x86 Señor El Once : "best evidence" is really a ploy to have it been deemed the "only evidence"
The skew of Mr. Rogue -- the proven liar and cheat -- goes like this:
Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as Thermite in the dust from the WTC towers?
The problem isn't that thermite *might* have been involved. The problem is that what the cheat calls "best evidence" is really a ploy to have it been deemed the "only evidence" and for honest researchers to stop looking.
The fact of the matter is that this "thermitic best evidence" does not account for all of the observed side-effects of the destruction, from the pulverization to the maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots for many weeks. It comes up very short.
Plus, there's tritium, tritium, tritium and what proper analysis of the WTC dust reveals: correlated elements signifying involvement in the destruction and representing a recipe for nuclear hijinx.
Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as [Uranium and other questionable elements] in the dust [representing nuclear sources] from the WTC towers?
It is because "9/11 nuclear anything" (a) would have caused a panic in the public despite the pains the culprits took in designing neutron nuclear devices without copious amounts of lingering radiation and (b) would have immediately soiled the hands of the US Government and Military, the largest holder of nuclear toys of any kind.
Moreover, tactical nuclear devices without lingering radiation represents a national secret into methods-&-means that the government would want to hide for as long as possible, even 11 years later in an obscure COTO forum.
//
x87 hybridrogue1 : "The Gay Porn of HybridRogue1"
{Mr. Rogue posted the following under one of my DEW articles, but I did not perceive them to be meant for serious debate, so I deleted them. Once there was 17 of them, I made a COTO article to highlight them. If I had intended this article to be permanent, I would have chosen a different title as well as intro paragraph. :) }
{HybridRogue1, the great Master Bater, put a lot of effort into the following "butt-cheese." They were not applicable where he posted them. But rather than they be wasted, let's give them the spotlight they deserve. We know he was smiling when he squated them, and that his pleasure will be double as he bends over "to take it properly like a man." I'm sure his comments to follow underneath will be just as high-brow, enlightening, and worthy of preservation as this collection (isn't).}
2013-03-06
The question remains: Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as Thermite in the dust from the WTC towers?
But YOU know the answer to that very well don't you anonymous spook.
\\][//
+++++++++
You're hysterical Bridges, both "hahaha" and psycho.
\\][//
+++++++++
The 'Señor' entity is mainly involved in the last entry, on the topic of DEW and Nukes as responsible for the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11. This has been the topic of our dispute. Although the entity formerly championed the No-Planes theory for a time, and gave credence to the Video Fakery camp for some time as well. These 'giving ins' are, as I see it, a 'schmooze campaign', a technique of the 'confidence racket'. It lends the sheen of being "open minded," – and this entity I speak of has used that very boast as 'ammo' in current commentary.
\\]i[//
+++++++++
What the fuck are you doing on COTO anyway? You don't belong here.
Time for you to get a new assignment, Agent Maxifuckassus // {Copycat slasher}
\\][//
+++++++++
I'll never be able to waste as much of your time as you have wasted mine…
But, what the fuck? You're here, and I'm here, and you can sit and play with your delete button rather than diddling your ass for awhile….
\\][//
+++++++++
Dont' forget to check at midnight Maxifarts…I'll be back…Lol
\\][//
+++++++++
Ohhh…and say around 3 AM in time for the international COTO crowd…
Yes, lighting could strike just about any time around here.
Are you having fun yet diaper dumper?
\\][//
+++++++++
Time for you to get a new assignment, Agent //
Maybe janitorial duty at the local circus. Is that where you pick up your dump truck loads of bullshit? Or do you have a personal extruder at home?
I'd wager the bulk of it comes out of your own ass.
\\][//
+++++++++
lying, cheating Agent, such a lying cheat, a great lie, the cheating....
tripping over a several hundred THOUSAND mile long nose packed with bullshit...lying, cheating Agent, Agent Agent Agent, lying cheating Agent, such a lying cheat cheat cheat a lying cheat, cheating cheating cheating,
lying cheating Agent Señor Slash Slash
Talk about totally discrediting yourself!
\\][//
+++++++++
"Nuclear toys of any kind even those of the fevered mind, lingering delusions of fusion...9/11 nuclear anything...hell even a minuscule dab of tritium..
tritium - Tritium - TRITIUM I tell you.!!.I will slash slash you with enough tritium to goose a flea!..why I...I will....I will...???...I will get you in the end your end is near and fear is near your end full of tritium I tell you triti-yum yum yum..."
Hohohohehehehahaha...
\\[8]//
+++++++++
C'mon…It's funny Meeester Treetiyum yum
Don't get yer twattie in an uproar…Iss just a leetle beet of Treeteeyum!!
\\]![//
+++++++++
Just a little bit
Just a little bit
Just a little bit of Treeteeyum!!
Yum yum yum yum !!
. . . . .
So this guy walks in a bar. He says, "tritium"…
The whole place cracked up!
\\]*[//
+++++++++
But, No-oooooo, you had to go opening your mouth, inserting your food; tritium pie, oh my!
Guess you ain't in the genus after all. If you weren't such a lying cheat, you might have been able to demonstrate some radiation for your doodoo machine.
"The meat of his latest postings are in actual fact copy-and-pasted re-postings from actual factual informative sites"~Señor El Doodoo
\\][//
+++++++++
Nah…Maxifartimus LOVES ME…he wants to be like me, he even copied his little // from my \\][//...so he could feel cool...like me!! {grin} ...
He hates it cuz I won't love him back...
heeza twat boy!!
yuppity do-da
\\][//
+++++++++
Yer ears ringin'?
Yea we're talking 'bout you backchannel…they all thinks you're so FUNNY!!
\\[?]//
+++++++++
One Response to "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus"
"I'm just mad about Tritium
She's just mad about me
I'm just mad about Tritium
She's just mad about me…
They call me Maxifuckanus
Not too slick
They call me Maxifuckanus
Not too slick.."
Hohohohehehehahaha…
Next: Forensic Metallurgy
\\[v]//
x88 Señor El Once : valid foundation upon which the charge rests
The introduction to Agent Rogue's work forgot to mention: that was just 12 hours worth of collecting his words.
As for the recent comment made by Agent Rogue that tries to spin my words about him in a bad light. I was calling Rogue "a liar, a cheat, and an agent" while highlighting example after example from Agent Rogue's fare to prove my charge.
His cherry-picking doesn't do justice to how he really is "a liar and a cheat." At least he provided a link so that those curious to see the lying cheat in action will quickly learn the valid foundation upon which the charge rests.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/
x89 Señor El Once : doing the government agent framing quite handily all by yourself
Dear Mr. Rogue,
I haven't been "trying to frame you as a government agent." You've been doing that quite handily all by yourself.
I've just been pointing out all of the little things that you do -- like your cheats and lies and forum floods -- that make it so. You are less than genuine.
As for the purpose of this thread, Mr. Rogue.
You seem a bit worried, as if you don't really stand behind your words and are embarrassed to see that 12-hour collection promoted.
I stand behind my words, even the ones that prove instance after instance of you being a cheat and a liar and calling you such.
//
x90 Señor El Once : Dr. Wood's work should not be promoted blindly
{Owning to the "Gay Porn of HybridRogue1" article being purged, I did not have an opportunity to finish or post this.}
Dear Ms. DawnAtilla,
I encourage objective thinkers to acquire and read Dr. Wood's textbook. However, this same work has major issues, and should not be promoted blindly.
Regrettably, I no longer trust Dr. Alfred Lambremont Webre as a reliable source for much of anything. Always gotta read his stuff with a grain of salt, and search for other sources that can substantiate it.
Aside from the chapters on Hutchison Effects and free-energy from space, my biggest complaints about Dr. Wood's textbook are:
- she accepts certain government reports unchallenged.
- she accepts certain images unchallenged as being genuine and not faked. They are used to make far out claims, like there being no hot-spots.
- she brushes aside objectively considering nuclear sources when they would have been easier to come by and implement.
- she carries over errors from her website.
- she never addresses valid criticism of her work/website although well known by the time she was putting her book together.
- she never addresses "the literature" or the body of work by others that ought to have her changing her tune in her book from what the website presents. The work of the Anonymous Physicist comes to mind.
Also, the "Lathering up" that she promotes isn't as incriminating as she makes it out to be. Yes, I believe that they were pumping out smoke to obscure clear views into what was going to happen. But the "lathering" is more of a trick of air currents along the face of these tall buildings that it is an effect of energy weapons coming on line.
Her court cases were a farce that were destined to be thrown out, because she had no standing to be making her charges. Plus, it is as if she purposely introduced "crazy conjecture" that could not be proven. It was like a "double jeopardy" ploy; field a weak cases that loses so no other case can be presented. It would have been enough to prove that official story false for the requirements of pulverization and the speed of decimation, but this they did not do.
//
x91 Señor El Once : make each other happy
{Owning to the "Gay Porn of HybridRogue1" article being purged, I did not have an opportunity to finish or post this.}
Mr. Rogue writes:
I just wish this son-of-a-bitch anonymous-entity would get the fuck off of COTO.
Get the fuck off of Truth & Shadows, and it'll be easy to grant your wish. You want something; I want something. Let's make each other happy.
As for the hypnotic repetition of Mr. Rogue being "a liar and a cheat," he acts as if there is no proof for the charge. Quite the contrary, which is why the charge is so damning.
Mr. Rogue also conveniently forgets that he is the one who taught others about hynotic repetition, only he was doing it without the benefit of substantiation. And there was the cheat where Mr. Rogue would claim to have addressed some issue elsewhere (when in fact he didn't), and forever after hypnotically repeat "I've addressed this before, it's all nonsense, and this is but another carousel ride."
This isn't about whether it was energy weapons or not Dawnatilla, this is about this motherfucker calling me a liar a cheat and an agent.
The truth hurts, don't it, Mr. Rogue?
//
x92 Señor El Once : Your ignorance will only take you so far
{WordPress klutz that Mr. Veritable1 is, after the original article "The Gay Porn of HybridRogue1" was deleted by Ms. JerseyG, he attempts to recreate part of it and hold this new version up as an example of a personal attack on hybridrogue1. These responses fell under that new article before it was removed as well.}
2013-03-07
Your ignorance of this WordPress forum will only take you so far, Mr. Veritable.
You wrote:
I copied it as it came to my mail box, how do you think i got it.
Exactly my point. Each and everyone of the seventeen (17) comments attributed to Mr. Rogue in the "Gay Porn" article came from Mr. Rogue (in a 6 hour time period) to my inbox, to the article, and hence to the WordPress trash. You weren't subscribed to my article, so you might have the excuse of not getting them in your inbox.
But, they exist in the trash can of COTO that you can view if you go (1) to your dashboard, (2) to Comments, and then (3) the breadcrumb link to Trash, where presently 20 such comments are there. [And if someone empties the trash in the meanwhile, I'll be happy to post them again. No biggie.]
Do your due-diligence, Mr. Veritable, and ascertain if I am justified in re-publishing Mr. Rogue's seventeen (17) insulting comments to a top level to prove that he ain't no angel. In fact, they underscore the charge of him being a liar and a cheat. They speak for themselves in terms of demonstrating Mr. Rogue's character.
You write:
If you're trying to gain peoples respect here, you're certainly going the wrong way about it.
Ah yes, but your respect in Mr. Rogue might ~not~ be well-founded. Don't be so brain-dead in your saluting of his every fart.
Case he point, I wrote:
I didn't write his words that were reposted.
Mr. Rogue responds:
This is just more horseshit. Most of what I posted on his nookiedoodoo page was copy and paste rearrangements of the vile crap he posted about me on T and S…aside from the little ditty and joke about Treeteeyum.
This is a lie. Those words are entirely Mr. Rogue's. As soon as the words got re-arranged into ridicule and deviated from my statements, they stop being my words and they became Mr. Rogue's crap.
Don't believe me? Why I think it is deserving of being re-published below the +++ line. Kindly point to where any of Mr. Rogue's 17 entries are contained verbatim in what I wrote on Truth and Shadows?
Face it, Mr. Rogue is indeed a cheat and liar, and you do him no favors by coddling him.
++++++++++++++++ {The 17 Comments of HybridRogue followed, but were removed. They are above.}
x93 Señor El Once : just more blarny and horseshit
{WordPress klutz that Mr. Veritable1 is, after the original article "The Gay Porn of HybridRogue1" was deleted by Ms. JerseyG, he attempts to recreate part of it and hold this new version up as an example of a personal attack on hybridrogue1. These responses fell under that new article before it was removed as well.}
Get your facts straight, Mr. Veritable.
The blarny you speak of comes from your "respected" Hybridrogue1, and he had the gall to lie directly to your face with:
This is just more horseshit. Most of what I posted on his nookiedoodoo page was copy and paste rearrangements of the vile crap he posted about me on T and S...
His efforts at trying to weasel out of what he wrote ought to be telling.
You say the delete button is real close by? Well, I suggest you use it on this entire article. Cover for your good-buddy.
Meanwhile we'll all know that I was right and who is the liar & cheat.
x94 Señor El Once : Take it down. The sooner the better.
{WordPress klutz that Mr. Veritable1 is, after the original article "The Gay Porn of HybridRogue1" was deleted by Ms. JerseyG, he attempts to recreate part of it and hold this new version up as an example of a personal attack on hybridrogue1. These responses fell under that new article before it was removed as well.}
Agreed, Ms. JerseyG. Take it down. The sooner the better.
The only caveat to your alternative is that Mr. Rogue made a big public spat about not wanting to converse via email with me anymore. And I in fact recommended that if he could figure it out, he should turn his threat into an email filter on my messages.
And it had nothing to do with disrespect or spam on my part. In fact, Mr. Rogue's email antics run parallel with his posting frequency here and on T&S. Normal people can't keep up. In other words, he's the one who would flood my inbox; not the other way around. He's also the one to call names and sling slurs at the drop of a hat.
Yep, although I now publicly call him a cheat and a liar, I've got ample examples from the Rogue himself that he keeps serving up, to his chagrin. So it isn't as if I'm being gratutious or willy-nilly in my name calling; I'm being truthful. I'm just calling a spade-a-spade. He just doesn't like being called on his shit (reminds him too much of his ex-wife).
And he knows what he has to do to get me to stop, which boils down to him not lying and cheating in his discussion tactics. Very simple. Yet very hard for the Roguester to do, so used to is he of deploying disinfo debate techniques.
Mr. Rogue, with you being a graduate of Cass Sunstein's "Cognitive Dissonance" School, you ought to know how to turn things into a fucking circus. Seen you do that many times. You seem to have them conned here pretty well.
x95 Señor El Once : Where's the chapter-by-chapter debunking?
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Proving yourself a liar, too, because you said you didn't read my postings and that they didn't merit responses. Whatever. I won't make hay on your backpeddling and will do you the favor of a serious response. You wrote:
The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.
Agreed. The foundation of all disinformation is a copious amount of truth. "Nuggets of Truth", I called them. If you don't take the effort to sift the disinformation from the nuggets of truth, then you are playing right into the hands of disinformation.
Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially "dissapeared" thus the title of her book "Where did the towers go?"
If you want to frame it that way, so be it.
Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas.
You overstate your case if you think this is "her entire foundation". Reeks to me as if you don't have her book, nor have you read it.
Be that as it may, I'll grant you your point, for indeed she does not qualify the amount of material left behind. And she has another grave error in pointing to the "spire" as an example of dustification when other view points of that expiring spire clearly show it falling over. She's made gross mistakes in her analysis that she never corrected going from the website to the book; she never addressed the valid criticism of her work (website) nor any of the valid ideas of others (e.g., the Anonymous Physicist).
Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.
Because I'm not defending 100% of Dr. Wood's work, I'll grant you the validity of this criticism as well.
But what you are failing to note is that she rightfully points to the energy requirements needed to produce that dust. Obviously gravity didn't do it, but not so obviously is that chemical explosives could ~not~ have done it either ~WHILE~ also addressing the observed outcomes of under-rubble hot-spots and a very short logistics period when bomb-sniffing dogs took several pre-9/11 holidays. Occam Razor says it wasn't conventional bombs, period.
JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.
Again, the above appears to be written by your lofty position of not having her book nor having read it. Her book actually makes few predictions or statements of cause-and-effect. If anything, she throws lots of ideas out but does not definitively connect them together under one grand theory.
If you had any scientific background, you would not be writing so ignorantly: "[The buildings] fell to the ground after they were blown up." What blew them up? How much would it take? How loud would that be? The fact of the matter is, the buildings were pulverized in such a spectacular manner that defied historic trends in conventional explosives and controlled demolition, such simplistic reasoning doesn't cut it.
For all of the faults in Dr. Wood's textbook and website that I will readily concede, she is still right on the money to call our attention to the manner in which the buildings were decimated. And Dr. Jones led us astray.
SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well...
Prove it. Where am I wrong?
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
... and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.
This is just plain ignorant, Mr. Ruff. If you want to debunk Dr. Wood, it has to be done chapter-by-chapter, if not page-by-page. Why? Because it is not all bad and the nuggets of truth have to be preserved. Because there is not a single (highly) public member of the 9/11 Truth Movement who doesn't have skeletons in their closet, who doesn't have purposeful disinformation mixed in with truth, who isn't knowingly peddling incomplete truths.
If you aren't willing to get your hands dirty and sift the truth from the error, then you are no adherent to truth; you're just another disinfo agent trying to steer us away from considering the true mechanisms of destruction.
What are you afraid of in Dr. Wood's book, Mr. Ruff? Afraid you might find something that is actually valid yet doesn't fit the paradigm of what the other 9/11 PR hacks are promoting? Afraid it will jar your understanding and take it into new realms?
If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is "missing". She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can't do that can she?
Now replace "Dr. Judy Wood" with "Dr. Steven Jones" in your paragraph above. Seems to me that he is "missing" such calculations as well.
You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!
Where's your chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where's Dr. Jones' chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where's the 9/11 Truth Movement's chapter-by-chapter debunking? Doesn't it seem strange to you that ignorant people such as yourself get on their soap-boxes and decry things as disinformation from hearsay alone and without the benefit of specifics?
I'll be happy to provide you specifics of where Dr. Wood got it wrong -- and there are lots -- but it will be at the expense of also acknowledging what is right and deserves some attention.
It isn't that I'm propping her up as being the whole story. I'm propping up her as providing important pieces to the story that you ignore... Hell, you haven't even read her book, so how objective are you really?
If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.
Mr. Ruff, first of all, I'm still betting money that Mr. Rogue was lying to us when he said he used it to line his bird cage. Keep that in mind as but one example of his character, someone willing to pass little lies as truth.
Secondly, her book is proving to be an excellent test of one's integrity and objectivity that Mr. Rogue has spectacularly failed, and you are failing as well. You are obviously afraid of the VALID evidence that will turn up.
If you don't have the smarts or courage to reach into the jaws of the disinformation source and snag the nuggets of truth, then you are no friend of truth. Nope, you become a pawn of the disinformation.
It'll never be about proving Dr. Wood's work 100% correct (or even 50%), because I don't even do that. It is about the collected evidence, which any objective review of her efforts ~has~ to readily acknowledge and address. I grab what is valid and move on.
Dr. Wood was correct that directed energy weapons were involved. Among her failings was giving short-shrift to the nuclear evidence (e.g., hot-spots, etc.) and any intelligent review of the nuclear means that could accomplish it.
A gross omission by Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones is consideration of neutron bombs and how they could be configured as tactical nuclear weapons that don't take out entire city blocks and don't pollute the detonation point for centuries to come with radiation.
Get with the program, Mr. Ruff. If you think I've been promoting Dr. Wood because you think I believe she doesn't have disinformation, you haven't been reading what I've been writing. You're just going off half-cocked and making things up, maybe because strawmen are easier to knock down than truth.
And as a final point, you better throw some grains of salt into your unwavering support of Mr. Rogue, because he doesn't merit it. The instances of him lying and cheating in this very thread are pretty obvious. The saying goes that you have to be faithful in the small things before you are worthy of being entrusted with the bigger things. Mr. Rogue fails that test, and your attitude has you about to make the same mistakes. Grow-up.
P.S. I'm so confident that Mr. Rogue was "lying about the small things" when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood's book to line his bird's cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to "get the monkey off of his back" that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective good, bad, and ugly review. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.
//
x96 Señor El Once : Most Vocal Participant
{Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
Dear Mr. Ruff,
You want to bestow the MVP title onto Mr. Rogue. That will only be true if MVP equals Most Vocal Participant. Mr. Rogue is proven to have no integrity and gets by through cheating and even lies when he has to. Just yesterday, he lied twice about what words were attributable to me versus him.
A more deserving recepient of the MVP award is Mr. OneSliceShort.
You wrote:
I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page.
I love your backhanded "declination of my bait" as the lead-in to nibbling on it.
You misjudge the assignment. You don't have to waste a single second debunking Dr. Wood page-by-page.
What is required of you is to have the cajones to acknowledge nuggets of truth, however few and far between they may be spaced, in Dr. Wood's work. Working towards this goal will get the 9/11 Truth Movement much farther along than any thrash-and-burn debunking effort.
In a moment you'll have you're first assignment, but first, here's a lovely quote from you:
I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for "nuggets of truth" in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.
I defy you to find a single high-profile PR wonk in the 9/11 Truth Movement whose "foundation ~isn't~ cracked and broken." Just because someone hasn't been exposed to you (or your satisfaction) as a "charletans" doesn't mean that they aren't. Dr. Jones is no exception.
Your brain-dead defense of Dr. Jones proves you haven't read what I wrote about him. Give it another try:
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
Tell me where I error.
Meanwhile, you write from your ignorance:
By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods "where did the towers go" meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD's have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!
Whereas controlled demolition using essentially chemical explosives could account for the dust clouds, it cannot account for:
- the damage to 1400 vehicles, some at a considerable distance.
- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/image/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg
- Multiple pieces bent
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg
- Horseshoe Beam
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg
Kindly have Dr. Jones explain the configuration of super-duper nano-thermite (e.g., where it was attached, how close was it to the depicted beams, etc.) that would result in the above images, compliments of Dr. Judy Wood's image collection. Don't get me wrong; Dr. Wood's analysis of these beams is whacked out. (I say that one of several neutron nuclear DEW devices achieved this.) The point is that the evidence is there, can't be ignored just because it sits inside of a "disinformation vehicle", and all theories-du-jour must address all pieces of evidence in order to be considered complete and valid.
Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out "nuggets of truth" from her garbage. pile.
And which garbage pile are you going to go digging in to get "nuggets of truth?" You're starting to sound "pretty ignorance and closed-minded" there, Mr. Ruff, you are.
Please enlighten me as to the perfect source or repository of 9/11 Wisdom & Understanding that, as but one example, addressed the lucky horseshoe beams linked above? [Busy work warning: that is a fool's errand, because control of the 9/11 message is so complete, there isn't a single, reliable source.] But because you believe, cough it up. Prove me wrong, hombre.
Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.
Shit, then I guess the proven instances in this very thread of cheating and lying ought to have you snatching back the MVP crown that you want to nail to Mr. Rogue's head.
It is easy for you to dismiss sources of (dis)information for x-number of instances of proven bull-shit. But that's not really how it should work (unless you want to admit to being duped and playing right into the hand of disinformation.) Nope, when the (dis)information source is proven tainted, the appropriate response is to flag the instances of such and to then have initial, healthy distrust of all further (dis)information from that source, but all the while given each nugget its due consideration and not throwing those babies out with the bathwater.
Try again.
Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue wrote:
I find it most curious, that it is suggested that I have some sort of "obligations" as per this piece of junk book by Judy Wood. No such obligation exists.
This is Mr. Rogue demonstrating what a cheat he is, not living up to his part of the bargain and deceitfully trying to change the terms of the agreement in a one-sided fashion midstream. No dice.
Pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were two options given but with the caveat that they happen after an objective "good, bad, and ugly" review.
At this point, Mr. Ruff, you lay your cards squarely down in the "ignoramous camp" that says "we don't need to read no stinkin' books and we don't need to crack no stinkin' covers in order to pass our holy judgment of the (de)merits of the entire work."
*Clap* *clap* *clap*
I didn't think it was possible for a worthy participant to expose himself as an ignorant red-neck hill-billy for your close-minded attitude, but evidently Mr. Rogue is your hero, too, and your role-model for action in this forum.
I was contemplating the option of relieving Mr. Rogue of his obligation were he to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along to you, but you out yourself as far less than open-minded or objective. Doesn't really matter; important nuggets of truth were cherry-picked from Dr. Wood's work and are a published in this very comment in the form of the links to the horseshoe images. Explain.
Oh, and take your time, Mr. Ruff. Late next week I'm leaving on vacation and may have limited access to the internet for over a week.
//
x97 Señor El Once : keep posting count to a minimum
{Also posted on 2013-04-22.}
Mr. Rogue writes the following lie:
That this anonymous troll calling itself "senor el once" calls anyone who disagrees with it "a liar".
No, I call anyone a liar who is proven to have done just that.
Don't want to be called a "cheat?" Then don't cheat in your debate techniques.
Don't want to be called a "liar?" Then don't be offering up what quickly unravels to be not true.
Now if Mr. Rogue wants to redeem himself in some way from having been exposed repeatedly telling "lies," a good place to start is his new promise:
I am trying to keep my posting count to a minimum here so as not to enrage the animal{s}.
Try harder, please.
x98 Señor El Once : several other views of the WTC-1 spire
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
We have been through the discussion of the decimating spire before, I believe. At the time, I corrected you in your belief that WTC-1 and WTC-2 both had "spires" left over in their collapses. Nope, only one did.
You write:
In this clip, Dr Wood shows us the 'spire' in more closeup, and it certainly appears to me that dustification IS taken place.
http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=143&part=1
Sure, it "appears" to be dustifying, but that doesn't mean it is. The resolution on that video is particularly poor. I'd be willing to buy that some of the "glue" elements between steel sections got zapped and turned to dust, but not the steel itself.
What you are missing are several other views of the WTC-1 spire that Dr. Wood has never included in her analysis or acknowledged their existence, despite being available between when her website went live and when her book was published or when this presentation was made.
It is well that she points to the spire, but not so well the stilted evidence that she presents to indicate the ~steel~ turning to dust. Nope, in other views (and not static images run together), I clearly saw the steel of the spire falling over, albeit when copious amounts of "glue" elements kicking up dust.
And actually, "falling over" is also incorrect. When the "glue" elements got zapped and kicked up their dust, the steel in question did more of a "telescoping" action.
The fault from Dr. Wood is not presenting the videos that show the steel of the spire ~not~ turning to dust.
//
x99 Señor El Once : Yada, yada, yada, Mr. Weasel
{Also posted on 2013-04-22.}
Yada, yada, yada.
Bottom-line, Mr. Rogue is Mr. Weasel, re-writing history to cover over his own lack of integrity. [Only banks are allowed the luxury of changing the terms of an agreement midstream, and even that always reeks of being illegal to me.] The original plain-and-simple deal agreed to by both parties said "objective good, bad, ugly review ~and~ pay-it-forward." Sending the book back was never an option, because it would add nothing valuable to the debate.
The weasel writes:
I considered giving THE BOOK to the local library here. As I consider the item a dangerous virus of disinformation, I decided not to add to the public nuisance.
By the weasel's own admission, he never finished reading the book. Ooo, weee, "a dangerous virus of disinformation"? Had the weasel backed that up with specifics, he could have avoided 9 months of having his integrity run through the mud, because that could have been the foundation of his report. If the book had only ~25 chapters (I don't have it in front of me), Mr. Weasel could have easily fulfilled his promise with a mere 25 sentences:
In Chapter 1, I consider A to be good; I consider B to be bad; I consider C to be ugly. In chapter 2, I consider D to be good; I consider E to be bad; I consider F to be ugly. ... In chapter 25, I consider DDD to be good; I consider EEE to be bad; I consider FFF to be ugly.
To the skeleton above, the weasel could have easily added to each of the 25 sentences "... and here's why." He was under no obligation to find bad or ugly, but was charged with finding good, because the fact of the matter is that without a high degree of good, the disinformation would have had no traction and would not be considered dangerous. He could easily have saved himself some effort by writing "Chapters A through D were valid essays on physics, so concentration of the bad and ugly disinformation begins with Chapter E with these specific examples."
Mr. Weasel could easily have convinced me -- a duped useful idiot -- of the validity of some of his arguments, so there would be two of us supporting each other in the assessment of what actual was good, what was bad, and what was ugly. And WTF? If I countered "J is all you found to be good in chapter N? What about L or M?" It would have led to a fine, fact-based discussion and been enlightening to the whole world.
This was the intended worthy goal of the gift and the exercise that the weasel completely welched on.
It leads me to two conclusions that might or might not be mutually-exclusive.
The weasel is a totally underhanded schmuck who couldn't rise up the simplest of book-report challenges that was put to him, thereby demonstrating he is far below the genius attributes that he ascribes to himself.
Or, dastardly and dangerous good is lurking between the covers that is so damning particularly to the PR tours of super-duper nano-thermite, it takes on a Harry Potter-style mystique: oooo, the good-that-must-not-be-named-or-acknowledged, lest it blow up the paradigms used to mislead the 9/11 TM and the world.
Mr. Weasel brings up "word voodoo" and his own excellent example of such, like "there is NOTHING in this expensive piece of wasted tree mulch that isn't already available on the web site of the lunatic that wrote it."
A lie, and the weasel knows it. Some glaring examples are the maps and tables that correlate the high quality images of destruction to physical locations. These are not on the website to the extent they are in the book. They could easily have been classified by the weasel as "good things" and been marked off his good-checklist.
Over generalizations are par for the weasel's "word voodoo", preferring to couch his opinions in the frame "~all~ is bad; ~nothing~ is good." This is how we spot him being unobjective. Turns out, he does the same thing here: ... "Video Fakery" "DEW" "Nuke" issues are in the dustbin of history. We can and should no longer trust his opinion or hynotic PR on the matter, necessitating them be re-visited for nuggets of truth that the weasel is trying to hide.
Such an unwillingness and dogged-determination ~not~ to acknowledge even the slightest anomaly in the above genres as something not understood, something not fitting the 9/11 TM paradigm, and therefore worthy of further study. Nope, using his PR hypnotic speak, he claims "Nothing to see here, folk! Move along now!"
And for the overly abundant flooding of the T&S forum with his hypnotic assertions, Mr. Weasel deserves every ounce of being called out on his cheats and lies. Easy to fix; easy to apologize for; easy to get assessed differently: unless a paid agenda is behind his ways and means, which is what it stinkin' looks like to me.
//
x100 Señor El Once : shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot
Bravo, Mr. RuffAdam! Bravo!
Way to go and shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot with that excellent exposition of Amerikana Ignorance and burying your head in the sand!
I don't blame Mr. Ruff for not doing any legwork to substantiate or debunk the hypothesis that I champion, which involve Dr. Wood and nukes, because that can be a time suck.
But to admit skipping right passed my postings, not reading them, and with a promise never to read them, why that takes the cake in setting new standards about what constitutes intelligent & rational debate. A "belief" in what caused the WTC destruction that is so iron-clad and foolproof, it can't stand having inconvenient evidence and analysis presented that would ruffle feathers.
"Ignorance is Strength."
If Mr. Ruff is inclined to give his MVP a hand or even a vote of moral support, he does him (or this forum) no favors.
//
x101 Señor El Once : the cheating weasel who likes to lie isn't an honest truth seeker
{Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
Mr. Rogue-Weasel, who was caught cheating with his debate techniques several times as well as outright lying [within this very thread], calls me "a vicious character assassin." Not really. The truth just hurts, Rogue-Weasel. Whereas I will never know whether the Rogue-Weasel is an Agent, he for sure is a weasel, a valid character assessment that is on display thread-to-thread wherever he tries to engage me.
The Rogue-Weasel writes:
It is preposterous for this anonymous entity to pretend to speak to; "what constitutes intelligent & rational debate". It is equally absurd to assert that Mr Ruff would be missing anything of substance by ignoring the blathering of "Señor" and this TM character.
In the immortal words of SNL's John Belushi, "Well, EXCU-UUUUUSE ME!!!"
How was I to know the new standard in objective and fair debate in today's 9/11 discussions requires brushing off (dis)information sources without reading, without due consideration, and without due-diligence is determining validity of the work down to the chapter, page, image, point levels. How "preposterous" for me to think that "intelligent & rational debate" could involve thinking for oneself in evaluating material.
Here's the funny part. It isn't as if Dr. Wood's work is being held up in its entirety as the gospel. Most of the participants here agree that it is a disinformation vehicle. The sticky problem is that my "ranting lunatic ravings" won't let go is that her wonderful disinformation vehicle has nuggets of truth -- like the horseshoe beams -- that are not addressed by other theories.
I have no desire to make the discussion about Dr. Wood's work but about the nuggets of truth that are obvious and can be wrapped into neutron nuclear DEW very neatly, and not so much super-duper nano-thermite. Still, I find it amazing how the Rogue-Weasel and now Mr. Ruff firmly figuratively repeatedly smash their noses with Dr. Wood's textbook, and in the Rogue-Weasel's case, now gets bird shit on his face.
Here's another example of the Rogue-Weasel living up to his new name-sake and the cheating, lying labels that get affixed to his forehead like Dole-Banana stickers:
It speaks as if all of the evidence Wood presents is her exclusive discovery. All of the data and information is in the 9/11 record itself. It is the spin of her presentation of such evidence that is her own production. There is nothing original there but her wanked out slant.
The images of the horseshoe and arched beams were linked in my earlier posts, and they are displayed in my neu nookiedoo articles (that the Rogue-Weasel avoids discussing in detail like the plague, preferring instead to just call it belittling names.)
If the Rogue-Weasel is speaking the truth about "~all~ of the data and information being in the 9/11 record itself, then it should be no problem for him to cough up the URLs where these images are housed as well as the discussion from leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement -- Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jon Cole, Richard Gage, (anyone?) -- who logically, intelligently, and rationally explains how they came about from super-duper nano-thermite. What does it take to produce such wonders of steel pretzels?
Talk about a litmus test of a person's integrity, and one of the best (gift) investments from my 9/11 endeavors! We learn quickly who is an honest seeker of truth, because they aren't swayed by the PR hypnotic suggestions that labels something "looney" yet is too feeble to provide specifics, let alone acknowledge what might remain that is valid and needing explanations.
Obviously, the cheating weasel who likes to lie isn't an honest truth seeker, and never has been despite the opportunity having been sat in his lap at no cost to his wallet (but at high cost to his reputation.)
The difference between the descriptive names that I now openly call the cheating Rogue-Weasel and the various crafty insults that he his "pressure sales-pitch" has served up against me this past year (in lieu of objectively rescuing nuggets of truth) is that I substantiate my assessment with the Rogue-Weasel's own exhibit.
The Rogue-Weasel is welcome to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Ruff in ignoring and (hopefully) not responding to my postings. I think we would all be happy with that outcome. But such has never been within the Rogue-Weasel's capabilities.
P.S. Here's another cheat from the Rogue-Weasel, who tries to make hay with his "anonymous entity" comments. I'm known on the Internet by those who need to know me. [Had the Rogue-Weasel been paying attention when he got his nose-bloodying copy of Dr. Wood's book last June, he'd know, too.] And for someone who repeating stated that he doesn't care who I am, the Rogue-Weasel does an awful lot of cheating by constantly tossing out his PR hypnotism about my anonymity. [From the minimal efforts I put into cyber-stalking the Rogue-Weasel to locate his body of words, I can't with confidence say that his other names aren't a legend-establishing, back-stopping ruse to his own "anonymity".]
// a bullshit artist with a pressure sales-pitch and ranting lunatic ravings.
No comments:
Post a Comment