swirling out there in the digital domain.
The recent conflict between Craig and I have not changed my overall favorable view of Craig McKee or his website Truth & Shadows. Our disagreements are complex and subtle, and as noted earlier are mainly to do with Jim Fetzer, who is one of the most dangerous agents of disruption on the Internet today, with far more influence than any small time punk like Ken Doc will ever have.
Still I do not advise the banning of Fetzer from the site. I only advise very public distancing from him by Craig anytime Fetzer ends up commenting on Truth & Shadows.
Ken Doc is a flash in the pan. Jim Fetzer is an ever present danger to truth on the Internet.
See: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/
\\][//
Craig McKee
January 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm
David,
I thank you for your thoughtful comments. And you raise a fair point – that I have been pulled into the gutter, where I have no business being. But sometimes this is better than the alternative – doing nothing.
Believe me, I debated for weeks about how to deal with this. One option was to ignore any attacks. I mean the attacks are so absurd and so juvenile, they are hardly worth worrying about. There would have been some advantages in this approach, to be sure.
A second option would be to expose what these people are doing and to use the situation to illustrate some of the ways that real disinformation is being used to obscure the truth. I finally chose the latter. And despite the enormous stress it caused, I’m glad I did. I also wanted to expose how this Facebook page is doing all it can to drive any newcomers to the Movement away but insulting and mocking them. I think my dissection of Collins demonstrates how that is being done.
I knew that an article of this kind would cause a shitstorm, but this was not the intention or the desire on my part. I thought that the idea that a truther should simply never tell obvious lies about anyone’s position would go without saying. But apparently, some people don’t see this.
The fact that Kim McLaughlin can not only justify Doc’s lies but actually come to agree with them during an afternoon without the slightest basis for doing so, is absolutely incredible and absolutely unprincipled. This is not a person who cares at all about truth or who can even recognize it when she sees it. All she cares about is staying in her clique. She can have it.
As I tried to point out, I had not dealt with any of those people for the better part of a year when Doc and Collins thought it would be a great idea to launch more attacks. And those who think responding is “starting a war” simply don’t understand what they are talking about.
Not one comment out of more than 180 addressed the issue of so-called truthers attacking and mocking “conspiracy theorists.” If people don’t understand how damaging that is, then I don’t know what to say to them. Going on about “conspiracy sheep” is beyond irresponsible, it is an attack on truth itself. I think it’s something an agent would say to divide and to denigrate those who investigate conspiracies.
So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.
hybridrogue1
January 4, 2016 at 11:20 pm
“So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”~Craig McKee
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38882
Let me see if I can decipher exactly what the subtext in this text means here.
As the prequel has reference to Hybridrogue1, I shall have to assume that this is meant to describe me:
“I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”
Now Craig has complained of “low blows” here several times. Nothing I have said so far comes anywhere near this insinuation McKee has just made. So I am left with Craig’s opinion that I don’t care about truth. or think it matters. Quite a remarkable assertion. Or as I would characterize it, a slur.
Her is a guy running a forum that allows the most infamous charlatan and disinfo shill on the web today to post freely on his web; and he says that I am the one who doesn’t care about truth!
Anyone who allows James Fetzer free reign to spew his lies and bullshit, has no just place to claim another has is unconcerned about the truth. Craig has been hypocritical in a few of his comments there and here, but this one is a stand out in spurious nonsense.
“Mild mannered” Craig McKee is a supreme chump and a self righteous asshole.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2016-01-04
{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
“I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.”
Just tell me that wasn’t aimed at me Craig, and I will dump the comment above this one.
Veri thinks it wasn’t aimed at me… is he right? I’ll apologize if you clear this up.
\\][//
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
2016-01-04
{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
I don’t think it was, either, Willy. If anything, I am reading Craig’s last paragraph as a somewhat disguised expression of remorse about the fact that you are gone.
Either way, if I may say so, both of you really need to cut the crap. If for nothing else, just not to give the douches over at the Fartbook the satisfaction of knowing they have managed to do some damage to Craig, you, and more importantly, to T&S. If you don’t, then the divisive tactics employed by these numbskulls come out victorious.
You already know well my ultra cynical view of the truth-scmruth movement and its internal dynamics… But, even then, I can’t begin to tell you how crappy this childish feud of the two of you makes me feel. I suspect (and hope) that there others at T&S who share my pain and utter disbelief.
hybridrogue1
2016-01-04
{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
Thank you for that input David. I will take it to heart.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2016-01-04
{mcb: Published and emailed before retraction.}
I am done with this I have nothing more to add, and perhaps some more to subtract.
Thanks for good advice from several of my friends.
May peace prevail at some point.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 10:40 am
James Henry Fetzer
January 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
“You are right, David. I do not suffer fools gladly. And cowards display cowardice, just as they do.”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38889
That’s right David, Fetzer doesn’t suffer fools gladly – but he takes advantage of them gladly. The only people who buy into his bullshit are fools and idiots. without such fools and morons Fetzer wouldn’t have a following at all. Fetzer is the simpleton’s charlatan, and the moron’s champion.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
Fetzer, your very existence on the material plain is an insult to nature and truth. The soles of your shoes whisper filthy lies to the ground beneath your feet everywhere you tread.
On the planet Earth an object at rest, that is stationary geographically is INERT.
It has but one quality: Mass
Vector is a quality of momentum. An object at rest has zero momentum. This is the most elementary of Newtonian physics, and yet Fetzer doesn’t understand this.
Is he really this stupid?
Or is he counting on his audience to be stupid? After being rebuffed on these issues for years by so many people, I assert that Fetzer is NOT this stupid, that he is in fact a shyster conman out to dupe the gullible.
“I don’t think rogue1 has scored any points here. Even if he wants to play the very childish game of “no planes” means no planes..”~Fetzer — September 1, 2012 at 10:32 am
And why do you ignore the fact that the effects of the 200-ton plane hitting the stationary building at more than 500 mph would be the same as the effects of the 500,000-ton tower moving at more than 500 mph hitting the stationary plane? You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.
”http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/contrived-ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-really-means-stop-questioning-stop-thinking/#comment-12407
> “You seem to believe that none of us notices that you are dealing with one of the vectors while completely ignoring the other.”~James H. Fetzer — September 9, 2012 at 10:23 am
. . . . . .
WTF?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 3:51 pm
BANNED FROM TRUTH & SHADOWS — January 2, 2016
hybridrogue1
January 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Well as you see Craig, well enough will not be left alone. I understand that Ken Doc and his oinkers are dishonest shills, And I know you have never condoned some of the nutty concepts that they have accused you of. BUT you have given solace even yet this very day to someone who does promote screwball junk science and absurd theories.
This “no-planes” at the WTC has been shot down as absolute nonsense by all with any grasp of Newtonian physics. “Projected Holograms” are simply impossible in principle. And the other issues in dispute are equally unscientific twaddle.
And now as we see with the latest post here (January 2, 2016 at 5:18 pm), we are no longer confined to the issues on Ken Doc and his nonsense, but are treated to an onslaught of absolute bullshit about the the towers not being hit by real aircraft. So we end up with junk science again:
The “No-planes at WTC”, attended by the same crap pseudoscience that has come from this charlatan for years now.
If you won’t at least make it clear that you don’t agree with this nonsense, how can you complain when someone accuses you of promoting it. You don’t have to censor the party spouting this bullshit, but you can make your position on the matter clear; that you allow all points of view here, but do not necessarily condone those points of view.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38658
\\][//
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm
I hear you, Willy. I really do. But, I do not feel this much emotion and this much disdain for the man is a good mix for a successful strategy. In fact, it is the kind of shit these predatory characters feed on.
Our Professor Cockatoo is a pro… In all senses of the word. You can spit at him and he’d say it’s raining and put a raincoat on… So, it is indeed painful for me to imagine him havin’ a good ol’ laugh watching you and Craig go at each other because of him.
On the flip side, Craig is a good man. In all senses of the word. And he makes the mistake good men make, which is to assume that people operate under a mutually shared umbrella of ethics, common sense, character, etc., and his imagination might sometimes fail him to understand how dark and twisted some minds are, and that, when stakes are high, these minds cut each other’s throats without even blinking.
He made an honest attempt to expose these douches, but calling them liars is not very different then telling a clown his nose is red. These people do this for a living… They put on their costumes and just go to work. And, they are all in… Won’t back off just because they are exposed, or caught lying, or lost an argument.
I really do not mean to be patronizing towards you or craig, and by no means believe that i am smarter or wiser than either one of you. I just feel that, at least for the moment, I have a clearer, more level headed view of what went down between you two. Just trying help.
(by he way, I asked publicly if anyone knew what the fartbook admin characters do for a living, but no answer so far)
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm
Hi David,
I notice you have a comment in waiting. If you mentioned HR1 or any variation thereof, that would be the cause of holding up the comment.
I grok all that you say. As I have already said, I do not hold Craig in contempt at all, I do find him to be gullible in the extreme, but that is not contemptible, it is tragic.
I do have exceedingly great contempt for Uncle Fetzer. This is true, it is intellectual, but that does not discount a passionate aspect to my contempt. I apologize for neither, as passion drives action, and my action is of the pen…(or the analog, keyboard of the postmodern era). I feel it is my duty to help unmask this King Rat, James Fetzer.
As you know I am hardly the only one who feels such contempt for this impostor and crank. I have cited several others in the longer commentary above in this thread.
Now I have the added motive to out this vile charlatan, as he was the core instigator of the breakup between Craig and I. Whether Craig can ever be convinced of what a monster Fetzer is…I simply do not know. That is obviously out of my hands now.
\\][//
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm
“If you mentioned HR1 or any variation thereof, that would be the cause of holding up the comment.”
Really? That is ridiculous if true… I had not used your name in vain… But quoted Craig’s last sentence there which did contain the H word :-}]
Needless to say, my comment-in-witing was a gentle attempt to usher in a conciliatory process between you two. Although, I have to admit, there is a bit of selfishness on my part in my efforts towards this goal:
I became aware of T&S through you, and without you there, it will certainly turn into a lonelier place. And, if Craig lets this clash between you go on to really become permanent, I will start thinking he is not who and what i thought he was after all, and will probably stop frequenting the blog eventually. That would be very BLEH!
“Now I have the added motive to out this vile charlatan”
Now, that, I will stand fully behind, sir!
Because, even though i know that each well-poisoner (like the fartbook douches) acts at a certain capacity within their abilities, I always feel the real damage is done at a much higher level, by people who have academic titles in front of their names. So, I do share your contempt. It is just that, in this instance, the expression of that contempt caught Craig in an extremely vulnerable state, I believe when he had mentally prepared himself for a war of words with the ken doc clan, but he had not anticipated the possibility of the thread moving in the Fetzer-centric direction and take away from the purpose of his efforts. At least not so soon, on the first day after publishing his write up. He might not feel as strongly as you do about the guy, but i can’t imagine him not thinking Fetzer is at best more-holes-than-cheese, and at worst a pure opera and/or a charlatan.
I am not really worried about you and craig not ever making up. The agitated waters might need to calm down a little more before sailing into the sunset :-)
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 5:24 pm
“Admittedly, I was sometimes confused by how strongly he defended some of his positions, perhaps most confusing to me was his relatively recent defense of the government agency NASA which, as a Flat Earther who knows the whole agency is a giant money-siphoning hoax, I attempted to challenge directly at his blog – only to be un-welcomed and blocked. While not directly 9/11 related, I’m hoping Mr. McKee will someday write on his investigation into that subject.”~Sherif Shaalan — January 5, 2016 at 11:26 am
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-38905
Hahahaha!! This is hilarious! Shaalan is an admitted “Flat Earther” — And he is complaining about my not allowing his stupid bullshit on my blog. The chump has his mind in the Dark Ages and his head up his ass.
What a joke this Sherif jackass is.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Yo David,
I appreciate your moral support. I wish I could share your optimism about reconciliation with Mr McKee.
I’m afraid I find it unlikely that Craig will submit to such petitions as yours and Adam Ruff’s. Pride can run deep.
It is funny that the nutballs are coming out now that I have been blackballed from T&S, there will likely be more as time goes on. That screwball Sherif Shaalan, is one of the first of many. This fliptart actually believes that the Earth is flat. He sent me several videos on this nonsense and asked me to “critique” them.
Lol… I thought Galileo had taken care of that in the Middle Ages! Unbelievable junk…
I would expect “TamberineMan”, and others to pipe up soon. Hufferd should be blowing some anal hurlant there soon, congratulating Craig on “finally seeing the light” about that “vicious monster HR1” — Oh yea, I have made enemies of a lot of goofballs in my time.
Maybe Craig will reinstate Maxifucker’s posting privileges out of spite! Add these guys, Fetzer and Maxipad, and you will have a Crackpot Jamboree at T&S … a flood of Yahoos! Jonathan Swift would be proud.
2016 is already stacking up to be a VERY STRANGE YEAR. It looks like it will divide the men from the boys, and the gullible from the wise…and ne’er the twain shall meet..
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm
Hahaha! I can imagine that the Maxitwat is just squealing with joy because of the recent developements on T&S.
Hey maybe you can get your stupid ass reinstated there! Give it a try Maxifuck!!! Can’t hurt to try!
Getting you back on there with Uncle Fistfucker, the Flat Earthers, maybe TamborineMan…and all the rest of the fruitcakes that used to post there would be a real Hoedown of Lunacy!!!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 5, 2016 at 8:15 pm
Notice that Sharif avoided answering the question, with some rhetorical squattle.
Now on our very first encounter on T&S, Sharif was lobbying for me to be banned within two exchanges.
I took it as an agenda for his being there in the first place. It has panned out that way over the course of time since then.
The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.
\\][//
x242 Señor El Once : Mr. Whitten also fits that mold
2016-01-04
{mcb: Not published.}
Craig McKee wrote:
So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.
Mr. Whitten takes offense:
As the prequel has reference to Hybridrogue1, I shall have to assume that this is meant to describe me.
That would be a false assumption, because Mr. Whitten completely ignores the parenthetical phrase: "that's another story." In other words, Mr. Whitten's forced departure is not related to the Ken Doc piece, nor to Mr. McKee's subsequent comments about truthers who aren't.
However, if Mr. Whitten insists on taking offense, let's see how Mr. Whitten also fits that mold reserved for Ken Doc and Mike Collins.
T&S's "most prolific commenter" was also a chief participant in nearly all its heated flame wars. Quick to shoot ad hominem and one-liners, and not a care about the fall-out or having his own words deleted. The fast majority of that "Whitten work" did not even merit being re-purposed and preserved on his own blog, which alone should attest to its lack of worthiness.
Mr. Whitten was challenged to exhibit an open-mind with an objective review of (someone's) work. Mr. Whitten ran out the clock on providing the review, admitted to not finishing reading the work, and then milked a lie for literally years that the work was so bad that he physically destroyed it.
Had Mr. Whitten held to the assignment and provided an objective good, bad, and ugly review, regardless of how thin it turned out to be, his reputation would not have suffered. But Mr. Whitten was prone to telling (small) lies, promoting other people's work as his own (albeit with improvement in this regard over the years), and fighting flaming battles about what transpired in run-up to getting the assignment instead of doing the assignment.
When the topic of discussion moved beyond that work and into other areas, again Mr. Whitten demonstrated the skills of avoidance of such scholarly reviews while maintaining his barbed front of labeling it negative things.
x243 Señor El Once : earned your banishment
2016-01-05
Dear Mr. Whitten,
Let us not lose sight of the fact that you earned your banishment. (Good thing you've got sockpuppets already installed on T&S who lamely plead for your return.) Although you wrote and then deleted some inciting comments to Craig, after advice from Mr. Hazan, this doesn't mean that they landed completely into the ethernet bit-bucket. I can only imagine the contents of your "resignation email". Oh the pleasures of being one of the few subscribers to the comments on your blog!
But rather than pollute your hit-piece on Dr. Fetzer or your hit-pieces on me with comments related to Mr. McKee and T&S, why don't you start a brand-new smear campaign for Mr. McKee like you did for COTO previously?
I have issues with several premises that Dr. Fetzer supports. I can take down NPT and Holograms more rationally, reasonably, logically than you could or can (in your confused, highly disorganized, hate-filled blogs). I can provide source links to the previous T&S discussions even when I don't wordsmith new verbiage.
Unlike you, I am consistent, moral, and above-board. I write for posterity, which curbs me during authoring. (Take a lesson.) I am unashamed to display my evolution in thought, or to admit where I was wrong. If you could present a convincing case against my 4th generation nukes while at the same time shoring up the gross deficiencies in the NT limited-hang-out, I would have changed my opinions already and issued public apologies.
But, Mr. Whitten, you have been a game player. You are more interested in the fight than an outcome that sides with TRUTH. Case in point, Mr. McKee wrote:
So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.
Your uncurbed, shoot-from-the-hip response completely ignored the parenthetical message regarding your departure being another story and not related to the Ken Doc piece, nor to Mr. McKee's subsequent comments about truthers who aren't.
Your departure was directly dependent upon your unhinged and unsubstantiated (in the comment) belittling of a participant and his hobby-horse, a re-occuring negative tactic against many other participants that often led the T&S discussion astray.
I can boast that my T&S silence was not based on anything I actually did or for anything I was going to do per se. It came out of fear about the reaction of easily unhinged participants (e.g., you, Mr. Ruff, sockpuppet VerityTwo) to anything I might slip in sideways occasionally (because Truth dictates it). To the lower degree I participated, such infrequent inserts could have been easily ignored... unless there was an agenda to derail.
But hey, Mr. Whitten. Me of all people are justified in pushing your buttons by implying that you are a truther who isn't. Mr. Ruff so wonderfully wrote January 3, 2016 at 9:08 pm regarding Ken Doc:
When Ken Doc made the immoral decision to start lying about other truthers he became a liar instead of a truther... It is just a plain simple fact Kim that Ken is doing wrong and that he is the attacker in this. Craig is defending himself and therefore he is NOT the attacker and he is NOT the one causing division.... The simple fact is Kim that lying about others means that you are not a truther. Period.
Mr. Whitten, rhetorically speaking, how would you classify your two blog postings dedicated to me?
How would you classify the lie that you diligently maintained for a couple of years about you having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book? [I don't care one "whit" about Dr. Wood's book or what your review might have been. I have my own issues with it, was only after its nuggets of truth anyway, and made clear this agenda to you from the onset.] You so spectacularly screwed the pooch on this simple test of your objectivity and integrity. You ran out the clock on your review, admitted to not finishing reading the work, and then milked the lie about its physical destruction so that you could avoid a detailed, reasoned, and rational discussion.
I can certainly laugh about that state of affairs, but it continued. You proudly carried this willful and purposeful ignorance at reviewing source material into 4th generation nukes, the natural evolution of my line of inquery. This is on top of the many subtle lies and deceitful debate tactics that you were caught in.
You, as T&S's "most prolific commenter", were also a chief participant in nearly all its heated flame wars. Quick to shoot ad hominem and belittling one-liners, and not a care about the fall-out or having your own words deleted. The vast majority of that "Whitten work" did not even merit being re-purposed and preserved on your own blog, which alone should attest to its lack of worthiness.
At any rate, Mr. Whitten, I provided you in the past with much free advice on how to improve your blog. Some is repeated above that, regardless of the forum, you need to write from the onset for posterity -- with fact and tone -- and you need to be actively saving and re-publishing it. Prove that you stand behind your words. And if a couple months later upon review, the words no longer reflect your cooled-off state, they should be edited accordingly.
If there is any validity to the two hit-pieces (and HUNDREDS of unstructured, unorganized comments) you've penned against me, then it could stand to be re-worked and the ad hominem & lies purged in a new creation, deep-sixing the old. Their continued existence as-is only continue to discredit you.
What Ken Doc is to Mr. McKee, you have been to me. Coincidence?
If you haven't irreversibly burned your T&S bridges and if there is any thought to restoring your commenting abilities, then it should be after another month or two cooling off in the penalty box. And in fairness, I should be restored beforehand or at the latest at the same time. Your actions (and lies) have been so much worse than mine.
//
x244 hybridrogue1 : the only one who reads whinyshit comments
2016-01-05
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 5:36 am
I am the only one who reads your whinyshit comments to HR1blog Maxitwat.
You see that is the difference between you and I. I don’t need T&S as a platform for my ideas and commentary. I have a blog of my own that gets from 150 to 200 hits every 24 hours.
So I have a voice on the web. You don’t with your measly little twat-blog.
You sending me your whining commentary proves that to me. So wallow in your angst all alone you pathetic little shit.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 2:34 am
Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm
“Based on what I’ve seen on hybridrogue’s blog today, the chances of this split being reversed are much more remote than they were even yesterday. I will post more after the hockey game I’m watching is over.”
* * * * * * * *
Gee Craig…was it something I said??? Lol
Maybe I should let you moderate my blog as well.
You don’t like my views on certain things, such as the Moon Hoax bullshit for example.
Are you going to pretend you have the chops scientifically to make a good argument against the Apollo Missions? Seriously? You don’t know enough physics to make a reasoned argument against a pretender like Jim Fetzer, that’s why you fell for the hokey bullshit of Max Bridges for YEARS.
Yea, I agree with everybody else: You are a fair and just guy…until your ego gets bruised.
I’ve apologized for hurting your feelings with some of the things I have said. That is the last one you get.
If you ever want me to come back to T&S again, it’s up to you to apologize to me. What makes you think I am so desperate to be reinstated on Truth & Shadows anyway? I am NOT, if you are going to play hard ball; “My blog verses Your Blog” bullshit games, you can take Your blog and shove it.
That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
The year isn’t even 5 days old!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 3:22 am
You can take Your blog and shove it. That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
And you can quote me on that McKee.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 3:45 am
James Henry Fetzer — January 5, 2016 at 10:37 pm
“Craig, You are such a good and decent man who has only the truth at heart that this has become a litmus test for integrity among students of 9/11: Those who attack you have shown that they are not dedicated to truth and do not deserve our respect. We know who you are–and through their attacks we are discovering who they are. This is a painful but instructive exercise.”
* * * * * *
Here is the alliance as it is stacking up…a good and decent man who is being played by the King Rat, James Fetzer. And Craig is so naïve he still doesn’t get it.
What a shame for Craig personally and for Truth & Shadows.
You’ve made your bed Craig, now sleep in it.
Why would David Hazan say such a thing?
Are you fucking serious Craig? Wake the fuck up!!!!!!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 4:59 am
Craig McKee — January 5, 2016 at 11:54 pm
“Well, that’s a fresh perspective I wasn’t expecting!
I didn’t count on Kim jumping the shark, but she has made her choice, and she’ll have to live with that. Now she says I defend Jim Fetzer “constantly,” which completes her conversion to the Ken Doc/Mike Collins school of truth telling.
Despite how painful and stressful all of this has been, if I had to do it again, I would.”
* * * * * * * * * *
How is allowing Fetzer a platform on T&S not “defending Jim Fetzer”? You host him you own him.
He is yours.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 4:35 am
“Smoke ’em all out, Craig!”~sockpuppet2012 — January 5, 2016 at 11:23 pm
Yea Sockpuppet! And who will be left standing on T&S when the smoke clears?
All of the fawning sycophants to Craig McKee__that’s who.
Welcome to Wishy-Washy Land you suck-up little punk.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 4:42 am
I am satisfied to be ex-T&S. It feels good to be out here on the perimeter on my own.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 10:53 am
Craig McKee — January 2, 2016 at 6:21 pm
“I am composing a response to your comment. Please stop commenting until I have posted it!”
* * * * * * * *
So that was on the 2nd of January. And last night Craig was going to compose his thoughts on the “breakup between us” – after watching a hockey game…(now there’s some serious business to have to take care of) and now it is:
“David, I have just read the latest on HR’s blog, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this tonight. I will say this, however. It is hybridrogue who is deciding that this split cannot be fixed. He is behaving like a bully with a gleeful mean streak, like Mike Collins with a better vocabulary.”~Craig McKee –January 6, 2016 at 12:00 am
It appears Craig is waiting for some sort of subneural reasoning to bubble up from his gut, to give him some idea of what to say about everything.
The whole excuse given for initially putting me on moderation, was that Craig couldn’t think while I was bugging him by putting up posts after he told me to stop; even though he told both me and Fetzer to stop, and Fetzer didn’t stop either but that’s okay because…because….because??? Because Fetzer’s the wonderful wizard of Ahhs???
So now, as usual I get the blame for this whole mess because I am writing commentary on my own blog, and Craig isn’t writing the commentary he has been promising for four days now.
Sure! That makes sense! (don’t it?)
And I am admonished by friends to stand back, and give Craig time to cool off, to let the pressure cooker frying his mind shut off, before his knapsack explodes killing 300 bystanders and flipping tables at the restaurant spilling corn-syrup-food-colored-fake-blood all over T&S.
Yes gleeful GLEEFUL words of wonder spill forth here “merrily merrily merrily” this must be a dream! Or could it be some new form of Canadian Stand-up Comedy?
Well whatever it is, it is most entertaining, and I can’t wait to read the next chapter that will likely never come.
Yes! YES!! It is ALL my fault! Because I am THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE, and I have you all in my thrall, and there is not a move you can make or a thought you can think without my will power guiding them! Remember that next time you try to flip a booger with your pinky and it ends up stuck on your reading glasses.
Give me a Lol…has anybody seen the Lol? I thought I saw a herd of them stampeding the gates of T&S last night…maybe it was just hotdog flavored water squirting from chocolate starfish.
Good morning world! Behold the brand new day.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 5:03 pm
But hey! How would YOU deal with some backwater asshole who hardly anyone in the world has ever heard of, like Ken Doc? Well Hell’s Bells!!! The answer surely must be to blow up a dirigible the size of the Good-Year Blimp, with Ken Doc’s name and address flashing in neon lights and float it above your valley. figuring the whole time that surely no one is going to remember the name of Ken Doc now! Not after this!
Surely ‘KenDoc the Unknown’ has no scud missiles to launch into your valley – you are safe from all reprisals because hey, why would Ken want to shoot down his biggest PR stunt made by his enemies?
Go figure…
\\][//
x245 David Hazan, James Fetzer, & Craig McKee : wishing others would have used some restraint before shooting their mouths off
2016-01-05
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 4, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Dear Craig,
I have always been an admirer of the ethics and dignity you apply to your articles, as well as your interactions with the countless comments and commenters on your pages. And that includes this latest article above, in which you try to engage in a major confrontation with people that you feel are in the wrong.
As painful and frustrating as it was for me to watch and read the ensuing shitstorm, I tried my best to refrain from jumping on the bandwagon with a knee-jerk comment of my own, and can’t help wishing that others would have used some restraint as well before shooting their mouths off.
But, sadly, I feel that you have been had. You have allowed these lowly characters to pull you all the way down to the gutters of the internet. And when you pick a fight with sewer rats, it is inevitable that you will get some muck all over you regardless of the outcome.
“LOL” is already annoying enough as it is, but countless LOLs right after calling people idiots and dimwits should have been sufficient to know that these people have zero interest in T?UTH, and they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass whether what they are saying or claiming is true, ethical, or dignified… And, not unlike the super-anti-gay minister turning out to be gay himself, for people who keep calling others stupid, they seem to be very short on IQ points and education themselves.
I suspect this Facebook operation’s admins are much more organized and sinister than just being liars and being dumb. But, that’d be pure speculation on my part.
However, I would like to pose a question (not rhetorical) to anyone reading this who might have an answer:
I would be very curious to know how these truth-bandits, Ken, Mike, Joe, Kim et al, make a living.
Wishing you all a rat-free blog :-]}
Craig McKee
January 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm
David,
I thank you for your thoughtful comments. And you raise a fair point – that I have been pulled into the gutter, where I have no business being. But sometimes this is better than the alternative – doing nothing.
Believe me, I debated for weeks about how to deal with this. One option was to ignore any attacks. I mean the attacks are so absurd and so juvenile, they are hardly worth worrying about. There would have been some advantages in this approach, to be sure.
A second option would be to expose what these people are doing and to use the situation to illustrate some of the ways that real disinformation is being used to obscure the truth. I finally chose the latter. And despite the enormous stress it caused, I’m glad I did. I also wanted to expose how this Facebook page is doing all it can to drive any newcomers to the Movement away but insulting and mocking them. I think my dissection of Collins demonstrates how that is being done.
I knew that an article of this kind would cause a shitstorm, but this was not the intention or the desire on my part. I thought that the idea that a truther should simply never tell obvious lies about anyone’s position would go without saying. But apparently, some people don’t see this.
The fact that Kim McLaughlin can not only justify Doc’s lies but actually come to agree with them during an afternoon without the slightest basis for doing so, is absolutely incredible and absolutely unprincipled. This is not a person who cares at all about truth or who can even recognize it when she sees it. All she cares about is staying in her clique. She can have it.
As I tried to point out, I had not dealt with any of those people for the better part of a year when Doc and Collins thought it would be a great idea to launch more attacks. And those who think responding is “starting a war” simply don’t understand what they are talking about.
Not one comment out of more than 180 addressed the issue of so-called truthers attacking and mocking “conspiracy theorists.” If people don’t understand how damaging that is, then I don’t know what to say to them. Going on about “conspiracy sheep” is beyond irresponsible, it is an attack on truth itself. I think it’s something an agent would say to divide and to denigrate those who investigate conspiracies.
So despite the fallout, which includes the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story), I do not regret this post. I think the truth matters, and I think there are people who call themselves truthers who clearly don’t.
James Henry Fetzer
January 4, 2016 at 4:21 pm
This is bad–a form of “political correctness” applied to 9/11 research. If we don’t call out the rats among us, we will never be free of them. They will continue to pollute and obfuscate the truths we have established. There is no alternative to outing them. They are wrong in every way: empirically, scientifically, theoretically, morally and ethically. They have no redeeming merit. I hereby reiterate my invitation to Mike Collins and Ken Doc to come on my show for a debate on the issues (the Pentagon, planes/no planes and whatever, including the Holocaust and the moon non-landings, if they like). I have done serious research and publication on all of them. But of course they won’t do it. They are of the kind that attacks others for no good reason using a blizzard of ad hominems and refused to offer good reasons in their defense. The explanation, of course, is not difficult to discern: THEY DON’T HAVE ANY. Craig is a nice guy, but I am willing to take them on in a no-holds-bared exchange on “The Real Deal”, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 4, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Mr. Fetzer,
As per Craig’s wishes, I have no intention to argue with you on the merits of your comment above, or expressing my long held opinion of the heavy handed and callous manner you try to steer the so-called truth movement.
I have already seen your repeated, self-promoting invitations to the “rats” to come on your show to hash things out, which I can almost guarantee you that they shall not accept. And, if, by some freak development they do accept, I have very little interest in listening to any of the participants in question, including the host.
James Henry Fetzer
January 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
You are right, David. I do not suffer fools gladly. And cowards display cowardice, just as they do.
Craig McKee
January 5, 2016 at 1:27 am
Don’t take this the wrong way, Eriksen, but it’s easy for you to say, who cares. Of course it’s not the ideal use of time to deal with people I have written about. But it’s my time and I was attacked very unfairly. It’s my right to respond. I would counter that it is NOT possible that in lying that they thought they were helping the movement. When is lying acceptable for those in a truth movement?
And yes you can prove that these claims are false. Try to find a single statement I have made supporting any of the things they say. You won’t. If they had proof they would have offered it. And I’m sorry but I demonstrated very thoroughly how Collins qualifies as a troll. It’s very clear. How much proof do you need? And this goes beyond a personal argument. Among other things, it’s about people, especially new people, having the opportunity to explore ideas and learn about 9/11 without being called a fucking retard by an obvious troll.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 5, 2016 at 10:32 am
“…. the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 (that’s another story)….” – Craig McKee
With all due respect (and affection) for both of you, your egos and your hurt feelings, I do not believe even for a second that either of you think, believe, or wish that this is indeed a “permanent departure”. So, please do not make me write up a whole thing where I would have to address you both like little children who just had a fight, and make you apologize to each other and kiss and make up.
Whether you want to go through the conciliatory process in private or on these pages is your business… But whatever you are going to do, do it soon. If you don’t, Wisemen lose to the Rats one-nothing… In their home field, nonetheless. Which might force them to change their team name to Notsowisemenafterall.
Sherif Shaalan
January 5, 2016 at 11:26 am
As a daily reader/follower of this blog for nearly 5 years, the permanent departure from Truth and Shadows of its most prolific commenter, Hybridrogue1 is bittersweet to me.
On one hand I particularly found much of his well-worded insight into the deep state to be nothing short of profound – “Government is [indeed] a racket” – and have quoted many similar statements like his “gawblesmerka” several times in other communications.
On the other hand, I found his ridicule, vulgarity, and overall dominating presence here intimidating and in stark contrast to the considerate, respectful and evenhanded tone of Mr. McKee and almost all of the other regular contributors here.
Admittedly, I was sometimes confused by how strongly he defended some of his positions, perhaps most confusing to me was his relatively recent defense of the government agency NASA which, as a Flat Earther who knows the whole agency is a giant money-siphoning hoax, I attempted to challenge directly at his blog – only to be un-welcomed and blocked. While not directly 9/11 related, I’m hoping Mr. McKee will someday write on his investigation into that subject.
Regardless, in separating the chaff from the grain, I greatly appreciate much of his insight on this blog. I look forward to my increased participation here on what I believe is the finest blog on 9/11, and perhaps the participation of those who were otherwise reluctant before.
veritytwo
January 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I have to go with David on this one. I haven’t tendered many comments until recently, for the simple fact, a closed mouth gathers no foot. The “Rogue” and I have been online friends over many campaigns covering each other’s 6’s. Under that crusty out front persona is what I’ve come to respect, a sweet guy (no Willy, I ain’t gay. Not that matters an iota). He’s very outspoken but brings to the table a sharp mind backed up by much archived materials. He’s been instrumental to bringing my knowledge base light years ahead, I hold the highest respect for him. It’s because of Willy that came over to this blog, now I’m sounding off for him.
His eloquential demeanor can be quite crusty but there’s no BS with him. Whoever comes to the table better be up on their game because he’ll certainly hold them to it. Be a shame for him to move on. Hey David, you two are of a like mind I see.
Craig, I hope you and him can patch up your relationship.
x246 Señor El Once : divide up between 37 other people curious enough to follow your blog
2016-01-06
Señor El Once
January 6, 2016 at 8:07 pm
2016-01-06
Dear Mr. Whitten, you wrote:
I am the only one who reads your whinyshit comments to HR1blog Maxitwat.
Correction. You are the only one who reads my comments when they are posted to HR1blog and routed to the moderation queue. But you are not the only one who reads my comments, because you completely miss the message about "save and re-purpose." When I get around to it, eventually they make it to my website and blog. I know you think that this is a big whoop-de-doo, but you also have to admit that this diligent little habit turned tactic has provided my words sufficient permanance over time to kick your sorry ass.
You go on to hyperventilate:
I don’t need T&S as a platform for my ideas and commentary. I have a blog of my own that gets from 150 to 200 hits every 24 hours.
First of all, "having a blog" and "using a blog efficiently and effectively" are two different things. We can immediately guage the worthiness of your ideas and commentary expressed so profusely in many different forums -- Amazon, OpEdNews, COTO, and T&S -- when they don't see the light of day on your blog as well. Either "Unworthy" or "a liability".
Secondly, let's provide some perspective to your alledged 200 pageviews in 24 hours. This can be attributed to rubberneck morbid curiousity gooking at the train wreck you've become. Gee, even I, who am subscribed and don't need to "load your blog" in my browser, am guilty of giving you probably a quarter of those hits. "Did HR really write that shit? Did HR think better of it and modify it or take it down?" Indeed in inflating you page views with page refreshes, I observed formatting improvements you made to comments, content changes and in one case complete replacement, as well as published comments that leave and then later -- with your blood really boiling -- return.
Ah, yes, but then we have the matter that is your own personal hand in the hit count. Each time you make a comment, edit a comment, remove a comment, restore a comment, navigate to another page on your blog (prior to making a comment)... all of those serve to inflate your hit count and your ego, but they aren't real in terms of being significant. You're easily also another quarter or half of your hit count.
The remaining hits we can divide up between 37 other people curious enough to follow your blog.
You go on to charge mistakenly:
So I have a voice on the web. You don’t with your measly little twat-blog.
Don't project your web aims and aspirations onto me. My blog accomplishes the purposes assigned to it: preserve my words offered up in discussions elsewhere. Even as a "measly little twat-blog", it contradicts handily your claim of me not having a voice on the web. You obviously weren't thinking when you wrote that humdinger. Further in the paradigm that "content is king", my fair and moral efforts have been sufficient as a side-effect to debunk and discredit, among others, both you and Mr. Ruff.
In fact, your blog is missing so many of your words, under normal circumstances you would be grateful for how much my blog accurately quotes with links to the source destination your words "MIA" from your blog. Alas, these aren't normal circumstances, and most aren't normal quotes: they are to your embarrassment on many levels which is why you've never stood behind them and re-purposed on your blog.
With regards to Mr. McKee, you wrote:
You don’t know enough physics to make a reasoned argument against a pretender like Jim Fetzer, that’s why you fell for the hokey bullshit of Max Bridges for YEARS.
Hokey bullshit? To what are you referring? Is it the 80% overlap in conspiratorial views between you and me? If I have any true claim to fame, it was that I was not as quick to judgment as you and others were in throwing out whole genres at the slightest whiff of error, because I recognized nuggets of truth exist within disinformation sources.
FTR, Mr. McKee is not in the nuclear 9/11 camp, and he actively avoids such discussions, because he targets raising public awareness in general about 9/11 as being more important than minutia details about what caused it. Pity, because were I given the opportunity to convince him and the T&S community, "we were nuked on 9/11" would be the banner that ushers in that higher level of public awareness and action.
To the minority percentage of my beliefs that doubts "Mr. Willy Whitten" is a real person and pegs you as a senior citizen earning extra income by infiltrating blogs Sunstein style, your assignment was to keep a lid on 9/11 nukes and derail all such discussions and related (e.g., Dr. Wood) by any means possible.
You wrote:
So wallow in your angst all alone you pathetic little shit.
Who is wallowing?
January 3, 2016:
Craig has me on moderation, and Uncle Fistfucker is still posting; fuck both of them.
Craig cannot see his own hypocrisy in saying that! Astonishing!
As far as I’m concerned, Craig has lost his bearings and sense of judgement. I sure as hell am not going to apologize to him for anything I said to him or Fetzer. At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit. I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.
I emailed Craig what is essentially my resignation from Truth & Shadows just a few minutes ago. Craig and his remaining crew can go their own way. I have had enough of this namby-pamby horseshit.
You [Mr. McKee] have flipped out and are in denial now, and to you it’s everybody else’s fault. It’s your hubris McKee, simple and obvious ego borne arrogance.
You can “rest your case” on your own blog now McKee. You don’t have posting privileges here anymore.
There we have it, full blown projection from Craig McKee, who in fact is the one in the middle of some kind of emotion meltdown that is clouding his reason!
January 4, 2016:
I refuse to keep my mouth shut[...]. it doesn’t matter who’s yard we are playing in at the time. That’s just the way I am. We have different sensibilities on what we can put up with. It is time I go my way since you don’t understand that. Fare thee well Craig...
You have overstayed your welcome here. I now return to you the favor you offered me of banishment. You can say whatever you want to say at your own blog. Cheerio sweetheart!
So Craig, is calling you naïve an empty slur?
This is how mixed up it becomes when you do not recognize an agent of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ in action.
I have changed my mind. You can comment here if you wish. I am not going to simply act out of spite.
“Mild mannered” Craig McKee is a supreme chump and a self righteous asshole.
I am done with this I have nothing more to add, and perhaps some more to subtract.
January 5, 2016:
2016 is already stacking up to be a VERY STRANGE YEAR. It looks like it will divide the men from the boys, and the gullible from the wise…and ne’er the twain shall meet..
The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.
January 6, 2016:
I’ve apologized for hurting your feelings with some of the things I have said. That is the last one you get. If you ever want me to come back to T&S again, it’s up to you to apologize to me. What makes you think I am so desperate to be reinstated on Truth & Shadows anyway? I am NOT, if you are going to play hard ball; “My blog verses Your Blog” bullshit games, you can take Your blog and shove it.
You can take Your blog and shove it. That should settle it “Permanent-like” aye?
I am satisfied to be ex-T&S. It feels good to be out here on the perimeter on my own.
Mr. Whitten, with the above, I can clearly feel the vibrant energy you exhibit as an ex-T&Ser out on the perimeter on your own. But "wallow" is the appropriate name for it.
P.S. Ken Doc may be a backwater asshole, but you under-estimate his endeavors on Facebook. He is not "unknown." And his WordPress blog? Far superior to yours in every single way (hit-piece on McKee excepted).
P.P.S. Speaking of Facebook, I repeat that it is the place for you in every single way.
P.P.P.S. This was already mostly finished when Mr. McKee posted his rebuttal. Glad that he included a good number of your choice quotes that I highlighted above. I'm naive, and not ashamed to admit it. Mr. McKee may be too. Your true colors were revealed to me long ago, and Mr. McKee is just now really catching on. Caught you in more of your lies, too. That was golden. His assessment of your blog: "firehose of ridicule turned full blast".
Naive me has been guilty of trying to give you constructive, positive criticism on how to improve your blog. I'm reminded of one of my earlier reviews of Dr. Judy Wood's books when not even 1/2 way finished. I wrote words to the effect that:
I found no major issues in the first half. Even if the second half unravels to be blatant disinformation, this book is worthy of being in our 9/11 collections to be held up as an example of what disinformation looks like.
In similar fashion, the only redeeming value your blog has in its present hate-filled, unorganized state is to be held up as an example of what a true disinformation effort looks like. Kudos, Mr. Whitten. No need to change a thing.
//
x247 Craig McKee, ruffadam, David Hazan, veritytwo : Liars are NOT truthers
2016-01-06
ruffadam
January 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Agreed Craig. It occurs to me that many people have forgotten one very simple thing. Liars are NOT truthers.
ruffadam
January 6, 2016 at 4:27 am
I agree with you that cordial relations between truthers is very important however I have to ask one question. Is a person like Ken Doc who posts provable lies about others really a truther? I do not think he is a truther any more. I have no reservations at all about saying that.
Mixed in with your positive intent to unite truthers into more cordial relations is the assumption that everyone who claims to be a truther really is a truther.
veritytwo
January 6, 2016 at 8:47 am
Craig; You have to have noticed since you canned Willy, all the pustulence oozing and slithering out of the woodwork. Now you have to deal with puppet ass kissers, flat brained flat earthers, festerers and the other drivel. Rogue performed a duty contesting these slugs and holding them to some kind of accountability with aplomb.
Now you have to. By the way, I’m still on the turnip truck headed out of Dodge having a life as opposed to hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether where one can be whatever kind of asshole their mean spiritedness has brought them to become. They need to try having a real life, I can think of all kinds of expletives but all it’d become is a name calling contest.
One from the “Rogue”
Sherif Shaalan
January 6, 2016 at 9:06 am
To ridicule and name-call what one has not even bothered to investigate at all, let alone understand would also qualify one as an anti-truther.
sockpuppet2012
January 6, 2016 at 10:23 am
veritytwo said:
“Craig; You have to have noticed since you canned Willy, all the pustulence oozing and slithering out of the woodwork
Now you have to deal with puppet ass kissers, flat brained flat earthers, festerers and the other drivel”
Awwwwww…..did the poor baby get butt-hurt?
That’s a charming “vocabulary” you got there.
Can you name some of this “oozing, slithering pustulence…..puppet ass kissers and festerers and other drivel”, and by copying and pasting from some of their comments, prove your point?
“By the way, I’m still on the turnip truck headed out of Dodge having a life as opposed to hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether….”
Oh…..I didn’t know “veritytwo” was your real name and address…..stupid me…..all this time I thought you were hiding behind the opaqueness of the ether…..Project much?
“…..where one can be whatever kind of asshole their mean spiritedness has brought them to become”
Now, that is such a classic, text book case in projection that it renders your whole comment as a parody.
“They need to try having a real life…..”
Yawwwwn.
“I can think of all kinds of expletives…..”
You mean…..even MORE?
“…..but all it’d become is a name calling contest”
I can’t for the life of me imagine how that would come about
veritytwo…..your whole comment is a parody of projection; your projection is so exaggerated, it’s actually comical, like a Monty Python skit.
sockpuppet2012
January 6, 2016 at 10:32 am
veritytwo, I like that video you posted…..”You’re Gonna Miss Me”.
It reminds me of Opie Taylor gettin’ ready to run away from home and writin’ his Pa a goodbye letter.
Waaa…..waaaa…..waaa!
Will someone please feel sorry for me…..at weast dust a widdoh bit?
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 5, 2016 at 8:12 pm
Thank you. Looking forward to it.
Can’t speak on behalf of veritytwo, but I followed all of your exchanges and comments live, as it happened, both here and on the HR1 blog. And, I will risk being perceived as presumptuous and say in advance that I feel I understand both of your positions, angles, and resentments quite well. My bigger point is still that, considering your history with each other, what transpired does not warrant a break up.
I might come across as a little pushy regarding this matter, but it’s only because I am quite troubled by it… And with that, I will shut up and wait for the chips to fall where they may between you two.
Craig McKee
January 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm
Based on what I’ve seen on hybridrogue’s blog today, the chances of this split being reversed are much more remote than they were even yesterday. I will post more after the hockey game I’m watching is over.
Craig McKee
January 5, 2016 at 10:26 pm
David, you have been a voice of reason and patience over the past two or three days (not just then) but I must say I was hurt by this comment you made on hybridrogue’s blog:
“And, if Craig lets this clash between you go on to really become permanent, I will start thinking he is not who and what i thought he was after all, and will probably stop frequenting the blog eventually.”
Why would you say that?
James Henry Fetzer
January 5, 2016 at 10:37 pm
Craig, You are such a good and decent man who has only the truth at heart that this has become a litmus test for integrity among students of 9/11: Those who attack you have shown that they are not dedicated to truth and do not deserve our respect. We know who you are–and through their attacks we are discovering who they are. This is a painful but instructive exercise.
Craig McKee
January 6, 2016 at 12:00 am
David, I have just read the latest on HR’s blog, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this tonight. I will say this, however. It is hybridrogue who is deciding that this split cannot be fixed. He is behaving like a bully with a gleeful mean streak, like Mike Collins with a better vocabulary.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 6, 2016 at 10:55 am
“Why would you say that?” – Craig McKee
In the jungle, they say “when elephant run, monkey climb up high tree”… Perhaps it would have been wiser if i had listened to it and stayed out of this. But, now that I haven’t done that, I realize that this monkey has to do the monkey dance and avoid getting run over, while trying not to step on any elephant toes…
Craig… I have made a great effort to keep my comments and peacemaking efforts to gentle generalities, and didn’t think it was my place to get personal or criticize or praise either one of you for some very human mistakes both of you have committed in the past few days… But you did ask the “voice of reason” for a reason… So, now I have to spell a few things out…. Please watch your toes.
Even when quoted out of context like above, I feel my words are pretty self explanatory, and they speak the truth. I would, indeed, be very disenchanted (to say the least) with T&S if this somewhat childish episode results in a stalemate. That said, I still wish that you’d consider my commentary here and at HR1 in its entirety, and not in dissected individual sentences.
I hate to lay undue pressure on you guys, but this “spat” is symbolically a little larger than just the two of you. To me, it represents exactly how the so called truth movement, and in fact, an entire society is made to disintegrate day by day, by rats, using tactics that are already so well known to most everyone here, let alone you as someone who has written many eloquent articles about this very subject, or HR1, who might be considered an expert in his own right with extensive knowledge about these tactics. As someone who has watched many truth babies get tossed out with the blog water over the years, what is a justifiably emotional episode for you, is a very recognizable and saddening pattern of psychology for me.
When things are this obvious, and the people involved are still not able to look at what’s happening rationally, it is almost always because they are intoxicated by their own emotions. And, at times like this, when egos are still tender, criticism is useless, and a level headed, neutral and friendly “voice of reason” is the only thing that has any chance of working. If I, indeed, hurt your feelings with my hypothetical that you quoted while I was trying to be just that, so be it. As long as you know that I was fully aware that you were keeping an eye on the HR1 blog and it was not a statement made behind your back.
In the meantime, like teenage sweethearts who just broke up, both of you are following and quoting each other’s blogs, misreading into each other’s comments (And in this instance, one of mine), while pretending not to care much if this is “permanent”.
HR1 is shooting his mouth off on his blog trying to inflict some pain while trying to maintain his verbal warrior stance to disguise his hurt feelings. It is really not helping the situation at all… Especially when the other side (you) is locked into the wounded dove position and is seeking support and sympathy. I’ll say it one more time… I feel that I understand, sympathize with, and feel affection for both of you and your positions in this matter, and I do not sit in judgement of anyone for their temporary lapses of judgement in the heat of things… God knows I have had my own fair share of all that… But still, for two smart, intellectual, honest and mature men of a certain age who have shared a bumpy journey with each other over the years towards Truthlandia, with the good, bad and the ugly, yes, I find this dynamic a little childish and insecure on both sides, to be honest.
One thing that web based relationships do is that they take the human factor out of the equation to a great extent, and we often forget that the person behind the keyboard, including the shills and trolls and Kens and Fetzers, is a flesh and bone human being, with very human strengths and weaknesses, with very human feelings that are not limited to just their opinions on whether or not a plane hit the pentagon, or what they think or believe in on any given contentious subject. While both of you are trying to make this all sound like it is about principles, the truth, the cause, the right thing to do, etc. I just see two human beings who have hurt each other’s feelings (irrespective of who was right or wrong) and are having a difficult time dealing with it. It is really that simple… The rest is all mambo jumbo!
I will end by saying that I am neither a psychic, or a psychologist. I could easily be very wrong with my analysis of the “situation”, and might be unaware of some past and dormant resentments between you two that are reurfaceing because of all that transpired. In fact, even though I value truth more than most aspects of life, I don’t even consider myself a “truther” and I couldn’t tell you how many trusses the WTC had, or how many NoC witnesses there are, and I do not care to know. I come here for the people and the high level of intellectual discussions that take place here, not to gather 9/11 info or news. I do enjoy reading your take on some douchebags on Fartbook, but do not need an article to know that the sewer is full of rats. It’s a foregone conclusion. It took me years to muster up the courage to post comments here, and even then, I try hard to keep my head low and my participation at a philosophical and sociological realm and not embarrass myself by going into any 9/11 related fact-based discussions. So, please forgive me if I have overstepped some boundaries by meddling in all this, or have abused your welcome.
I hope this answers your question. And I really hope that it was not a rhetorical, and that I have not made a fool out of myself with this lengthy reply.
Couple of footnotes:
* I appreciate you calling me “voice of reason”. Means a lot to me
* Please do not feel obliged to deal with or reply to my commentary.
* And lastly…. SockPuppet!!!! Show some dignity for god’s sake and put a sock in it!
bit?
Craig McKee
January 6, 2016 at 2:17 pm
I promised to explain the split with hybridrogue, and while I don’t particularly feel like doing it, I will.
David, I appreciate your broader perspective on what has happened, and undoubtedly I could have done some things differently, but you can’t have peace negotiations with someone who won’t stop shooting at you. And he won’t. I predict that in just a few minutes, he’ll be quoting from this comment (using bold type and starting with hahahaha!) and heaping on more insults and more ridicule. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate childish arrogance and cruel condescension?
He is making the choice that this won’t be resolved. He is not even giving me a chance to be part of the decision.
HR is a much more interesting and effective commentator when he has someone to answer to. He used to be much more aggressive and insulting at TS, but he changed after I asked him to cut out the insults. It took time and I acknowledge the effort he made. But since his recent split with reality, and with no one to advise him, he has turned into a disturbed child pulling the wings off flies.
I find that it’s often not the cause of a split that is the most important in terms of whether it can be healed or what it reveals about someone’s character. It is what the parties do after it has occurred. Do they fume in silence? Do they run and trash the other behind his/her back? Does their pride keep them from apologizing? And do they make any effort to avoid inflaming things beyond a certain point, knowing that this will make reconciliation more difficult?
Or do they pull out everything they have been saving up over months and years to launch an all-out assault against the other? And do they keep the assault going beyond the point when they can ever expect the other to come back and meet them halfway?
That’s what HR has been doing now for several days. And there is no sign of him letting up.
Willy is much too clever for his own good. At the same time, he’s not as clever as he thinks he is. Nor is he as important. He thinks that the blog will come tumbling down because he is not there to police it. No doubt the loss of his usually intelligent input will be felt, but the world will keep turning (no offense to flat Earthers) without him.
He writes: “It is funny that the nutballs are coming out now that I have been blackballed from T&S, there will likely be more as time goes on.”
And again: “The Lunatics are now taking over the asylum! T&S is in for some very weird times in 2016.”
Then he blames me for Jim Fetzer defending me. Do I need to explain how ridiculous this is?
Hahaha!! This is hilarious! Now Craig’s new “celebrity” pal, Fetzer rides to his defense like a knight in shining armor. This is like something out of Kafka!” says HR.
And…
“At this point if McKee wants to ban me then fuck him, I don’t give a shit. I have had enough of his tepid wishy-washy bullshit.”
And…
“What is really stooooooooooopid is Craig has his panties all twisted in a knot over fucking Facebook bullshit!!! He has lost all perspective. He has fucked himself and T&S with this self-gratifying post.”
See? Not as clever as he thinks he is.
Then irony rears its head:
“Maybe Craig will reinstate Maxifucker’s posting privileges out of spite! Add these guys, Fetzer and Maxipad, and you will have a Crackpot Jamboree at T&S … a flood of Yahoos! Jonathan Swift would be proud.”
Mentioning spite certainly was ironic as seen when he bizarrely endorsed an irrational and simple-minded emotional rant from Kim McLaughlin.
“I agree with Kim here, whom I have never encountered, or know at all. But she makes all the sense in the world in her commentary there.”
And in keeping with a post that addresses people not telling the truth, HR announces that I don’t allow others to criticize Jim Fetzer. Do I need to collect the hundreds of HR attacks on Fetzer on this blog, many of them just gratuitous insults? Later, HR clarified that it was just on this post that I wasn’t allowing criticism. That’s false, too, of course.
“Craig allows this nonsense to be spewed on his blog without comment, or allowing Fetzer to be confronted.”
And: “ESPECIALLY when Craig won’t allow others to criticize Fetzer for his bullshit.”
Yes, it is after the conflict that someone’s true colors come out. Doc and Collins felt wounded by what I wrote last year, and they reached for anything close by to throw. Their goal was to discredit me even if they had to resort to false statements to do it. It seems that HR has a similar instinct.
This whole thing brought me to HR’s blog, which I must confess I hadn’t much read before. In addition to the firehose of ridicule turned full blast, I found a post from the past where he made one of the more hateful attacks I’ve seen in some time. I am removing the name, because I don’t want to compound any effect of this unjustified expression of hate.
HR includes a photograph of someone he has tangled with on TS. The caption reads: “The old faggot himself.”
And just to reinforce the sentiment, he follows with this:
” _____________ attempts to provoke me on every T&S thread he attends, which are only few and far between actually. But every time this spermbank has shown up he spews showers of septic jiss my way.”
Yes, I miss HR already. How will we ever survive without him?
Adam Syed
January 6, 2016 at 2:59 pm
Yes, a person’s true colors are indeed manifest after a split and how it’s handled. Remember how Jeff Jacobucci and I collaborated on the short-lived 911newscentral.com, and then after our “blog divorce,” he came onto the discussion here and started insinuating I was an infiltrator? I don’t think he was truly suspicious of me, he just wanted to backhandedly attack and demoralize me.
Sheila
January 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm
I’m glad he’s gone and I commend you Craig for writing about this split with admirable restraint. After being so unfairly and viciously attacked, it would be only human to want to sling a little mud yourself. You don’t, and my esteem for you has only increased.
Craig McKee
January 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Thank you, Sheila. I got a couple of shots in but for me it’s either find a bit of distance or smash some furniture with baseball bat. I really can’t spare the furniture.
ruffadam
January 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm
Sheila I am NOT glad that Willy is gone and I think it is a shame and a loss for T+S. I think both Willy and Craig made mistakes to create this split and I told them both that and I told them both what I thought those mistakes were. I do not blame either person for the break up but I blame both Willy and Craig for not allowing for a cooling off period and sincere apologies all around. I am still friends with both Craig and Willy and will continue to talk to both. I will continue to participate here and I will also participate on Willy’s blog. That is my full disclosure about this.
Sheila I have to say that I object to your glee that Willy is gone and I object to your promotion of hologram planes of all things. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw that post. My God that theory has ZERO merit and has been debunked ten times over. Worse you said it right when the issue between Craig and Willy was blowing up because Fetzer was attempting to derail this thread with his mini nuke crappola. Your timing could not have been worse. Anyway I am not going to say more here about this except that I will miss Willy here.
None of this should lead anyone to believe however that I blame Craig more than Willy for the split because I don’t. I have written to both Craig and Willy and made it clear what I think for what it matters. It is finished now and that is that.
Craig McKee
January 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
Adam,
I would say that when these kinds of conflicts occur there is usually blame to go around. But I must object to one thing you said. That is that I deserve some blame for not allowing a cooling off period. I do not accept this blame. I was not the attacker in this, I was the person being attacked relentlessly amid other attacks. If this had happened when things were otherwise calm that might have been different, but Willy knew full well the pressure I had put myself under. He chose that time to issue an angry lecture about something that frankly is none of his business. As you know, I am always open to suggestions, concerns, and beefs. But he used poor judgment in thinking that berating me was going to produce the results he wanted.
For things to be patched up, both sides have to show some openness to this and some willingness to meet the other person halfway. But Willy only increased the nastiness of his attacks once I put him on moderation and made them more and more personal. He said I was refusing to allow criticism of Fetzer and he knows this is untrue. That’s really dishonest. He was put in moderation because of the way he was attacking me both in comments and emails. And he chose to use the same mocking and taunting tone that I wrote about in the post. He knew I’d react very badly to this but he didn’t care.
I know that privately you have indicated in more detail why you think we are both to blame, and I thank you for your efforts to fix this. I admitted later that if I had not been distracted by all else that was going on I would not have allowed Jim’s first comment because it was off topic. There were other comments from him that were not approved for the same reason. Neither of you realize this. I objected to Willy firing off a stupid insult that would only provoke a confrontation I didn’t want to deal with.
“On the “planes” in New York, check out “The Real Deal”~Fetzer
Hahahahahaha…still peddling that bullshit aye?”
I just asked him not to fire off “unspecific” attacks – in other words, ad hominem attacks. When Fetzer posted a second comment I was literally in the middle of reading it when Willy intensified his assault on me for allowing it. To say I muzzled him is not true. He had six comments posted after the first one and before I put him into moderation. To compare that decision to allowing comments from Fetzer is apples and oranges. Willy was not muzzled, he was abusive and I don’t have to put up with that. And for him to say he agrees with the moronic comments of Kim McLaughlin, and for him to suggest on his own blog that Ken Doc has a good point simply went beyond the pale.
I’m not glad he is gone, but it didn’t have to go this way. A little humility and sincerity would have helped avoid this result. He was not willing to contribute this. He even reproduced a private email between us on his blog. How can I trust a person who can turn on someone so suddenly and so ferociously?
I’m sure a wiser person would extend an olive branch, but Willy chose to make this impossible for me.
ruffadam
January 8, 2016 at 12:57 am
OK let me step aside from this at this point and just say that it saddens me that this did not work out. I would like to move on from it because I see nothing constructive coming from continuing to talk about it. I chalk it up to an unfortunate mix of circumstances and bad timing.
x248 hybridrogue1, David Hazan, ruffadam : pride keep them from apologizing
2016-01-07
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 1:09 am
Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 1:41 am
“Does their pride keep them from apologizing? And do they make any effort to avoid inflaming things beyond a certain point, knowing that this will make reconciliation more difficult?”~Craig McKee
Very interesting questions there…aye?
Very cleverly written passage there by McKee. He insinuates that I never apologized; but doesn’t come out and say it.
Craig knows I did apologize, but gives the appearance that I didn’t.
Now I can recognize rhetorical trickery when I read it. It is disingenuous, without being an outright lie. It is “political language”.
And it is dishonest.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 2:36 am
Sheila — January 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm
“I’m glad he’s gone and I commend you Craig for writing about this split with admirable restraint. After being so unfairly and viciously attacked, it would be only human to want to sling a little mud yourself. You don’t, and my esteem for you has only increased.”
* * * * * * * *
Ah, sweet little Sheila you know her when you see her, full of bile and a gorgon’s nastiness. And full of shit as well, buying into and propagating the same bullshit that Fetzer spews – crows of a feather are they.
I knew the bitch would vomit some gelatinous spittle at me at some point.
Other’s will pipe up soon I am sure. This thread will continue to be a study in cultist social behavior. Soon, There will be no one left on T&S but Craig’s fawning sycophants. Of course that will make him feel more vindicated.
A vicious cycle of pathos.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 3:25 am
Adam Syed — January 6, 2016 at 2:59 pm
“Yes, a person’s true colors are indeed manifest after a split and how it’s handled.”
* * * * * * *
And they each line up to kneel at Craig’s feet and express fawning fealty. Too typical, but they do not recognize it consciously.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 3:34 am
And now I note that Anastasia made a comment that went unpiublished – and then Craig made a comment that goes unpublished. And I know that Anastasia saw my message about Fetzer’s “no-planes” bullshit here, and she probably acknowledged that and using my gravitar in her reply it got stuck in moderation. So Craig is telling her why it won’t be published,
Simple deductive reason tells me this,
Later Craig deleted Anastasia’s comment – but has left his message to her.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 6:54 am
“Yes, I miss HR already. How will we ever survive without him?”~Craig McKee – January 6, 2016 at 2:17 pm
* * * * * * * * * * *
That is simple to answer. With a new oath of fealty by the sycophants that expect to stay on T&S with this new shuffling of the deck. One must denounce HR1 in some way, at least distance oneself if one hopes to stay on good graces with McKee.
Who will be the next in line to kneel and pledge? I have my candidates in mind…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 8:10 pm
About Hybrid Rogue
I write.
I write for fun.
I write in dire seriousness.
I write cutting satire.
I write about serious things.
I write whatever catches my fancy.
I write for my own entertainment here.
I write for others who enjoy my style.
Style and form are everything–substance and meaning will rise in their wake.
Please don’t let me be misunderstood. Please misunderstand me, it makes my day. Dialectics prevail.
“Like is not.” All language is metaphor. Something I learned from Julian Jaynes. Something known by the Taoist sages.
I run through the gambit of emotions everyday, just like all humans. I am fallible, as are all humans.
I have an ego, like all humans. I am more clever than most humans. Some humans are more clever than I. Such is life.
I take life very seriously. I take life with a grain of salt. I bleed when I am cut. I cut back when I am bleeding.
I am what I am, like Popeye the Sailor Man…Lol
So to those of you out there whom I have insulted. Thank you very much!
It is YOUR own emotion that brings your own pain from another’s words.
The world is a madhouse. Sit and cry, or join the party. The choice is yours.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 6, 2016 at 9:31 pm
And of course, I stand by every word I have written here.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 7:48 am
“Because it is always groundhog day in the conspiracy world”
I like that David! very clever, and very true in a certain aspect.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 6, 2016 at 11:21 pm
We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
(R. Frost)
Craig McKee
January 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm
Who am I to break tradition?
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 7, 2016 at 10:46 am
Craig McKee of Truth and Shadows
* * * * * * * *
An interesting exchange there David, I don’t think Craig sees a way out of tradition. He’s not really that deep a thinker philosophically. Remember he comes from a very mainstream position. It took him years to finally figure out that 9/11 was a PSYOP. He’s been playing catch-up since that time. He’s still quite young and has a lot to learn about the world and himself.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm
Remember, I do not find Craig McKee to be a conscious villain. I think he is simply naïve , gullible and confused at this point in his life.
Some people finally really ‘Get It’, some people don’t.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 5:15 pm
Craig McKee – January 7, 2016 at 11:36 am
“That’s what they call me when they’re being nice.”
* * * * * * * *
Ya know? McKee is really wearing out this “Victim” card. He’s played it to the hilt and should just drop it.
It isn’t cute anymore.
It makes him look foolish. Of course he will just take this as another “attack”…jeeeeeeeez.
\\][//
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 7, 2016 at 5:51 pm
Yes, our exchanges with Craig seem to have dwindled to one liners and snappy repartee now… which I find pointless and do not wish to continue. I feel I have seen enough true colors for a while… My attempts to hold a mirror so that people can see their own seem to have failed.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
January 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm
Hi Willy,
Let me get something off my chest… And I hope you know that I say this with considerable affection… You really behaved like a spoiled brat! And you certainly lost sight of the pig picture in your hot-headed state of mind… So, there… I said it, and now we can move on…
At the same time, I also want to thank you (kinda, sorta) for inadvertently creating a situation where people were indeed forced to show their true colors, as Craig pointed out. Some display flashy and blindingly explosive colors (I want name names), while others are all black and white… Some are limited to just the team colors of their respective associations… There were a couple of turncoat colors, and slime greens there as well in the mix…. But the color that saddens me most is that predominant, bland, passionless, insight-less, and gutless neutral grey, both when it is one’s authentic color, as well as when it is just a heavy coat of paint that covers their real true colors.
And all this while they all argue about, who’s the real peacock… Good grief!!!! Good f’n grief!
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm
Thanks David,
You know you can always be frank and straight forward with me. I understand your perspective very well.
I am certainly willing to stir the pot when I feel it needs a mix up, I have never denied this nor do I feel particularly bad about this attribute.
Spoiled? That is a bit more complex. Perhaps. I have had a rather blessed life, I was born with many talents, but that would be to say I was “spoiled” by the graces of nature. It made certain aspects of life easy, but it made it difficult in other ways. Having a Muse, and being dedicated to her come hell or high water is a natural recipe for conflict with authority.
Being a handsome man has its treats, it also can stoke jealousy. There are two sides to every blessing. “The Agony and the Ecstasy” is the way that Michelangelo put it.
Let me repeat something my most recent adversary said; “if I had it to do over again,” I still would. Neither Craig nor I knew the consequences of our actions at the beginning of the joust. We played it by our best instincts. It is what it is now.
And I remain convinced that Craig started a tempest in a thimble by choosing off Ken Doc and blowing the little punk’s notoriety to the size of some massive danger to truth. The guy is a pipsqueak in the scheme of things, someone few of us ever heard of before this melodrama. And Craig making such a big deal out of Ken Doc while ignoring the real ghoulish beast within his gates, is utterly incredible in my opinion. Just because Fetzer stood up for Craig does not make him any less dangerous, but indeed even more so by his calculated ingratiating himself for his own PR purposes. And just because Ken Doc attacked Craig personally doesn’t make Ken Doc a major danger to truth. Again we are talking about cheesy Facebook nonsense here.
Craig’s naïveté is utterly sublime – subliminal and total. And tragic.
And THAT my friend, is the “Big Picture”. And I never lost sight of it. So we disagree on that very central point. But this doesn’t make us adversaries does it? No it makes us insightful from separate perspectives.
I especially appreciate your perspective, and it’s distinct angle, because it helps me articulate mine that much better than just howling into the wind.
Thank you ever so much!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 7, 2016 at 10:48 pm
Well David, for myself, I have only “kept” two adversaries for longer than a couple weeks. That would be Jim Fetzer and Maxitwat Bridges. In my view, both dangerous moles burrowed into the so-called Truth Movement. And I say ‘so-called’ because it is not a single organism, but a diverse and modular organism morphing through time.
We both know that the Sunsteinian cognitive infiltration units are out there by the legions now. I think that Fetzer is one of the originals, and Legge as well. Maxitwat is small time and doesn’t even have a voice in the proceedings anymore, that’s why I have little to say about him anymore, accept as a reference point.
\\][//
hybridrogue1 January 8, 2016 at 2:23 am
ruffadam — January 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm
Sheila I am NOT glad that Willy is gone and I think it is a shame and a loss for T+S. I think both Willy and Craig made mistakes to create this split and I told them both that and I told them both what I thought those mistakes were. I do not blame either person for the break up but I blame both Willy and Craig for not allowing for a cooling off period and sincere apologies all around. I am still friends with both Craig and Willy and will continue to talk to both. I will continue to participate here and I will also participate on Willy’s blog. That is my full disclosure about this.
Sheila I have to say that I object to your glee that Willy is gone and I object to your promotion of hologram planes of all things. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw that post. My God that theory has ZERO merit and has been debunked ten times over. Worse you said it right when the issue between Craig and Willy was blowing up because Fetzer was attempting to derail this thread with his mini nuke crappola. Your timing could not have been worse. Anyway I am not going to say more here about this except that I will miss Willy here.
None of this should lead anyone to believe however that I blame Craig more than Willy for the split because I don’t. I have written to both Craig and Willy and made it clear what I think for what it matters. It is finished now and that is that.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39097
Thank you Adam! What a nice surprise to see a kind word for me on T&S for a change.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 8, 2016 at 3:43 am
Craig McKee — January 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm
“Adam,
I would say that when these kinds of conflicts occur there is usually blame to go around. But I must object to one thing you said. That is that I deserve some blame for not allowing a cooling off period. I do not accept this blame. I was not the attacker in this, I was the person being attacked relentlessly amid other attacks.”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/to-ken-doc/#comment-39102
* * * * * * * *
HORSESHIT!!
When Adam first contacted the both of us (Jan. 2) I said I was not opposed to attempting reconciliation with you Craig. Your very first answer back in that three-way was, absolute and final: “Adam, This split is permanent. I can never trust him or respect him again.”
Also, I did offer an olive branch and an apology; and I quote myself here from Jan. 4:
“I am sorry Craig, I apologize for those last comments and many of the other things I have said. I am dropping this issue,
Here and on my blog.
Good luck with T&S in the coming year.”
* * * * * * *
All three of us, Adam, Craig, and myself have got one thing right at last. IT’S ALL OVER NOW.
Kaput, finished. You make a thin gruel of “dignity” Craig. I will have nothing further to do with you.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 8, 2016 at 5:52 am
Craig McKee — January 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm
“For Ken, getting the truth out to people doesn’t matter as much as punishing anyone who has criticized him.”
* * * * * * * * *
The boundless hypocrisy of McKee continues to astound me.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 8, 2016 at 4:25 am
So I wonder what lies ahead for Uncle Fetzer and Aunt McKee?
Will they get a permanent “thing” going?
Only the future will tell, but some marriages are made in Hell.
\\][//
ruffadam
January 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Agreed Craig. It occurs to me that many people have forgotten one very simple thing. Liars are NOT truthers.
x249 Señor El Once : recent lies were part of the infection that got you amputated
2016-01-08
2016-01-08
Dear Mr. Whitten,
Mr. Ruff wrote on January 3, 2016 at 9:31 pm:
[M]any people have forgotten one very simple thing. Liars are NOT truthers.
I find it fascinating how Mr. Ruff demonstrates such hypocrisy with regards to you, Mr. Whitten, when your recent lies were part of the infection that got you amputated from T&S. Mr. Ruff obviously missed your whopper about supposedly not being able to confront Dr. Fetzer about some of the premises he supports on T&S, but Mr. McKee smacked that faulty notion down hard. Mr. McKee should do a tally of your comment count up until you shot yourself in the foot and didn't kiss enough ass.
Maybe Mr. Ruff was in on the lie that you foisted for over two years about having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book and used it for bird-cage liner. If he was in on it, he should have corrected the record on one of the numerous occasions when I made hay with it and rubbed your nose in it. If Mr. Ruff wasn't in on the lie, then how hypocritical is it of him to avoid pegging you with his standard "Liars are NOT truthers."
I've enjoyed your fresh round of lies, Mr. Whitten:
I have only "kept" two adversaries for longer than a couple weeks. That would be Jim Fetzer and Maxitwat Bridges.
How quickly you forget: Sherry Feister, Albury Smith, the Scragged editors, Simon Shack, TamborineMan, Hufferd, COTO's JerseyG (& nearly all female COTO participants), Frank Legge, [your ex-wives, your step-father, your mother, your kids...]
Obviously, I could research and find many more just from T&S. Suffice it to say that either you are a liar, or you can't count adversaries and have no sense of time.
You go on to write the following contradiction and lies:
In my view, both dangerous moles burrowed into the so-called Truth Movement... Maxitwat is small time and doesn’t even have a voice in the proceedings anymore, that’s why I have little to say about him anymore, accept as a reference point.
How can I be a mole in the Truth Movement if I don't even have a voice in the proceedings? It doesn't just contradict itself, it exposes more lying. The fact that you keep pinging me back to life and keep maintaining your ad hominem blogs dedicated to me contradicts "I have little to say about him."
I will give you this: just as I was dangerous to your agenda by exposing your lies and hypocrisy, I am dangerous to the Truth Movement. In my sincere search for truth, I expose weaknesses in the "concensus 9/11 theories" and limited-hang-outs, while persistently holding onto nuggets of truth -- even from disinfo sources -- needing to be addressed.
Loved this oldie but a goodie from Lilaleo (Mr. David Hazan) on November 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm:
If I may say as a friendly note, everyone seems to have more of a problem with you than you have with them. I am not even gonna go in to why I feel this may be so, because I sense that you already know… And, as you have expressed on a few occasions in the past, you don’t really “give a shit” about what people think about you…
So, when you adopt a tone deaf argumentative persona and ignore people’s reactions to (mostly) your language, and you don’t give a shit, It just creates a cycle of feedback inhibition that gets out of hand on hot topic discussions. Especially with people who have steadfast with their convictions and don’t easily get intimidated by “language”.
Mr. Ruff ought to give you some encouragement with the following suggestion, seeing how he knows more about Ken Doc and Mike Collins first-hand than you do. He can tell you that Ken Doc is ~not~ a flash in the pan and has (disinfo) momentum. Recall that Mr. McKee -- who you used to respect --, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Syed, and others all found it important enough to participate.
So in your exile from T&S, your should sign-up for Facebook, seek out Ken Doc's forums, and have a good time being your belligerent self.
Some FB advice to help you. Write and save your response off-line before posting. FB is notorious for "forum sliding", and for cycling through the same discussions again and again. This will give you a leg-up. When typing a message into the field, ENTER will post it possibly pre-maturely if you were going for another paragraph; SHIFT-ENTER will allow you to write multiple paragraphs in a single posting. Copying from something written off-line avoids that quirk altogether, although FB does allow you to edit postings. If you turn on notifications (and then set up an email filter for them), those emails are about the only way to acquire the URL's for where discussions happened. You'll have to follow the link from the email, and then the permanent URL will be in the address bar of your browser. You'll want to copy this into your original message and save it. Later (or maybe at the same time), you might want to post thing to your blog, which gives you a true permanent link. Because it is much easier to get banned from certain forums which then prevents you from even reading what is going on, it helps to also be saving off-line comments from others to whom you are responding.
Finally, although FB will always be a pain-in-the-ass asking you to fill in lots of personal information, you don't have to. You can give the bare minimum.
FB is a time-suck, but you've already demonstrated by your formerly overwhelming presence on T&S (and COTO & OpEdNews) that you have plenty of time on your hands. And you're precisely the sociopathic dick who should be in Ken Doc's FB forums.
//
x250 hybridrogue1 : Superstitious Thinking
2016-02-02
hybridrogue1
February 2, 2016 at 3:45 am
Craig McKee believes in things that he doesn’t understand, that is the sign of Superstitious Thinking.
I was part of Truth & Shadows for a bit more than four years. In that time I have watched Craig struggle with scientific and technical issues, and buying into several severe pseudoscience con-jobs. His ignorance in basic physics hobbled him.
On top of this he put his faith in Max Bridges for advice in science in technology, and Bridges himself is scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous, and led Craig astray into mazes of rhetorical bullshit.
Craig eventually banned Bridges, but it really wasn’t because he had figured out that Bridges is a charlatan. It was a personal dispute between them. McKee cannot follow a scientific argument because he has steadfastly refused to study the subject of physics and structural engineering and other essential knowledge to thoroughly grasp those aspects of the 9/11 case.
And Craig has never really caught on that Jim Fetzer is a charlatan and a mole that infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement as a disinformant. Fetzer doesn’t understand science either, he is a pretender and has been caught out over and again.
I knew that Craig and several other of the regular commentators on T&S bought into the Moon-Hoax nonsense for a long time. But it never became an issue between he and I until quite recently. That is not the reason I left T&S however. The issue was Fetzer posting his bullshit freely on the last thread before the Moon-Hoax thread, the one to do with Ken Doc.Who had accused McKee in promoting nonsense like Nukes at WTC, No-Planes at WTC, Video Fakery, DEW, and Holograms. Craig allowing Fetzer to post his bullshit about Nukes and No Planes on that very thread, it made it seem very disingenuous to claim he did not promote those falsehoods. And although Craig complained that he made it clear that he did not believe those theories, it can hardly be denied that he was promoting them by allowing their propagation on his site. So it’s Craig’s own fault that people will interpret his allowing these things to be promoted colors him with that brush, no matter how much he denies it.
But we come to the Moon landings issue itself, and that is really an incredibly elementary scientific proposition. And the reasoning used by the Hoax advocates is so utterly transparently ludicrous, it becomes more than simple scientific ignorance in Craig’s case — he is not a logical thinker either! Some of the argument for a hoax landing are so obviously bullshit that a 12 year old could see through them.
At any rate, a disinformant like Fetzer knew right off the bat that Craig is a sucker, and now Fetzer has finally got him under his control. And although I have empathy for Craig’s situation, it is not my problem. Craig’s a big boy, and if he hasn’t learned to fend for himself, he has to accept the consequences.
\\][//
x251 Maxwell C. Bridges : scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous
2016-02-02
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You don't know shit about Mr. McKee's thoughts and actions with respect to me... a statement that ironically applies to me as well. But I'm not the one speculating; you are. You're just trying to push buttons with both him and me and to ping me back to life.
Your premise can easily be proven false (pegging you again the liar). If Mr. McKee had "put his faith in Max Bridges [me] for advice in science in technology," he would already be convinced of my 9/11 4th generation nuclear premises. Mr. McKee, having drunk the Kool-aide from 9/11A&E, has publicly stated that he does not believe in nuclear involvement and is happy with the NT cul de sac. Before he reached these conclusions, his agenda was to bring greater public awareness to the grander 9/11 hoax. He expressed many times that discussions in the minutia of mechanisms of destruction were counter-productive to this greater goal.
Unlike you, my banishment was not for anything that I had done. You deserved your banishment many times over for your attitude, bullying, forum-flooding, and forum-sliding (look it up from your links about recognizing disinfo tactics). I was banned for a pre-crime and an offense not yet made. Because my current 9/11 truth & holy-grail involve 4th generation nuclear devices, I could not promise that I would not at some point "slip it in side-ways" some comment that in all other aspects related to what was being discussed. Even then, such a slip-in every n-th comment would not have been so bad. The real pre-crime banishment was for the suspected OVERREACTION to what would have been slipped-in by me from YOU AND MR. RUFF. In a sense, I was pre-crime banned for offenses that YOU were expected to make. A little bit bass-ackward in retrospect, why I'd be punished for YOUR actions.
I loved your quote: "Bridges himself is scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous." I've got significantly more science chops than you, Mr. Rogue. I've pawned your ass many times on the subject. [Still, I extend kudos for you having researched and boned up on that which you originally did not know.]
Two things are telling. One is when you were presented with the mathematics and science that called into serious questions your premise, you could never admit that where your premise was wrong or lacking. An example of this is the quantities of NT required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
The second is that you couldn't argue anything except by referencing the works of others. This isn't to say that providing references is wrong. It is saying that you didn't have the science intelligence yourself to see the merits and demerits in (a) my argument & references or (b) your own arguments & references. Further, you did not have the understanding OR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to admit the boundaries or scope-limits of the references that you relied on. You were all too happy to accept them at face value and not question. An awesome example of this Dr. Jones' "No Nukes" paper that doesn't even mention 4th generation nuclear devices.
I also loved your continuation: "[Bridges] led Craig astray into mazes of rhetorical bullshit." Such utter nonsense. Here is what I suspect is much closer to the truth. I am a respectful, logical, articulate, reasoned, smart, honest, and sincere participant. Most of the time and certainly before your arrival, Mr. Rogue, Mr. McKee can and did ignore me, because he could trust in the value of my contribution to his blog. [We split the task in debunking the trolls.]
Mr. Rogue, you employed the tactic of forum flooding. The crafty part was that many times it wasn't even your work or words; you quote-mined others and pasted it in as a weak reflection of your intellect for what you ran across in your reading. Such non-threatening postings seemingly gave you gravitas as being a valued contributor so that when you felt compelled to bully someone and steer the forum, that infraction would be a small fraction of the whole, could be removed, and still leave you with "reasonable remainders". The true value of all your postings and you standing behind them is recognized in the fact that the vast majority did not merit being re-purposed on your blog.
When not taunted and tainted by you, Mr. Rogue, my contributions to T&S were infrequent but valued for their alternative, reasoned perspective. Whereas you might argue that my lengthy opinions were not valued (by lurker readers), then it would have followed that they could have been ignored and forgotten amid your forum flooding on other themes. But you didn't ignore my comments and dilute and regulate them into nothingness, did you? Quite the opposite. My voicing of what I sincerely believe was dangerous to your agenda, by being outside what you were charged with defending. You took on my words -- with cheating, lying, and weasel techniques -- and lost, leading to more unhingement on your part.
If Mr. McKee was deluded and fooled by anyone, it was by you. Your true character gets exposed on your blog. Mr. McKee didn't realize how dishonest or despicable you really were (owing to your innocuous forum-flooding), until he had your bile aimed at him on your blog. Contrast in personalities, since my banishment, Mr. McKee wasn't treated to a series of backstabbing comments on my blog. Sure he's received emails from me, but such expressed gratitude (for my banishment) and not bile. How ironic!
If Mr. McKee made a mistake, it was in not heeding his own revelation about nuclear discussions: namely, that the topic itself wasn't the problem on his blog, but the behavior of participants (YOU). Rather than initially taking it out on me, you as the common denominator in nearly all flame wars should have been graced with banishment then. Without inappropriate over-reactions from you in forum floods, my infrequent even if bat-shit crazy comments only would have added color to the discussions. As it turned out though with my exit first, your bad behavior persisted and persists still. I'm overdue for exoneration.
P.S. It's been more than 2 weeks since your banishment. Your insults still to Mr. McKee proves you a liar on your statements to Lilaleo about how long you hold grudges.
//
x252 hybridrogue1 : 1124 wasted words
2016-02-02
hybridrogue1
February 2, 2016 at 10:32 pm
That was 1124 wasted words Bridges. Words that will never see the light of day here. Now why don’t you fuck off an play dead again like a good little puppy.
\\][//
x253 Maxwell Bridges : it got a reaction out of you
2016-02-02
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Wasted words? El-oh-el. Not only did it get a reaction out of you, but it put a placeholder in the minds of your "vast" audience that you are incapable of disputing whatever it is that I wrote, therefore you must suppress it at all costs so that only "your version" seems to persist. Puts you on the defensive and in a bad light.
You would have been better off strategically speaking not to have acknowledged it at all. But I thank you for doing so, because it validates the information path that I chose.
Why don't you follow your own fuck-off advice, which can be started by not ever mentioning me on your blog ever again, because clearly you don't have the ability to do so without --l.y.i.n.g--.
//
x254 hybridrogue1 : the psychosis of this anonymous bouncing lunatic
2016-02-03
hybridrogue1
February 3, 2016 at 12:54 am
I have been advised by Maxwell Bridges, aka Maxifucnanus, aka Maxitwat, aka, el Kabong; not to mention him on this site again. Of course this is my blog and I can say any fuckin’ thing I want here.
It is quite the delight seeing Señor Fuckhead stewing in his own juices, plying his futile demands like a voice from a deep empty well.
Let me recommend two threads on this blog that address the psychosis of this anonymous bouncing lunatic calling itself, “Maxwell Bridges”:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/maxwell-bridges-agitprop-disinformant/
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/carnival-dmaxifuckanus/
Viddy well, little brother!
\\][//
x255 Maxwell C. Bridges : publishing our exchanges
2016-02-03
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You write: "It is quite the delight seeing Señor Fuckhead stewing in his own juices, plying his futile demands like a voice from a deep empty well."
None of your 41 followers is "seeing" anything from me, making my unpublished taunts just a figment of your imagination as far as they are concerned.
When I feel like it and get around to it, certainly I'll be publishing our exchanges on my blog. But I'm in no hurry.
Meanwhile, though, we have to ask who is "stewing in his own juices"? Not I. Particularly if I can't be bothered to update my website from the last several months of my efforts. September was the last update. Worse, is that I haven't been that active except some Facebook exchanges in September & October.
I've been primarily a lurker, because I've needed to be a worker and earn my keep. On the personal side, you should note that I did not ramp up my T&S involvement (or blog activity) after getting laid-off from a 7-1/2 gig at a high-tech company in October 2014 and while on severance for many months. I would have had the time to make T&S and ~you~ my personal projects, but I didn't. And only reluctantly did I get it on with Mr. Ruff by calling his bluff, and ended up not having to do much there either when he fumbled as spectacularly as you. I'm already one contract down and a few weeks into a second. Before the first contract started, I did accomplish some major research into my premise and into correcting my beliefs in certain areas (e.g., beams from space).
Regarding your links. Taken as a whole, very little of it are quoted words from me. Most of it is you "stewing in your own juices." Those "works" reflect your "psychosis", not mine.
Given that the following was written about you, your narcissism should have no problems reading both the article and all of the comments. It is hyperlinked to a relatively new comment.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/04/laying-bare-propagana-techniques-and.html?showComment=1452126087985#c3288806524768046897
Stew, Mr. Rogue. Stew.
//
x256 hybridrogue1 : the speed the dust settles at
2016-02-05
hybridrogue1
February 5, 2016 at 5:57 pm
And for my ‘secret admirer’ MF:
It is not simply the speed the dust settles at, but the fact that it does not disperse and hang in ‘the air’ as it would in an atmosphere.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
February 7, 2016 at 2:57 am
94 COMMENTS on the Moon-Hoax thread on T&S, and not a single solid argument supporting the hoax assertion. Absolutely nothing but bullshit from these clowns.
No wonder Craig hasn’t said a word since the first day.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
February 10, 2016 at 4:49 am
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
– Voltaire
Well McKee’s Moon-Hoax article on T&S did a belly-flop. They didn’t prove squat or make any convincing points. And that is because the whole lunar landing hoax concept is based on BULLSHIT.
\\][//
x257 ruffadam : as far as I am concerned the debate is over
2016-03-21
ruffadam
March 17, 2016 at 6:20 am
As far as I am concerned the debate is over about the pentagon unless someone wants to challenge our position with something new and substantial. Coste, Chandler, Jenkins, and the rest of the plane impact supporters have been decisively debunked. Thoroughly shattered and discredited.
I think the debate with Barbara Honegger will show the emptiness of her hypothesis and she will be proved to be completely wrong as well. I am so disappointed we still have to debate these nebulous, ever morphing, and unfounded theories such as Barbara’s at this late date when we should be making arrests and prosecuting the guilty. It must be done apparently because those unfamiliar with the real evidence at the pentagon are still buying into Honegger’s theory simply because she is prolific and promotes herself to such a degree they miss the fact that she has little or no evidence to back it up. Few researchers know the evidence well enough to argue with her so she has gotten by with relatively few challenges. That is until now.
It is about time the truth movement start to assert itself with the pentagon evidence the way it does with the controlled demolition evidence. Failing to do so is just impotence at this point. The pentagon evidence is arguably the most damning proof of an inside job that exists. Let’s start putting these disinformants claiming impact at the pentagon in their proper place along side popular mechanics and the JREF trolls. Let’s start holding the so called “leaders” of the truth movement accountable for their baseless positions. Let’s get real and demand that people like Richard Gage come clean about the pentagon and retract his BS statement that did so much damage to the cause. Hold Chandler to account for his sloppy hit piece on CIT. Come on people we are growing old here letting these charlatans run amok.
The question that remains for me is what are we going to do with this proof that the government staged the crime scene at the pentagon? What are we going to do? Debate it for years more when there is no credible challenge to the evidence?
I am not interested in 9/11 discussion any more I am interested in naming names and making arrests and getting justice. Play time is over.
BTW: Yes I can start naming names. Look into Christopher Bollyn’s excellent research for the names to start with.
I will name a few names right now that are participating in the cover-up and/or obfuscation of 9/11 evidence:
David Chandler (pentagon), Kevin Ryan (Israeli involvement, pentagon), Jim Hoffman (pentagon), and others. These people should be mercilessly drummed out of the truth movement for what they have done. To even refer to them as “truthers” at this point is an insult to all truthers.
So called leaders such as DRG and Richard Gage refuse to speak up about this intolerable situation and for that I am seriously disappointed in them both. I say to both of them now to stand up like men, like real truthers, and call these people out on their lies and evasions and obfuscations. Real truthers would do exactly that. Leave no doubt where you stand on the pentagon evidence, come on already!
ruffadam
March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm
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 Dwain, the issue is you changed your opinion based on highly speculative information that in no way whatsoever counters the compelling testimony of the NOC witnesses. The God damned Sandia test doesn’t prove shit about the pentagon Dwayne because the plane didn’t hit. SANDIA IS IRRELLEVANT! repeat that over and over in your head Dwayne until you get what the issue is.
Even if a plane did hit the pentagon, which we know is not true, the Sandia test still doesn’t prove jack shit about it because we have no idea what was left after the test on the ground. For all we know there was a mangled engine laying there after the Sandia test. So just give it a rest man, it is pure BS Dwain, the plane flew over and NOTHING you have said or come up with shows that conclusion to be wrong. NOTHING!
You know something Dwain you may be book smart but your logic stinks. I am tired of dealing with people slinging around BS and pretending to be truthers.
If you are a real truther then stand up like one and support the NOC evidence strongly and openly. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear that the pentagon itself staged the crime scene on 9/11 thereby proving insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11. If you don’t do that you are NOT a truther.
The BS game you are playing here Dwain 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.
ruffadam
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 Dominick? 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 impact at the pentagon are a dying breed, discredited and demoralized, just like the corporate media. No one is buying the BS they are selling anymore.
x258 Maxwell Bridges : Sandia F4 crash and the MythBuster rocket-sled are useful to the Pentagon discussion
2016-03-21
Dear Mr. McKee,
The Sandia F4 crash into a re-enforced wall and the MythBuster rocket-sled are useful to the Pentagon discussion as well, but more in a sense of "you can't have it both ways" in debunking premises of plane impact.
The main take-away point is that high velocities equate to exponentially high energies that can exceed the inherit structure strength of the materials in question. Materials and assemblies in the objects of the collision do ~not~ have to act as cohesive wholes. No, the high energy can act locally to shatter the material first, thus preventing something like wing or tail assemblies from remaining in tact and "bouncing off." The fragments of the material once shattered could be forced many directions, including backwards (bounce) with respect to the original vector of travel. But at that point they are fragments, not complete assemblies.
To the degree that we might "believe" that the renovated & stronger Pentagon walls shattered materials of the plane, very little of it is shown. Solid pieces of the plane, such as wheel assemblies and engines, would have had better penetration through the first wall, but would have successively less energy for penetration at each wall of several rings. The final burned out hole in an inner ring is unbelievable, because nothing remains from the aircraft to suggest having made the hole.
(I still say that a construction trailer launched a rocket, the very trailer that government simulation videos make a point of saying "a wing clipped it and got it to sit askew with the Pentagon wall" but aligned with the alleged flight path.)
Furthermore, the exponentially high energy involved with the aircraft could have had very different effects with the light poles. Even for a light pole getting sheared (or shattered locally) by the aircraft wings, the wings themselves would experience equal & opposite energy that could shatter or gouge deeply into the wings at localized impact points. Such would compromise the integrity of the wings, possibly making it impossible for the aircraft to remain aloft to make it to the Pentagon.
Someone in the discussion mentioned (paraphrased) that "if there had been fly-over, there would be a tell-tale swirl from the jet exhaust in the billowing fire-ball smoke. We didn't see that, so there was no fly-over."
Many eye-witnesses to an actual aircraft are consistent with the path that they say it flew, which deviates from the path of actual destruction. Some could say that was an operational accident. Others could say that this was from design, precisely because (a) a jet backwash swirl would be visible in the fireball if the aircraft flew along the alleged flight path, and (b) the aircraft along the alleged flight path could receive crippling damage so as to not hit the Pentagon squarely.
The bottom-line, Mr. McKee, is that the Sandia F4 crash is still a useful experiment to give us insight into the damages of 9/11. It is stilted and doesn't explain the whole 9/11 story, and hints at how the story doesn't add up.
+++
On a related note. Gotta love the hot air that Mr. Adam Ruff blows: "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."
What a hypocrite!
Mr. Ruff -- like a Republican Senate refusing to vet court nominees -- refuses to read my (new) information about FGNW, so he isn't about the change his mind. Cognitive dissonance in another form.
Mr. Ruff complains about the stance taken by certain leaders of the 9/11TM that precludes them from considering flyover. Yet, I complain about these same leaders not seriously reviewing the nuclear evidence, accepting flawed reports unquestioned & unchallenged, extrapolating erroneously to negative conclusions, etc., and Mr. Ruff is blind this data point falling into the exact same trend line.
//
x259 Craig McKee : You think this is very important, but I do not
2016-03-28
Craig McKee
I don’t think it is the same. I believe the case for a faked plane crash at the Pentagon has been the subject of a disinformation campaign for more than a decade. Participants in this campaign want the truth movement to give up on evidence that is critical for proving that 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t think that denouncing this disinformation is contributing to infighting because I think the “controversy” is a contrived one. The majority of truthers agree no plane hit and I would like to see it stay that way. The towers are a different case. The movement is united behind the idea that the towers were blown up and that they did not fall because of plane impacts or jet fuel fires. You want to elevate the question of what type of explosive was used. You think this is very important, but I do not. I am not convinced that it paints a clearer picture of anything. Having said that, everyone is free to address whichever subject they think is important. They can start their own blog or comment wherever that topic is discussed. I encourage those who have a case to make to do so it in any way they can. I don’t believe in telling people to stay away from any area of research provided they are honest in wanting to investigate it. I applaud you for assembling your research into a paper that others can read and discuss. But on my blog, I have the right to say whether or not I want put the focus on which type of explosive devices were used to bring the towers down. I actually wish I didn’t have to write about the Pentagon at all. I think most people understand that no impact occurred but I think that efforts by the Chandler/Hoffman/Legge group seem to be directed at weakening the TM’s position and causing the illusion of a genuine controversy. This I feel the need to expose.
x260 Maxwell C. Bridges : a profoundly deeper significance
2016-03-28
Dear Mr. McKee, (part 1/2) you wrote: "I believe the case for a faked plane crash at the Pentagon has been the subject of a disinformation campaign for more than a decade."
Agreed. More than anything, the actual faking of a plane at the Pentagon explains the concerted effort (September Clues & Let's Roll Forums) to dupe useful idiots (such as I was) about "no planes at the WTC". Its true disinfo intents were to discredit the 911TM and to dissuade the public from pursuing similar "no planes" themes where they truly applied: Pentagon & Shanksville.
However, the disinformation campaign into the causes of WTC destruction goes back to the day of event: even longer.
You wrote: "You want to elevate the question of what type of explosive was used."
Language is important, Mr. McKee. I want to elevate the question of what "mechanisms of destruction" were used, not the "type of explosives." Your inexact language wants to park me in the cul de sac of limited hang-outs.
You wrote: "You think this is very important, but I do not."
I agree that if I was splitting hairs about NT, RDX, or other fancy chemical explosives and their proportions in the mix, it would not be very important. Such mechanisms could be scape-goated to any patsy, for such explosives are easier to come by. Except for one minor snafu. To achieve what was observed in the pulverization and under-rubble hot-spots, obscenely massive quanties would have been required: an unrealistic logistics challenge. That dog don't hunt for Occam Razor.
My FGNW mechanisms of destruction have a profoundly deeper significance.
You have repeatedly expressed that your goal is get greater public awareness of the deceit of 9/11 (among other things). You focus on the Pentagon way too much, but hey, that's your hobby-horse.
You wrote: "I am not convinced that [nuclear destruction] paints a clearer picture of anything."
You're playing games, Mr. McKee, but I'll bite. WTF would convince you of [a destructive mechanism] painting a clearer picture of "something"?
The USA didn't drop just two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. It also fire-bombed Dresden and other German cities with similar casualty outcomes (except for radiation sickness). Americans don't feel remorse about the fire-bombings (unless they've researched it), but they do feel remorse about the nukes (except for those who drank the Kool-Aid about the "American lives saved.") That is how the propaganda & PR panned out during the cold-war from all sides: "nukes are bad!"
You avoid discussions that would convince either you of FGNW, or me of the errors in my ways. It isn't a matter of scientific chops, either. It is a matter of you being a good investigator & reporter; you can learn along the way what you need to know. You haven't been questioning what you've been fed from AE911Truth that parks understanding at NT.
Deployment of nukes are the bad PR that (theoretically) no administration, no government, and no country could survive without massive internal & external pressure for fundamental change. Could negate the very objectives of the operation. Nukes reduce dramatically the list of suspects, and becomes much harder to scape-goat to patsies.
FGNW, Mr. McKee, are the key to public revelation & action.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Mr. McKee, you call out certain leaders in the 911TM for being part of the Pentagon "plane impact" disinformation crowd. Can't you see that many have played a similar role with regards to WTC? (The whole NT crowd.) Involvement of nukes (FGNW or otherwise) can't be admitted under any circumstance in any "controlled entity or forum": from AltNet News, to 9/11 Blogger, to Let's Roll Forums, to September Clues... etc., etc., ... and seemingly to Truth & Shadows.
It was okay for me to write a T&S piece that later (my) research proved wrong. It was okay for you to allow Dr. Wood's to be discussed under your article on T&S, because she craftily doesn't make any claims and has elements ("beams from space") that discredit. That Dr. Wood article had its comments closed, and no "Part 2" ever replaced it. Yet, to shut down new T&S discussions into Dr. Wood, you refer them to the closed article (without even a link) as if you weren't aware that it has been closed for quite some time.
Not okay is mining nuggets of truth from disinformation sources. Not okay is when understanding evolves and the discussion begins to hone in on the true, damning mechanisms having a nuclear whiff.
More accurately, the above was okay as far as you were concerned, as long as it didn't inspire bad behavior by its detractors. But rather than handling the detractor and calling them on their dishonest & discrediting actions, they got the pass and I got the boot.
[I love how one opponent -- your most active contributor -- lied for years about having physically destroyed Dr. Wood's book in order to avoid rational discussions that might rescue nuggets of truth and get them re-purposed elsewhere. It exposed another participant as a blow-hard, hypocritical, liar, and he has yet to debunk anything from Dr. Wood, let alone FGNW, despite many boasts. Fucking no-show when called out to defend his words and act according to discussion rules that he himself spelled out.]
You don't see any patterns. But I do.
You wrote: "[O]n my blog, I have the right to say whether or not I want put the focus on which type of explosive devices were used to bring the towers down."
And when the type of explosive device gets absolutely shredded? When it can't explain all of the evidence? When it comes up vastly short? When even its champions say something else was involved? Makes you the clown holding the bag.
I did not relish being the odd-man out in T&S discussions for having championed (for a time) NPT, Dr. Wood, milli-nukes, etc. However, TRUTH was my guide and helped me change my views, but not at the expense of nuggets of truth.
TRUTH should be the focus.
// Part 2/2
x261 Maxwell C. Bridges : put in touch with Schmidt & Gloux
2016-03-30
https://www.facebook.com/craig.mckee.16/posts/1672935346300980?comment_id=1675344119393436&reply_comment_id=1675761126018402¬if_t=share_comment¬if_id=1459306753403974
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, I would like to be put in touch with two T&S participants: Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Gloux. (a) Could you please ask them if they would be willing to correspond with me? If so, they could contact you off-list with their email address to pass to me, or you could pass them off-list my email address or my blog URL.
Or on-list, (b) you could post a link to my blog with the comment that I desire a short audience with them.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
Thank-you.
//
x262 Maxwell C. Bridges : get a leg-up with raw research
2016-03-31
Dear Mr. Craig McKee, so that you could get a leg-up quickly, get to my level of understanding of nuclear / DEW, and discuss the topics knowledgably, I had promised you several months ago the raw results of my research at my local institution of higher education (that turns out, I could mostly do online after I got my library card). This summary wasn't my sole or focused endeavor while laid-off and (somewhat) still on severance Spring/Summer of 2015. But it was sufficient to get the lay of the weapon's land around the turn of the century.
Various entries in this raw work didn't always merit extensive notes or quoted extracts. They were included to show completeness and that "I did go there and do that and left nothing relevant out." If you came across similar references on your own, this raw summary could be a guide as to whether the entry was worth chasing all the way down to a published article or book (albeit soley from the perspective of my FGNW hobby-horse.)
If you had to limit your review of this raw data, the two stand-out entries are at the bottom of Part 2:
- Doug Beason, Ph.D : "The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought" 2005
- Andre Gsponer : "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons: Military effectivenss and collateral effects." 2008
They are worthy of you looking up yourself and (the former) checking out of the library of your local institution of higher education.
The following link opens to section with my notes from Dr. Beason's book, followed by the section of Dr. Gsponer.
http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/2015_DewFgnwResearch.php#x137
At the very top and very bottom are links to expand/collapse that are very handy. Plus all of the titles expand/collapse individual sections, to aid you in your review.
What is sad is that a similar literature review was ~NOT~ performed by leaders of the 911TM before they embarked on concerted efforts to "poo-poo" nuclear / DEW. This research proved to me that (straight) DEW obtained from (generally) chemical sources, were not capable of achieving what was observed due to (a) optics and (b) energy sources, particularly when posited as "beams from space." And my hybrid variant of "nuclear DEW" had similar optical problems that would be solved by being very close -- if not inside -- the target (WTC).
P.S. Dr. James Henry Fetzer (Philip Joy, Kevin James) may find this research also of interest.
//
x263 Craig McKee, Roger Gloux, Jens Schmidt : would you be willing to correspond
2016-04-01
2016-04-01
Craig McKee
March 31, 2016 at 7:01 pm
To Roger Gloux and Jens Schmidt,
Senor El Once, a past comment contributor on Truth and Shadows, has asked if you would be willing to correspond with him privately. Please email me at truthandshadows@yahoo.com and let me know. Thanks.
Jens Schmidt
April 1, 2016 at 9:34 am
Craig,
I have never heard of El Once. Why would he want to correspond privately as opposed to here on this public board?
Who is he?
Craig McKee
April 1, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Jens, he has made many comments on this blog since 2010 although he does not currently have posting privileges. You can check out this link, which goes into the subject he’d like to converse with you about.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
Roger Gloux
April 1, 2016 at 5:08 pm
Done.
x264 ruffadam, Jens Schmidt, hybridrogue1 : the guy is OCD to the extreme
2016-04-04
ruffadam
April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm
For the record if you invite Senior El Once into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme and will NEVER leave you alone! Ever. I told him many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway. 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. By contacting him you are letting a crazy person into your company. You have been warned.
Jens Schmidt
April 5, 2016 at 12:29 am
Thanks for the warning. I don’t think highly of proponents of any “nukes” theory.
What is “OCD”?
ruffadam
April 5, 2016 at 5:40 am
OCD = Obsessive compulsive disorder
Jens Schmidt
April 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
Ah ok. I don’t take online medical diagnoses very serious, but thanks again for the warning, I think I know the type of poster.
hybridrogue1
April 5, 2016 at 8:38 pm
ruffadam — April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm
“For the record if you invite Senior El Once into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme and will NEVER leave you alone! Ever. I told him many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway. 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. By contacting him you are letting a crazy person into your company. You have been warned.”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41722
A great Public Service Announcement By Adam Ruff there!!!
Lol
\\][//
x265 Maxwell Bridges : flatter me so with your assessment
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
You flatter me so much with your assessment!
I think the reason you act the way you do, is that you know that you've been a glaring hypocrite & blow-hard and have been caught repeatedly in the act.
Where is your promised debunking of fourth generation nuclear devices? I even have a new FGND thread that you could participate on. Where is your debunking of Dr. Wood (a much easier target)? You are a repeated no-show, Mr. huffing-and-puffing Ruff, and lose by default. Can't even live up to your own expectations for honest participants of T&S (March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm) re-written 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 {...}. If you are a real truther then stand up like one and support the {...} evidence {of FGND} strongly and openly. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear that {the nuclear involvement & cover-up} thereby proving insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11. 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.
[In a Gomer Pile voice] "Surprise, surprise, Mr. Ruff:" that your mentor, Mr. Whitten, failed in his gambit against me in a parallel spectacular fashion and is also a repeated no-show.
I guess what gets your goat the most about me is that *I* am not as crazy as you hyperventilate. Sure, I write well; sure, I can research; sure, I can extract meaningful nuggets from highly technical sources; sure, I'm organized; sure, I collect comment-by-comment all of my words and eventually re-publish them. You don't appreciate in the least how this little habit -- hardly "OCD to the extreme" because it is simply drip-by-drip -- can help in authoring words from the onset that are worthy later of preservation and re-purposing. Keeps me out of the flame wars.
I also like this 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.
Come out and play, Mr. Ruff! I've made it easy for you by giving you an outline of what needs to be debunked. Go through my FGNW article section by section and give us the good, the bad, and the ugly. {You'll fail if you can acknowledge no good, or no truths.}
Oh, and before I forget. I did the research that you were incapable of. I promised you my raw research into DEW and Nukes. This, too, should give you a very huge headstart and leg-up into debunking FGND.
Truthfully, I don't expect shit from you or Mr. Whitten. You two, too-proud high school graduates (by the skin of your teeth) are too stupid, and certainly won't show up to have your intelligence / ignorance further exposed and your selves discredited.
But Mr. McKee will take note of how I earnestly and sincerely MANY TIMES tried to initiate a rational, reasoned, researched, substantive discussion with you two DISINFO CLOWNS, only to have you act the JFEF and Q-Group. {Indeed, I have been uncharacteristically throwing many personal insults your way in this message to "inspire" you. I'm not expecting much; the cut of your jibe is already known.}
Enjoy your Pentagon carousels.
//
x266 Maxwell C. Bridges : I cling to nuggets of truth like a dog to a bone
2016-04-05
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 about 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
x267 Maxwell C. Bridges : re-packing Mr. Ruff's ammo and aiming at Mr. Whitten
2016-04-06
2016-04-05
Part 1/2
Mr. Whitten offered on April 5, 2016 at 8:38 pm a pat-on-the-back to Mr. Adam Ruff for his T&S message on April 4, 2016 at 3:45 pm.
What is interesting is how much of Mr. Ruff's words really should be aimed at Mr. Whitten:
"For the record if you invite {Mr. Whitten} into your circle of contacts you are going to regret it because the guy is OCD to the extreme..."
A great example is: MAXWELL BRIDGES: DISINFORMANT. Mr. Whitten's only consistent OCD focus in its 373 comments is ad hominem. Nothing on his blog addresses all of my points; the few he did address have rebuttals. Mr. Whitten isn't interested in a rational discussion, because if he were, there would be back-and-forth exchanges on one or both blogs.
Mr. Ruff continued: "... and {Mr. Whitten} will NEVER leave you alone! Ever."
Mr. Whitten maintains comments under this blog, even though the demerits of this "work" are quickly evident to any objective reader.
Mr. Ruff continued: "I told {Mr. Whitten} many times to stop contacting me and he kept doing it anyway."
Mr. Whitten knows that I am subscribed to his blog entry dedicated to me. By "contacting me", he constantly pings me back to life by posting comments there, by referencing me, and by alias-ASS-ociated me with other people.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Mr. Whitten certainly wasn't the model of excellence in Mr. Ruff's hypocritical statement of 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. {...} 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. {...} 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."
Maybe Mr. Ruff statement from March 19, 2016 at 9:43 pm really reference Mr. Whitten:
"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."
OCD-me! I did what Mr. Whitten and Mr. Ruff were 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. Both have skirted discussions.
So precious was the lie maintained for over two years by Mr. Whitten that he had physically destroyed Dr. Judy Wood's 500-page full-color textbook and used it as bird-cage liner, in order to avoid discussing it. That is oh so El-Oh-El funny, particularly when Dr. Wood's work was never intended, by Dr. Wood or me, to be the end station. Hard to believe that two years ago (2014) was "Laying Bare the Propaganda Techniques and Dissembling" and how it stands the test of time, followed by "to destroy confidence in the reliability of", "to reject as untrue or of questionable accuracy", "Gathering and Sowing", ...
Mr. AWright's tenure on T&S ended coincidentally about the same time as Mr. Whitten's, in good old sockpuppet fashion. Amazing VerityTwo's huffing-and-puffing departure at the same time as Mr. Whitten's booting. And quite astonishing the viscious and irreversible bridge burning (pun intended) from T&S! ... So Mr. Whitten in his Q-Group demotion can spin his wheels in 52 year-old JFK conspiracies.
Mr. Whitten's blog had isolated instances of genius and promise, only to be overwhelmed by his sociopathic tendancies. What a shame.
// Part 2/2
x268 Maxwell Bridges : shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium
Dear Mr. McKee,
I do not dispute that the WTC was a victim of controlled demolition. Nor do I dispute the significant number of witnesses who reported hearing explosions. Nor do I dispute that conventional explosives could have played a (minor) role.
Conventional (chemical-based) explosives couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc.
If we assume conventional explosives were used at the WTC on 9/11 and try to deduce their placement from the evidence (videos plus eye- & ear-witnesses), the description of the explosion cadence suggests a rate slow enough to be counted -- "boom, boom, boom, boom..." -- like one every half second, or one every second. Given that the destruction of each tower happened in approximately 10 seconds, this would suggest one explosive event for every 5th to 10th floor or 20th floor. None describe an explosion cadence of 10 blasts a second, or 1 blast every 0.1 second, which is an explosive device every floor.
Now consider two anomalies. The first is that both towers, but most observable with WTC-1, had a "spire" or portion of the inner core remain standing briefly after seemingly the individual floors and outer wall assemblies were pulverized and fell or were ejected from around the spire.
The second anomaly is that survivors and witnesses at very close proximity did not report afterward damage to hearing from deafening explosions. While Dr. Shyam Sunder can be faulted for many issues with NIST's 9/11 reports, Dr. Sunder made valid statements: "Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this."
Given the explosion cadence and the assumption of conventional explosives every 5th to 10th floor, their energy coupling to the targets (e.g., the concrete and contents of each floor) would have been shock-waves propagating through air. To achieve the observed pulverization, the shock-waves would have been large, which in turn calculates to deafening decibel levels to many survivors and witnesses close by.
Because deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11, the assumption does not have to hold that the primary mechanisms of destruction were conventional (chemical-based) explosives. Thus, sincere seekers of truth must continue their search for the another primary mechanisms of destruction.
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response and observed outcomes. From Dr. Andre Gsponer:
A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
Furthermore for materials near the detonation point, surface heating can be sufficiently strong to ablate (e.g., "vaporize") and by reaction, a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
The main effect {of FGNW} will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
The bottom-line: FGNW have sufficient energy to produce explosive and even pulverizing effects. Because the shock-wave is directly within the material and not transmitted through the medium of air, the resulting audible explosions would be muted compared to conventional chemical explosives to achieve equivalent effects.
FGNW are directed energy devices. Speculation: they could have been mounted on alternating sides of what became the "spire" and aimed their energy in a conical area upwards. This would have resulted in the fountain-type effect of content ejection and pulverization (except for spire) as observed, and also would have mitigated to a certain degree nuclear fracticide or one device causing another to fail or fizzle and not meet its full nuclear potential. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a clue of nuclear fizzle and 9/11 not being a perfect operation.
Furthermore, other evidence in the aftermath (e.g., tiny iron spheres in the dust, tritium, heavy metals including Uranium in the dust) point at nuclear involvement. The cover-up also hints at it, both in what is considered solid evidence as well as what is considered disinformation, such as how nuclear devices are framed improperly.
//
x269 Maxwell C. Bridges : deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11
Dear Mr. McKee, (Part 1/2) I do not dispute that the WTC was a victim of controlled demolition. Nor do I dispute the significant number of witnesses who reported hearing explosions. Nor do I dispute that conventional explosives could have played a (minor) role.
Conventional (chemical-based) explosives couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc.
If we assume conventional explosives were used at the WTC on 9/11 and try to deduce their placement from the evidence (videos plus eye- & ear-witnesses), the description of the explosion cadence suggests a rate slow enough to be counted -- "boom, boom, boom, boom..." -- like one every half second, or one every second. Given that the destruction of each tower happened in approximately 10 seconds, this would suggest one explosive event for every 5th to 10th floor or 20th floor. None describe an explosion cadence of 10 blasts a second, or 1 blast every 0.1 second, which is an explosive device every floor.
Now consider two anomalies. The first is that both towers, but most observable with WTC-1, had a "spire" or portion of the inner core remain standing briefly after seemingly the individual floors and outer wall assemblies were pulverized and fell or were ejected from around the spire.
The second anomaly is that survivors and witnesses at very close proximity did not report afterward damage to hearing from deafening explosions. While Dr. Shyam Sunder can be faulted for many issues with NIST's 9/11 reports, Dr. Sunder made valid statements: "Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this."
Given the explosion cadence and the assumption of conventional explosives every 5th to 10th floor, their energy coupling to the targets (e.g., the concrete and contents of each floor) would have been shock-waves propagating through air. To achieve the observed pulverization, the shock-waves would have been large, which in turn calculates to deafening decibel levels to many survivors and witnesses close by.
Because deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11, the assumption does not have to hold that the primary mechanisms of destruction were conventional (chemical-based) explosives. Thus, sincere seekers of truth must continue their search for the another primary mechanisms of destruction.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response and observed outcomes. From Dr. Andre Gsponer:
"A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast."
Furthermore for materials near the detonation point, surface heating can be sufficiently strong to ablate (e.g., "vaporize") and by reaction, a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
"The main effect {of FGNW} will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material."
The bottom-line: FGNW have sufficient energy to produce explosive and even pulverizing effects. Because the shock-wave is directly within the material and not transmitted through the medium of air, the resulting audible explosions would be muted compared to conventional chemical explosives to achieve equivalent effects.
FGNW are directed energy devices. Speculation: they could have been mounted on alternating sides of what became the "spire" and aimed their energy in a conical area upwards. This would have resulted in the fountain-type effect of content ejection and pulverization (except for spire) as observed, and also would have mitigated to a certain degree nuclear fracticide or one device causing another to fail or fizzle and not meet its full nuclear potential. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a clue of nuclear fizzle and 9/11 not being a perfect operation.
Furthermore, other evidence in the aftermath (e.g., tiny iron spheres in the dust, tritium, heavy metals including Uranium in the dust) point at nuclear involvement. The cover-up also hints at it, both in what is considered solid evidence as well as what is considered disinformation, such as how nuclear devices are framed improperly.
// Part 2/2
x270 Maxwell C. Bridges : a blatant ~LIE~ dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years
Here is a postscript to the 2014-04-10 comment x33 compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments.
+++ Begin Quote
{Mr. Rogue / Mr. Whitten} knew how I was using {Dr. Judy Wood's} book to inspire rational discussion with leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement well ~before~ an offer with conditions was eventually extended{...} It was a test of objectivity. I was attempting a sincere effort to get two opposing sides on the same literal page in order to legitimately and objectively review Dr. Wood's work.
Who knows why you accepted?
Prior to receiving the book, you were disparaging it. Maybe you only accepted the offer as a cheap trick to get out of being constantly reminded that you had no standing for negatively evaluating it if you'd never read it. Maybe you thought it would be a cake walk to find all bad and acknowledge no good. Maybe you were unprepared for how little bad there was in comparison to overwhelming amounts of good. At the end of the day, what matters is how you played it.
You ran out the clock on reading it. When pressed, you said you didn't finish reading it and weren't going to "because it was so bad." Huh? If it was so bad, why didn't you document the many instances that made it bad, as was the assignment that you agreed to? Pressed further, you try to send it back, but pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were the conditions, not return-to-sender. Pressed further, you violently ripped it apart to be used as bird-cage liner so that nobody could obtain any further benefit from it, least of all yourself when the book cycled back into discussions.
Does any of this make rational sense?
It tells me that you were never sincere in the first place. You thought you were playing me and avoiding for as long as possible a legitimate and objective review of Dr. Wood's work (and the evidence contained therein.) {...} I could not have imagined that I would get so much milage out of a book, one that I know has issues.
+++ End Quote
I had written much earlier on March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm:
My money is betting that the above [destruction of Dr. Wood’s book for bird cage liner] is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue {Mr. Whitten}. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, …
Sure enough much later and after I am soft-banned from Truth & Shadows, Mr. Whitten writes on August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm in a discussion with a new T&S participant: "I have the BOOK [from Dr. Judy Wood]." Then Mr. Whitten demonstrates on August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm intimate knowledge of its content that could only be obtained from an intact book.
Here we have it: a blatant ~LIE~ from Mr. Whitten dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years in lieu of acknowledging any good in Dr. Wood’s book?!!
The silver bullet fatally pierces Mr. Whitten's integrity and character. "Unfaithful in the small things…"
//
x271 ruffadam, Jens Schmidt, Wayne Coste : there were no obvious explosions just before the WTC towers came down
2016-04-11
ruffadam
April 11, 2016 at 11:30 pm
Jens doesn’t believe explosives were used to bring down the towers so why would anyone think he has ANY credibility? I certainly don’t. I just ignore his and Wayne’s silly nonsense. There is no reason to regard their opinions as valuable. As far as I am concerned they are just JREF’ers here to waste our time.
Jens Schmidt
April 11, 2016 at 11:45 pm
ruffadam,
“Jens doesn’t believe explosives were used to bring down the towers”
Here is a little challenge for you: Find me two videos:
1. A video of an actual explosive demolition of a tall building
2. A video of the collapse of any of the WTC towers
Both ought to be with original sound from the camera.
Chose the videos such that the sounds of the explosions are more obvious in the WTC video than in the other.
Alternatively, you could admit right here and now that there were no obvious explosions just before the WTC towers came down – which makes the believe in explosives a little unobvious.
April 11, 2016 at 11:55 pm
Wayne Coste
Wayne Coste
April 12, 2016 at 12:34 am
Jens:
I hope that you are not fixated on only one piece of evidence – such as the singular sounds of individual explosive charges. As I am sure you are aware, the Twin Towers were a much larger building that was destroyed than other controlled demolitions.
In a parade, a singular snare drum makes a distinct sound. In a parade with a dozen snare drums doing a drum roll, you will never be able to hear the individual strikes by a drum-stick.
If you are looking for irrefutable evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers then let me introduce you to this 18 second video of the South Tower’s demolition:
https://youtu.be/RwzWBKfRsZ0
What you just saw was that the demolition wave progressed down the South Tower at a speed that was as-fast-as, or faster than, free fall acceleration. If you noticed, by the time the material was ejected outside of the tower from one floor (in all three directions that you can see — left, front and a bit of the right side), the next floor was exploded and – this is the important part – the ejected material that was in mid-air does not have time to fall to obscure the demolition of the next floor. A gravity-only collapse would travel much slower because the structure above would need to be doing work and that slows the destruction to “slower-than-freefall-acceleration.
Consequently this cannot be a gravity-only collapse. It had a lot of explosive help.
Also note – the material that is ejected is not just floating “dust”, it is the aluminum skin, the steel perimeter columns and other structural material that lands up to 600 feet away. All heavy enough to fall at free-fall acceleration. It takes about 18 stories for the material in the air to begin to obscure the demolition wave.
-Wayne
PS. The material ejected outside the footprint stopped about the 5th floor because the “floors” below that were open lobby and had no structure to demolish. No need need // place for explosives and that is why the firefighters survived in the fourth floor staircase.
Jens Schmidt
April 12, 2016 at 12:47 am
Wayne,
“…you will never be able to hear the individual strikes…”
Which makes the “explosives” theory a bit unobvious??
“What you just saw was that the demolition wave progressed down the South Tower at a speed that was as-fast-as, or faster than, free fall acceleration.”
No, slower than g. David Chandler measured 2/3 of g. This is consistent with momentum transfer in a pancaking of the floor slabs – and exactly what the video shows. What you believe are explosives going of is simply tens of thousands of cubic meters of air expelled each second, with the dust of crumbling drywall and light-weight concrete.
Gotta run!
April 12, 2016 at 2:35 am
ruffadam
Wayne I do not read your posts any more on any subject. I think you are dishonest and I want nothing to do with you.
Wayne Coste
April 12, 2016 at 8:27 am
Jens:
I think you missed the point about the material being ejected out of the building. The demolition wave proceeded as-fast-as of faster than material in free fall outside the building.
The David Chandler analysis was describing the acceleration of the top of the tower – for as long as it could be observed. What I was pointing out that the demolition wave destroying the outside of the building (in the three sides you can see (left, front and ejections to the right side by implication) is proceeding too fast for a “gravity-only” collapse.
If the South Tower was “collapsing” at less than free fall acceleration, the material falling outside would have obscured the destruction of the next floor down. Instead, what we see is the next floor below is demolished before the material in free fall can obscure the view.
From this analysis of material in free fall outside the building, I cannot see anything any about what is happening inside to the core’s structure – so the 2/3 of free fall acceleration by Chandler is not inconsistent.
North Tower Demolition Wave
In this view of the North Tower, at 0:18 – 0:24, you can see the building being destroyed as a demolition wave races down the center line of the building. The demolition wave here is a narrow strip down facade and is visible in other videos.
https://youtu.be/Mb-4Xt8ENt0
-Wayne .
Jens Schmidt
April 14, 2016 at 9:33 am
Wayne, I appreciate the effort – but do you really consider these sounds to be explosions, even obvious explosions?
You haven’t met the second part of my challenge – to show an actual explosive demolition where the sounds of the explosions are less obvious than at the WTC.
What I want to convince you of is not necessarily that there were no explosions, but that no explosions were obvious – as you previously implied.
There are no obvious sounds of explosions
There are no obvious flashed of light from explosions
There are no obvious shockwaves from explosions
There is no obvious high-speed (hundreds of mph) shrapnell flying away from explosions
There are no steel segments obviously cut by explosives
There are no injuries stemming obviously from explosives (barotrauma and the like)
There was no explosives-trained canine that barked
Nobody has found explosives in any of the remains (and no, no one found nanothermite, and even if they did, nanothermite is not a steel-cutting explosive; not even Harrit and Jones claim that their alleged nanothermite was used as an explosive)
So the obvious reality is: There were no obvious explosive demolition charges. All you have is anomalies that you interprete with a bias towards CD.
Now: I don’t know what those loud sounds in your videos are, and I will give it a try identifying them, once you meet the challenge and find me an explosive CD with less obvious sounds. I note for the newest video you posted about 9 hours ago that the sounds were generated much closer to the cam than the tower was (they don’t reverberate), or, if they come from the tower, were generated well after collapse initiation. Why are there no obvious sounds of explosions immediately prior to collapse initiation? And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descenging with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?
I’ll have an extremely busy weekend and may not reply again until sunday or monday.
Wayne Coste
April 14, 2016 at 10:15 pm
Jens:
Your complete dismissal of the sound of explosions in the previously referenced video clips and the video clips showin demolition waves proceeding down the Twin Towers as-fast-or-faster that the debris in freefall suggest that nothing will shake your purported disbelief of the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Since you raised the issue, lets move on to a more technical discussion. You said:
” … do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descending with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?”
In fact, using NIST’s own data, in conjunction with measured observations, the descent of the top of the North Tower should have been arrested after about two-four seconds – assuming that it should have started in the first place..
You are certainly aware that NIST never simulated the destruction of the Twin Towers – nor did any analysis of the structure once they deemed “global collapse was inevitable.” They had a good reason not to publish their results – the buildings would not have experienced a progressive collapse. They relied on the fraud of Zdenek Bazant’s published papers.
A 2009 paper by Szamboti and MacQueen went to the heart of the progressive collapse fraud. There was no observed jolt.
In 2011, Bazant published a paper written in response to a paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti (“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2009), although the authors simply referred to MacQueen and Szamboti’s work as “… a new objection, pertaining to the smoothness of the observed motion history of the tower top, … raised and disseminated on the Internet”.
It appears that Bazant (in desperation?) took up the challenge and wrote a paper describing the progressive collapse mechanism. In order to make the numbers work, he had to assume:
1) The floors were much heavier than NIST said they were, and
2) The column strength / column resistance was less than what NIST, said
3) The acceleration was freefall for the first floor (instead of the observed 2/3 of freefall acceleration)
When corrected by Szamboti and Johns in a discussion paper, they showed that because of the momentum transfer and structural resistance, the acceleration would negative (e.g. slowing to an eventual stop) if the correct values were used (e.g those contained in the NIST report or derivable from it). If the observed acceleration was used, then the progressive collapse would have been halted in under 4 seconds.
This is an image of the graph showing the Bazant acceleration (blue line) and the effect of using corrected values.
You can see that with the corrected values, the downward velocity returns to 0 m/s.
You can see more discussion here:
https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/465-asce-journals-refuse-to-correct-fraudulent-paper-they-published-on-wtc-collapses.html
-Wayne
Jens Schmidt
April 16, 2016 at 7:30 am
Wayne,
“…lets move on…”
No, Wayne, let’s not move on when you have misrepresented my previous comments, not answered my questions and not met my video challenge ;)
“Your complete dismissal of the sound of explosions in the previously referenced video clips…”
Untrue, Wayne! I did not “completely dismis” these sounds – I addressed them, and askey you questions, to which I shall return shortly! I think we should get to the bottom of those two clips and do our best to either corroborate or falsify your allegation that theses sounds are the sounds of explosives exploding to demoligh the tower
“Your complete dismissal of … the video clips showin demolition waves proceeding down the Twin Towers as-fast-or-faster that the debris in freefall”
Untrue again, Wayne! I pointed you to the evidence, contained in the very same videos, that the “demolition” (actually just: colllapse) waves proceded slower than debris in freefall – you just need to look at the large, heavy pieces, not the dust, not the fluttering aluminium sheets. You failed to address this – may I take that as you dismissing evidence that refutes your claim?
Wayne, I had asked, and you quoted my question:
“ … do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descending with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?”
Please note the added emphasise on “after the top half…”
You replied – but ignored the bit about “after the top half…”:
“the descent of the top of the North Tower should have been arrested after about two-four seconds – assuming that it should have started in the first place”
Do you see how you answer a question I didn’t ask? Your reply is about the early stages of collapse progression, my question about the later stages. This was misleading on your part, because the elipse that started your quote of my question cut out the crucial context in which I asked it! Here is my question including, in bold face, the bit you clipped out:
“And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descenging with great momentum?”
Wayne, please answer that question, and none other!
I have to admit at this point that I made a stupid thinking mistake leading up to that question – in my mind, I had “corrected” the sound by placing the event at 10 seconds later in the video, which made me think the two sounds, if they originated from the WTC, did so several seconds after collapse initiation. Of course correction goes the other way: The Onno de Jong videos were shot from 9th Street and 1st Avenue, which is about 3 km / 1.9 miles away, such that sound would take approx 9 seconds earlier:
The sound heard at 2:49 min would have been generated at ca. 2:40 min, and the sound heard at 2:55 min at 2:46 min; that’s ca. 10 and 4 seconds prior to visible collapse initiation. If you go to the video and watch around those two time stamps, you will note that there is no corresponding visual event: No flashes, no pressure wave pushing out fire or smoke…
Wayne, I further asked:
“Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?”
This applies to any stage of the collapse progressions once we see the top segment has tilted such that columns are no longer vertically aligned around the collapse zone, and the entire top has started coming down.
(I acknowledge that I have not yet spoken of what caused collapse initiation; these questions go to the question of what happened during the collapse progression – after initiation, whether it was explosives on all levels all the way down, or gravity-driven “pancaking”.)
Please answer the quoted question!
I also asked, and that goes back to my challenge and the video clip you offered:
“do you really consider these sounds to be explosions, even obvious explosions?”
That’s two questions – please answer both (a “yes” to “obvious explosion” would answer both)!
What I want to convince you of is not necessarily that there were no explosions, but that no explosions were obvious – as you previously implied. That’s what the last questions are about.
You still haven’t met the second part of my challenge – to show an actual explosive demolition where the sounds of the explosions are less obvious than at the WTC. I need now an actual explosive demoltition where the explosions are even less obvious than the two, apparently near, noises in the Onno de Jong video.
As far as Bazanz, Szamboti and the “missing jolt” are concerned:
Szamboti accepts Bazant’s models as modelling the actual WTC collapses – and that is Szamboti’s prime error. Base assumption false – all that follows is invalid.
Let me explain very briefly:
Bazant and Zhou, in a paper that Bazant had drafted a day after 9/11, and which they got published in 2002, assumed that IF the collapse would be resisted by the columns on every level, all the way through (that would be, I assume, what AE911Truth calls the “path of greatest resistance”) AND IF somehow the top segment had a chance to fall at freefall acceleration through the height of 1 floor, then the collapse could not have arrested as the potential energy differential per unit height (e.g. 1 story) is greater than what the columns can absorb. This is a limiting case analysis, but both assumptions don’t actually apply to the WTC: The top segment never fell at feefall, there was never a literal 1-story gap – but most importantly, the falling mass didn’t load the columns significantly after it had started falling. 98% of the area of the tower is floor or lateral beams, and only 2% is columns. Plus, the top part descending is proof positive of most columns having failed AND passing each other.
It follows that most of the falling mass impacted horizontal members, which were far weaker than the columns and could not nearly offer as much resistance. Hence Bazant’s first paper was far too “optimistic” as far as survivability is concerned.
And hence my question:
Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?
(Oh, and Bazant’s follow-up papers elaborated on his initial “column loading” model, and are thus also not applicable at any detail level to the actual WTC collapses. NIST, afaik, only made reference to Bazant & Zhou’s limiting case, which was perfectly legitimate. NIST picked the correct part from Bazant, Szamboti the wrong parts. And added a couple more errors of reasoning)
x272 Maxwell C. Bridges : After Mr schmidt's admission of being official conspiracy theory all the way
2016-04-14
{2016-04-14}
Dear Mr McKee,
After Mr schmidt's admission of being OCT all the way, I no longer find him of interest to contact. However all disinformation has its nuggets of truth. He does legitimately take chemical explosives to task for their weaknesses in explaining the evidence and video observations. FGND fit, although he won't go there. This is for your edification.
//
{2016-04-16}
Dear Mr McKee,
Amazing how crafty if not snakey Agent Schmidt is as he essential defends OCT. The Q-group has upped their game with this character. Don't ban him, use him. Conflict makes an argument, breeds interest, and is classic for all productions (novels, plays, movies, dear abbeys, ...)
I gently but consistently persistently remind you of my nuggets of truth mantra, because even in defending OCT, the agent reveals such when he talks about audio signatures of explosives and WTC. My hobby horse explains it, and you know it. Take your own advice to follow the white rabbit after truth and into my rabbit hole. (Or... said in gest while enjoying the lack of responsibility of exile..., you could stop being a censure against me and my sincere holy grail of Truth.)
//
{2016-04-16}
Dear Mr McKee,
Mr rogue was very good at teaching us all about pincers. Mr ruff does a poor job of defending controlled demolition, period. And he is bound to lose because he is assuming explosives, which the audio signatures don't match and the agent knows this, because he knows the true causes. The agents Schmidt and Gloucester (and ruff) did not contact me, and blew my humble request off.
Such an exciting (fake) drama unfolds.
//
x273 ruffadam, Jens Schmidt, Travis : a few contradictions in the mainstream media’s witness testimony
2016-04-15
Travis
April 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm
Here are a few contradictions in the mainstream media’s witness testimony:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
Hagos, Afework: “There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over.”
Morin, Terry: “…was working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex… noise was absolutely deafening. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me …”
Munsey, Christopher:”…A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex…”
So was it a noisy airplane or a silent airplane?
Probst, Frank: “…The plane’s right wing went through a generator trailer “like butter,…”
Singleton, Jack:”…That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer…”
So did the right wing hit the trailer or not? Come on people.
Cook, Scott P.: “…it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft…”
Hemphill, Albert: “…The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack…”
Owens, Mary Ann: “…Its downward angle was too sharp…”
Renzi, Rick: “…The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle …”
Sucherman, Joel: “…in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle…”
Thompson, Phillip: “… as if it were coming in for a landing – cruising at a shallow angle…”
So did it dive-bomb in, or fly level-enough to actually hit the light poles?
Since n does not equal ~n, many of these have to be downright fabrications.
Jens Schmidt
April 16, 2016 at 6:34 am
Say what Travis, eye witnesses that make inconsistent statements?!? Has the world ever heard such an outrageous, deeply disturbing thing?? (Except – every time you have several witnesses, this is).
Note: The previous paragrah is sarcasm.
What you point to, perfectly legitimately, is that eye witnesses perceive imprecisely, memorize imprecisely, interprete imprecisely, retain in memory imprecisely, recall imprecisely or describe impecisely – or all of the above. (And sometimes they are paraphrased impresisely, if their recollection is reported by some third party)
These are the reasons why it would be mad to trust witnesses testimony 100% when you have loads of physical and recorded evidence to the contrary.
It’s like the 156 witnesses who spoke of “explosions” at the WTC. All very well, many describe loud noises or dusty expanses that they wrongly perceive as “like” explosions (rumbles aren’t explosions; billowing clouds aren’t explosions). Many falsely interprete sounds as explosions that sound like explosions but actually aren’t. Many recall explosions that never occurred. Many use the word “explosion” because they cannot at the moment think of a better word, or they do so consciously as a simile, not an actual interpretation. Many have their statements taken out of context.
But the reality is: There were no explosions that caused the collapses – they would be clearly, loudly, sharply and totally obviously audible on practically ALL videos shot within, say, a mile, or even beyond. Yet, truthers struggle to produce any. Yes, some videos have loud noises in the general time frame of a collapse, but have any of those been corroborated by comparing with other videos or by linking them to specific witness statements? Of course not, or Craig wouldn’t be parading McQueen’s 156 witnesses!
The reality is still: When the 3 tower collapses commenced, no explosions capable of causing this went of. None. Despite 156 witnesses claimed by truthers to support a CD insinuation.
Building your case on (a selection of!) witnesses while discarding videos, physical evidence and all sorts of other recordings is plain madness, unless it’s willfully deceptive.
ruffadam
April 16, 2016 at 7:22 am
The Towers didn’t collapse they were blown up with explosives.
Jens Schmidt
April 16, 2016 at 7:38 am
Oh – ok… I’m convinced now. Thank’s for meeting my challenge, answering my questions, and presenting the best evidence??
ruffadam
April 16, 2016 at 8:35 am
Your “challenge”? Really you think you have in any way whatsoever challenged the overwhelming and conclusive case for CD? You are delusional. Scratch that you are just a troll.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
April 16, 2016 at 12:05 pm
How about you meet this challenge… Find a video that shows the columns giving in and causing a pancake “collapse”… One that also shows 75 floors’ worth of steel columns and cross beams piled up on the ground at the end…
Have you ever played Jenga, Jens?
Travis
April 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Jens you ignorant slut. I am not “building a case while discarding videos”. I am just pointing out some contradictory witness accounts. The only case that you could make from those is the inconsistency of reports, for whatever reason.
Nor am I being deceptive, you have a monopoly on that Jens.
x274 Maxwell C. Bridges : The perks of my exile are that I'm not obligated to faithfully respond
Dear Mr. McKee,
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." This paradigm in conspiracy theory cuts both ways. Mr. Jens Schmidt provided a challenge to the participants to provide the best evidence for controlled demolition.
Mr. Adam Ruff is being true to his trend line of being a blow-hard, no-show, etc.
... I do not read your posts any more on any subject. I think you are dishonest and I want nothing to do with you. ... The Towers didn’t collapse they were blown up with explosives.
The particpants are going to drop the ball, and Mr. Schmidt is going to run circles around them for this and other reasons. They'll make a mockery of your blog article, Mr. McKee.
I can address Mr. Schmidt's challenge easily. If he's sincere, the evidence & science that I present will convince him of controlled demolition. If he's not sincere and the suspected troll / agent, his games will become obvious, he'll discredit himself, and he'll demonstrate to non-believers the reality of government infiltration.
Alas, the only snag is "unleashing the bat-shit crazy on your blog"; I'll immediately enemy-of-my-enemy-style team up with Mr. Schmidt to legitimately debunk chemical explosives. (Mr. Ruff is at risk.) Truth dictates that I feed the sheep; my FGNW hobby-horse needs to run free.
It is a sight to behold on conspiracy sites when two disinformation premises battle, find legitimate weaknesses in the other, and take each other down a few pegs on the believability scale. What I have learned on my spiritual 9/11 journey is that Truth is powerful, and very devistating in a three-way with two disinformation premises. A Truth position has the integrity to acknowledge & promote the nuggets of truth from disinfo sources to get stronger, while exhibiting the objectivity to condemn the bad that weakens the disinfo. Truth finds that third way.
My game plan is quite simple and already available for counter-arguments to be composed. "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW". It gives me already handy links to section numbers that address a variety of topics. It even draws from your efforts in the original "Beyond Misinformation."
Could be good for ratings. And the circus show will include otherwise unlikely alliances here and there, many arrayed against FGNW.
... Am I serious?... Oh, you caught me, Mr. McKee. I'm only partially serious. The perks of my exile are that I'm not obligated to faithfully respond. I can be lazy and make infrequent dings from the sidelines. (Just be aware that they are being collected and are exposing trend lines.)
If my exile were to be rescinded, I'll spend time writing thoughtful and reasoned comments at my pace; I have zero intention of having the frequency of a Wayne, a Jens, a Rogue, or a Ruff. I do what I do when I do it.
//
x275 James Fetzer, captivescientist, adamruff : very small and soft explosions don’t do the job
2016-04-17
captivescientist
April 17, 2016 at 6:41 pm
Jens said:
“The reality is still: When the 3 tower collapses commenced, no explosions capable of causing this went of.”
What explosions do you think would be capable of causing it?
Jens Schmidt
April 18, 2016 at 12:48 am
“What explosions do you think would be capable of causing it?”
Good question – that ought to have been answered by the theory that explosives demolished the towers, however there exists no such theory of explosive demolition of the WTC, does it?!
I suggest that it would be explosions that go BANG multiple times, very loudly and sharply and obviously, immediately prior to collapse initiation. Such as are heard on every singel video of any actual explosive demolition ever.
Hence my challenge: Show me a video of an actual explosive demolition where the explosion sounds are less obvious than in even the best WTC video.
Because silent explosives do not exist, and very small and soft explosions don’t do the job.
James Henry Fetzer
April 17, 2016 at 10:53 am
Adam Ruff has lost his way, speaking out about issues where his ignorance is palpable. What in the world does he know about the Zapruder film or JFK? I have three 500-page books including the best research from the best students of the assassination, where we have proven (there and elsewhere) that the film was massively edited and revised to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK from the public. One is entitled, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).
Not only does he know nothing about JFK, but he is at least equally ignorant about 9/11 and the proof that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a nuclear event. It is embarrassing that he makes these ponderous assertions with NOTHING TO BACK HIM UP. Like many others here, he seems to trade on rumor and speculation. He does not cite my work but delivers smears for which there is no evidence. That also occurs even in the JFK community. Check this, for example:
“Jim Fetzer responds to Jim DiEugenio’s attack on his research”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-jim-fetzer-replies-to-jim.html
Now if Adam thinks I have something wrong, then let him identify what I claim and why I claim it (to insure he actually understands my position), then explain what he thinks I have wrong and how he knows. None of those attacking me here make the least effort to do that. They go off half -cocked based upon their own massive ignorance, rumor and speculation. I issue the demand: if you think I have something wrong, prove it! Otherwise, you are displaying your own ignorance.
ruffadam
April 17, 2016 at 9:02 pm
Veterans today has members who openly admit that a large percentage of what they themselves say is disinformation. So I do not need to look any further than that to discredit you Jim. Also I am not your trained seal and I do not jump through hoops just because you put them out there. I think you are right about a few things and totally full of shit on others. You are a classic operative you put out about 80% truth and mix it with 20% disinformation. I simply ignore you Jim since you work directly with people who admit they are lying I assume you are too.
James Henry Fetzer
April 17, 2016 at 9:24 pm
You are such an ignoramus you don’t even know that Duff and I had a falling out last April (a year ago, if you check it) over my publishing about JADE HELM 15 and his desire that I not. He booted me off Veterans Today and thereafter deleted all 150 articles I had published since joining the magazine in 2011. As with regard to other issues where I have pointed out your stunning absence of knowledge, you have no idea what you are talking about. To take me to task for being a member of a journal that I left over a year ago demonstrates your incompetence. I have to agree with you on one point, however: one of us is a complete and total piece of shit!
James Henry Fetzer
April 17, 2016 at 9:28 pm
Moreover, you have yet to show that I am wrong ABOUT EVEN A SINGLE POINT ACROSS MY RESEARCH ON JFK, 9/11, WELLSTONE, SANDY HOOK OR THE BOSTON BOMBING. You love to shoot off your mouth, but you are so incompetent at research you miss the boat OVER TIME. Give me one example where you claim I am wrong. Cite what I say and why I say it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know. You are a complete clown and a horse’s ass.
James Henry Fetzer
April 17, 2016 at 10:13 pm
Since you claim that I put out about 80% truth and 20% disinformation, which is which? Which of my work falls into the 80% truth category and which into the 20% disinformation category? And since you are advancing this and would be an idiot to make such a claim if you did not know my work, it should be effortless for you to explain which is which. And when you claim some of my work is “disinformation”, be sure to spell out and explain how you know. Otherwise. you would come across as an arrogant blowhard who has no idea what he’s talking about. I am calling your bluff.
ruffadam
April 18, 2016 at 1:00 am
No hoops for me Jim. I will say this though your mini nuke crap is a big FAIL.
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 1:09 am
I figured you would wimp out. You don’t know my stuff and make up criticisms based on what you hear from others. I doubt you have had an original thought in your life. I have already linked to two articles in my longer response to these unfounded attacks. So here’s one more for you:
“9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-truth-will-out-vancouver-hearings-ii.html
Start with this, especially the USGS dust sample evidence of a host of elements that would not be there–especially in the quantities and correlations found–had this not been a nuclear event. Then turn to the articles by Don Fox and by Dennis Cimino and explain what we have wrong.
ruffadam
April 18, 2016 at 1:14 am
Wow Jim I am so hurt by your goading that now I am going to crumble and fall right into your clever trap! NOT!
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 2:03 am
Adam Ruff, you have exposed yourself as a complete and total fraud. You don’t know any of my work. You had no basis to attack me. You thought you were being “cool” to join with others who have attacked me in the past. You did not even know that Gordon Duff, whom I despise, and I had a falling out over a year ago. Not only do you know nothing about my work on JFK or 9/11 or Wellstone, but you don’t even seem to know that I have published three books of expert studies since I split with Veterans Today: AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER (2015); NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015; banned by amazon.com); and AND NOBODY DIED IN BOSTON, EITHER (2016). One of the obvious signs that you were faking it is that my research is COLLABORATIVE because I bring together experts on different aspects of cases in awareness of the limitations of my own personal competence. You, however, just fake it, acting as if you were an authority and in the position to appraise my work when that is not the case. I am sorry, but I cannot abide phonies, liars and frauds, where you appear to be a stellar instance.
Travis
April 17, 2016 at 11:27 pm
If you won’t do it for Dr. Fetzer Ruff, could you do it for me?
I want to know the 20% that you two disagree on. Jim was an early pioneer for the cause, and if he joined the dark side, I would like to know.
ruffadam
April 18, 2016 at 1:05 am
Travis I am not interested in Fetzer he is a poison pill. If you want a thorough critique of Fetzer then this is your link and here is your information: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 2:18 am
Travis, One shill citing another doesn’t cut it, either. He is obviously incapable of sorting things out for himself. Some of these people are like The Force: They can have a powerful effect on the weak minded. Adam Ruff is weak-minded, so he cites another fraud as his source. Disgusting!
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 1:14 am
Travis, you are sincere, he is not. This is the typical behavior of a troll: to attack someone who has done more and better research than have they to gain some perverse ego gratification. I have cited these below as well, but just to make it easy for him to track them down, they are:
Don Fox / Did Israel nuke the WTC on 9/11?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/
Dennis Cimino / 9/11: A World Swirling in a Volcano of Lies
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/911-world-swirling-in-volcano-of-lies.html
He won’t respond because he can’t. He is not a serious person but a game player. So now we have set the frame of the debate. I have offered three articles as sources of support for the hypothesis that the Twin Towers were taken down by nukes. Let’s see what he has to say.
ruffadam
April 18, 2016 at 1:18 am
Wow I guess I better respond or the whole world will see that Jim Fetzer was right all along! Bait rejected Jim.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
April 18, 2016 at 9:58 am
This is the typical behavior of a troll: to attack someone who has done more and better research than have they to gain some perverse ego gratification. – Profesoor Fetzer
Haha… This is like the pot calling the Brita jug black….
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 10:03 am
Dave, not to impugn your intelligence, but what are the odds that I would be wrong about any of these matters, much less 20%, when I am doing COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH with numerous experts in fields where I am not myself an expert. Have you studied any of my books on JFK or 9/11 or Wellstone or Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, for example? And if you have, is there anything you think we have wrong? Please spell it out, because I would hate to think that you are one more mediocrity who has nothing serious to add but smears like those of Adad Ruff.
David Hazan (@Lilaleo)
April 18, 2016 at 11:03 am
Professor… I feel that ruffadam has set up an inaccurate representation of your work by quantifying it with numbers, and has provided you with a hammer to keep banging, and reply multiple times with insults, condescension and accusations, prompting him and the readers here to bow In front of your huge body of work, as you usually do.
I do not share his opinion. My wise-ass remark was directed at your calling ruffadam and HR1 shills and trolls.
My issue is not that you have erroneous conclusions, it is about how you get there, how often you support outrageous and unscientific claims, how often you change your mind, your overall track record of jumping on every conspiracy theory, the relationships you have built and destroyed, affiliations you have made, and the extremely divisive affect you have had in any reasonable and impartial discussion that could have taken place under your watch, or with your involvement. Not to mention that I really do not care for your argumentative style
Even then, I always stop short of calling you a shill or a troll, because I simply do not know whether or not you have any ulterior motives, or that you are doing all this consciously. I just decline to go into any rabbit hole with the rope that you dangle… That’s all.
I hope that answers your question.
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 11:17 am
David, I am 75 years old. I do not suffer fools gladly. There have been massive attacks on me ad infinitum since I began research on JFK in 1992. My review of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood has drawn over 7,000 (SEVEN THOUSAND) comments, almost all of them from Judy groupies. I am sick of it. None of you has shown I have anything wrong. I could give a rat’s ass if you don’t like my personal style. Frankly, for you to interject when you CANNOT SHOW THAT WE–AND I HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF COLLABORATORS–HAVE ANYTHING WRONG puts you at the bottom of the cess pool. I am a truth addict: I will accept nothing but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but–no partial truths, no white lies, nothing. And that includes criticism of me. If I change my mind from time to time, that is because of the impact of new evidence or alternative hypotheses. IT IS CALLED “SCIENCE”! I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning–and I cannot abide seeing the same fallacies committed by those who claim to have a stake in JFK TRUTH, 9/11 TRUTH or any other. I am very direct in responding to rubbish. Now I am responding to more of it from you. THIS IS NOT A GAME. IF YOU CAN’T SHOW WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING WRONG, THEN YOU REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE. You have accepted false histories of Scholars, fake attacks upon me and rumors and speculations, which are unending. I am sorry, but I am SICK OF THE BULLSHIT. If you can’t show we have something wrong, BE SILENT–because you are not advancing the truth by endless ad hominems attacking me. What do we have wrong and how do you know? A simple request. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Do it, if you can.
James Henry Fetzer
April 18, 2016 at 11:44 am
David, I know there is something about your psyche that require you to have the last word, even if it is snarky and non-responsive. There are many disinfo ops out there. 90% of the JFK research community appears to be working the other side. There are very few with the kind of background I bring to these efforts, which is why my collaborative work is “cutting edge”. I draw upon the expertise of many others, including, in the case of JFK, a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics, a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology, which makes him an expert on X-rays, and many others.
Those who are trying to keep the holes in the dikes plugged are running out of fingers. Jones, Ryan and others did not want alternative theories beyond nanothetmite to be considered, so they trashed Scholars rather than employ scholarship. They have never responded to the USGS dust evidence which reveals elements whose presence would be inexplicable had it not been a nuclear event. They love to equivocate and say, “Yes, something beyond nanothermite might have been involved!”, but they never say what that “something” would be. Its a limited hang-out and I have called them out about it–multiple times. My collaborative research is not the problem.
You have fallen for a veritable barrage of verbal attacks upon me which completely discount the evidence and logic that lead to the conclusions we have advances (about the alteration of the Zapruder film, Oswald in the doorway, the faking of the crash sites, the nuclear destruction of the Twin Towers, that Wellstone was assassinated using high-tech weaponry, that Sandy Hook was a two-day FEMA drill presented as a LIVE event to promote gun control, that the Boston event was the most amateurish false flag in history. We don’t just make these claims: we prove them!
So if you have something to contribute, do it. I learn from serious criticism. Your attacks are not.
Here are two YouTubes about the Boston marathon bombing. Just tell me what we have wrong:
“The Real Deal special Boston bombing update”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMxhdiBrqTM and one
“Boston Strong: The three ‘Jeff Bauman’s”
x276 Maxwell C. Bridges : FGMW deliver energy directly to target and into the target
2016-04-18
{email 2016-04-18}
Dear Mr McKee,
Mr Jens Schmidt April 18, 2016 at 12:48 am has a point. Silent or soft chemical explosives don't exist or don't do the job. Such destroy by the shock waves sent through the medium of air and are loud and deafening.
FGMW deliver energy directly to target and into the target. Shock wave isn't in air, but is created in the materials of the target. A much different audio signature.
//
{email 2016-04-18}
Dear Mr. McKee,
{Mr. ruffadam April 18, 2016 at 1:00 am has} No links. No substantiation. If Mr ruff had been honest during our prematurely short debates, he could point to that. But no, he was a no show yet still promotes the same unsupported bunk.
//
{email 2016-04-18}
Dear Mr. McKee,
{Mr. ruffadam April 18, 2016 at 1:05 am} Almost enough to suspect sock puppetry ruff, rogue.
//
{email 2016-04-18}
Dear Mr. McKee,
{Dr. James Henry Fetzer April 18, 2016 at 2:18 am} In this example for sure, Dr Fetzer speaks truth. //
{email 2016-04-18}
Dear Mr. McKee,
Dr. James Henry Fetzer wrote April 18, 2016 at 11:44 am:
Jones, Ryan and others did not want alternative theories beyond nanothetmite to be considered, so they trashed Scholars rather than employ scholarship. They have never responded to the USGS dust evidence which reveals elements whose presence would be inexplicable had it not been a nuclear event. They love to equivocate and say, "Yes, something beyond nanothermite might have been involved!", but they never say what that "something" would be.
This is true. Recognize the actions of Jones, Ryan, and others for what it is: support of a limited hang-out.
Worse, is that you are going around with Ryan, Chandler, and others about the Pentagon: support for a different limited hang-out.
Recognize the players and the concerted effort to keep public revelation from the Truth. If you want change in the world, it has to start from public understanding of what the Truth is. You can't sugar-coat it with "the means of controlled demolition don't matter." They do, Mr. McKee, they do! The means illustrate such ethical and moral depravity, that the public would march up and change things.
At the very least, don't you be the stumbling block or the censure to public understanding.
//
x277 adamruff, Jens Schmidt : no sounds of explosions
2016-04-19
ruffadam
April 18, 2016 at 7:58 pm
Absolutely right Hadmatter Jens is indeed rehashing a very old and discredited meme put out by the JREF’ers that there were no sounds of explosions. Completely false and people should take note that Jens is KNOWINGLY promoting disinformation. DON’T JUMP THROUGH HIS HOOPS.
Jens Schmidt
April 19, 2016 at 10:50 am
“Jens is indeed rehashing a very old and discredited meme put out by the JREF’ers that there were no sounds of explosions.”
This is completely false – I do not claim “that there were no sounds of explosions“, period. Why do you shorten my actual claim by leaving out the all-important qualifier?
There were no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with actual explosive demolition devices.
Adding this qualifier makes it a true “meme”, as evidenced by your collective ability to present any recorded explosion sounds immediately prior to the collapses that you can compare to actual explosive CDs.
“Completely false and people should take note that Jens is KNOWINGLY promoting disinformation.”
You made a completely false claim. Do not repeat it, or we shall know that you are “KNOWINGLY promoting disinformation”
“DON’T JUMP THROUGH HIS HOOPS.”
What you mean to say:
* Don’t answer questions.
* Don’t address arguments.
* Don’t commit to evidence.
* Stay vague.
* Do not formulate a hypothesis.
ruffadam
April 19, 2016 at 11:27 am
The towers were demolished with explosives. There are MANY eye and ear witnesses and multiple sound recordings not to mention multiple videos where you can see squibbs and explosions all the way down.
Look Jens I am not playing your sick game. I have been through this BS for 15 years and you are just one in a long line of trolls and liars. I think what you do is despicable and pathetic and cowardly. You are a traitor to humanity.
I have been to ground zero, I have been to the Citgo station next to the Pentagon. I have personally met William Rodriguez and held the key to the WTC stairs in my hand. I have looked him in the eye and I know he is telling the truth and I KNOW for a fact that you are a liar, a filthy rotten cowardly liar.
Piss off Jens I don’t need to prove shit to you jerk. The demolition of the towers is obvious. If you can’t or won’t see it that is your problem. You can just stuff all your disingenuous BS right up your ass and if you were face to face with me now I would say even louder. Don’t even speak to me in the future.
ruffadam
April 19, 2016 at 11:38 am
You know I have to say Craig it is times like these when I really miss Hybridrouge1 here. I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with troll filth like Jens while Willy certainly would have time and would do a great job of ripping his BS to shreds. Now as it is no one is countering his endless stream of disinformation and JREF talking points. Top it off with Fetzer and Deets and this blog is becoming downright irritating for me. I just don’t need the BS anymore. I am going to stop reading here and stop participating. Sorry Craig but I am DONE! These fucking slime disinformationists can just fill your blog with whatever BS they want I am sick of reading it.
x278 Maxwell C. Bridges : totally valid criticsm
2016-04-19
2016-04-19
Dear Mr. Ruff,
I do not know Mr. Jens Schmidt. I agree that he's probably a troll and Q-group agent, given his OCT stance.
However, he has indeed made at least two very important points -- nuggets of truth, as it were -- in his "debates" with you.
[1] There were no sounds of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with actual explosive demolition devices.
This statement is true. It is an anamaly. Of course, his disinfo agenda is to favor gravity-driven pile-drivers by discrediting conventional chemical explosives, but legitimately so.
Other than the structural element to which chemical based explosives are attached, destruction to content and other structural items happens by means of a massive shock-wave transferred through the medium of air. Shock-waves through air necessary to created the observed pulverization of concrete and content would be deafening loud. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of survivors and witnesses.
When thought is turned towards fourth generation nuclear devices, an important difference between chemical explosives and FGND is a direct & deeper coupling of energy to the target. FGND do not rely on a shock-wave through air to achieve their destructive means. Energy at wavelengths approaching molecular distances is one effect, as is deep penetrating neutrons that can deposit their energy within the core of even thick metal beams and effect volumne heating. (Study the "sags" and "horseshoe" beams.)
However, a really destructive side-effect of this directly coupled energy is called ablating, where the surface is vaporized so quickly that a shock-wave is created within the target to further decimate it and surrounding content. The audio signature of this would be observable but muted from what the audio signature of the equivalent amounts of chemical explosives needed to achieve the observed outcomes.
This is not to say that directed energy from a FGND has no effect on air. Air, being made up of gases, would experience some of the same effects. It would heat up. Refer to testimony of surviving first responders who described an intense heat as if a "fire ball" engulfed them, although there was no actual "fire ball."
You should ponder this section FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift.
Mr. Schmidt second important (machine-gun) point:
[2] “DON’T JUMP THROUGH HIS HOOPS.”
What {Mr. Ruff means} to say:
* Don’t answer questions.
* Don’t address arguments.
* Don’t commit to evidence.
* Stay vague.
* Do not formulate a hypothesis.
Nailed you, Mr. Ruff, with totally valid criticsm. Don't I know it? The above agrees with my experience with you on my hobby-horse topic: FGNW.
To lamely defend himself, Mr. Ruff wrote on April 19, 2016 at 11:27 am:
The towers were demolished with explosives.
This is complete and total speculation. None of the dust samples supports this conjecture -- not from Paul Lioy, nor from USGS, nor from even Dr. Jones. If you want to get technical, Dr. Jones and AE9/11Truth did not test their samples for chemical explosives. Moreover, only Dr. Jones' samples supposedly had "energetic particles" that he described as nano-thermite.
However, the red-gray aluminum-iron flakes that were found everywhere, weren't energetic and were a result of the #2 tower defect that made them white elephants. Namely, the alumunim cladding was corroding into the steel of the wall assemblies that if left unchecked would compromise the integrity of the structure (e.g., rust). The #1 tower defect that make them white elephants was asbestos.
Mr. Ruff continued:
There are MANY eye and ear witnesses and multiple sound recordings not to mention multiple videos where you can see squibbs and explosions all the way down.
Sounds of explosions does not have to equate to explosives. This is a logical fallacy. The list is endless of relatively common items that, through defect or misuse, can destroy themselves herolded by an explosion sound but with no actual explosives.
As for squibs, I could go either way whether chemical explosives caused them, or whether FGNW ablating caused them. Arguing for mutual exclusivity in the means of destruction is a fool's game and a ready tool of disinformation.
Mr. Ruff's retort:
I KNOW for a fact that you are a liar, a filthy rotten cowardly liar. Piss off Jens I don’t need to prove shit to you jerk. ... You can just stuff all your disingenuous BS right up your ass and if you were face to face with me now I would say even louder. Don’t even speak to me in the future.
This does not convince anyone. Further, if you don't point out the specific instances of where a lie was uttered, then you are just throwing out ad hominem that puts you in violation of the decorum of the forum.
Mr. Ruff goes on to lament:
You know I have to say Craig it is times like these when I really miss Hybridrouge1 here. I just don’t have the time or energy to deal with troll filth like Jens while Willy certainly would have time and would do a great job of ripping his BS to shreds.
Mr. Rogue, like you, thinks that witty put-downs would save the day. No. Only well researched and reasoned argumentation could do that.
I hope that you will be true to your promise, Mr. Ruff:
I am going to stop reading here and stop participating. Sorry Craig but I am DONE!
P.S. In order to stop email notification, you need to go to your WordPress dashboard. Menu around and eventually you'll find all of the articles to which you subscribe.
//
Ruffadam:
Excuse me!
What part of my discussion about WTC Building 7 didn’t you understand? The only way this can happen is with explosives as I said in this post and the earlier post to this one.
Initial
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42048
Follow-up
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42068
You can suggest that Jens is either confused about the evidence or misinformed.
However, I expect that we are on the same page concerning WTC Building 7. Is that correct?
-Wayne