Hide All / Expand All
x168
Señor El Once : Do I ever feel special!
2013-09-01
2013-09-01
2013-09-01 { expect it to not be published.}
2013-08-30 {This sat in the moderation queue. I asked Mr. McKee either (a) to publish my response or (b) to delete my Rogue's comment (2013-08-29) and my response. I prefer (b), because it is a distraction from Mr. McKee's article and Mr. Rogue has other places where he's re-posted the same.}
Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn't just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.
[1] 2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm
[2] 2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm
[3] 2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm
To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) dedicated to me, when I thought PROLOGUE was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an "Autodidact Polymath" who "worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention" (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm); who has ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology" (2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM); and who has been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years and 9-11 Psyop... is an issue that [he understands] quite well (2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM). One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: reference links.
I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:
Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation... When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.
Regarding his [third] retread posting (2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm and here) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I've used to describe Mr. Rogue -- cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent --, the cherry-picked quotations from me lack substantiating links.
Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his "doctorates equivalent studies in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation". Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those terrible things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the "or not."
The strawman premise and distraction that Mr. Rogue builds:
So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this: ...
The reason that I call it a "strawman premise and distraction" is that context proves that it is not me "dropping [a] phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar'". No, it is me "dropping down to Mr. Rogue's level" using language and words that he understands better and doing an excellent job of mocking him. What is worse for Mr. Rogue is that context also proves that I substantiate with Mr. Rogue's own exhibit how I come to such dastardly opinions: "cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent."
I don't know why Mr. Rogue keeps kicking that sleeping "agent" dog. Lacking proof other than my suspicions from his stubborn debates with me, it is not something that I've been holding to since even last November. "Cheat, liar, weasel" is another issue, and maybe him kicking the sleeping agent dog is just another example of that.
Meanwhile, Mr. OSS wrote:
Either have a mature, sourced, responsive conversation with people here or piss off.
Mr. Adam Ruff dropped "mature" and "responsive" from his paraphrasing (coincidence?):
So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
SEO wrote:
Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow.
Mr. Rogue comes unhinged with:
YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gotta walk the talk. So, yeah, "I EXPECT" and so do many others (including Mr. McKee.)
Seeing how Mr. Rogue brings it up, what does he expect? Rhetorical question, because Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) and PROLOGUE already demonstrate the standards of "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments" that Mr. Rogue -- "an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years" with a "doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation" -- EXPECTS from himself and others.
Mr. Rogue slams some hypnotic suggestion down (2013-08-29):
All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.
Ho-hum. I made 12 points. He claims that his Carnival d'Maxifuckanus has the counter-arguments to the twelve. In actuality, cheating Mr. Rogue won't let me post "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational counter-counter-arguments" to that blog or PROLOGUE; I know because I tried on 2013-03-19, but it was deleted. That's why you'll have to go "The Judy Wood Enigma" (2013-04-15) to see his counter-arguments get destroyed, point-by-point and ample examples highlighted of him cheating, lying, and being a weasel in his effort.
Yep, it demonstrates a lot about the character of Mr. Rogue that he would link to his one-sided Carnival d'Maxifuckanus instead of a two-sided "The Judy Wood Enigma".
With 243 comments to this thread at the time of writing, Mr. Rogue has 77 (31.7%) while I have only seven times less at 11 (4.5%). I am such a loser against Mr. Rogue.
Mr. Rogue, thank you for your participation. You are so cute when you come unhinged.
//
x169
Señor El Once : faulty assumptions
2013-09-01
2013-09-01
2013-09-01 { expect it to not be published.}
2013-09-01 { expect it to not be published.}
To correct Mr. Rogue's faulty assumptions (2013-08-39 10:35pm), "This is what it is all about, all of this ranting is still about THE BOOK." No, it was about "intellect, fortitude, or integrity." THE BOOK (from Dr. Judy Wood) merely served as a test thereof that Mr. Rogue gloriously failed. Returning the book to me was never an option, because I already have a copy, because such actions don't benefit the 9/11 discussions, and because pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were the requirements after the "the good, the bad, and the ugly" book review, so the discussions could be furthered.
Assuming the "good" was given its fair acknowledgement, I would have been satisfied with so little in the grand scheme of debunking things, and would have been beating in tandem on each individual drum of found disinformation. THE BOOK needed to be taken down legitimately, while preserving that which merited such.
THE BOOK only comes up in discussions now, because Mr. Rogue performs the same dismissals-without-review games in other areas, like Kevin Ryan.
Mr. Rogue (August 31, 2013 at 12:27 am) mentions:
To continue the discussion above. For it is not just this one point about the flash of a nuclear device.
Mr. Rogue makes assumptions about the extent of a nuclear flash for neutron nuclear DEW devices, where several design and shielding factors were at play. Shield 1 is that the devices were installed in the inner core and aimed upwards. Shield 2 would be anything they constructed around the devices; construction evidence was discussed by surviving tenants. Shield 3 are the outer column structure and floors, which would limit the amount and direction from a light in the core. Shield 4 was building and debris raining down.
Mr. Rogue continues:
It also takes into account that one of the telltale signs of explosive demolition is the rows of explosions around the perimeter of a building. And the evidence for just such events is overwhelming; video, audio, and scores of witness testimonies. Unmistakable evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Explosive demolition is not disputed as being involved, but is disputed for being attributed as both the primary and only source of destruction energy. The neutron nuclear hypothesis was that cutter chargers (chemical based) were at the connections between the outer steel wall assemblies, but were timed milliseconds after any (aimed upward) neutron nuclear DEW devices at that level, so that these outer wall assemblies would help contain flashes and EMP.
It should be noted that if chemical explosives were the primary and only source of destructive energy, they would need to be installed at [every, every other, every third, or so] level in order to account for the actual pulverization of content and concrete. However, the audio evidence does not substantiate this with the actual frequency of detonations, and neither does the visual evidence. The main destructive devices were at every 20 (or more) levels, as would be expected with devices of more energy that could be targeted.
Mr. Rogue continues:
And yes there will be testimony as to the furnace-like conditions with molten metal described. But this must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof.
No, that is a failed rhethorical ploy to say that "furnace-like conditions... must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof." They do not, particularly when redundant and varied techniques were involved.
Molten conditions require a heat source. Chemical explosives have three problems in accounting for this.
(1) A chemical reaction is dependent upon the initial quantities involved. Once a limiting-factor reactant in the reaction is consumed -- which should have been to a great extent in the demolition --, the reaction stops, heat source stops. Heat from the initial reactions can ignite other things, but oxygen (from air) is typically the limiting-factor reactant in those fires. Being under the rubble combined with fire fighting techniques would have suppressed normal air fueled fires.
(2) Chemical reactions have the reactants and then the results. In the case of thermite with steel, the results are heat and iron. Other than the one they call a meteorite, where were the excavated blobs of iron in sufficient quantities to indicate proof of such a chemical reaction and its by-product?
(3) How much unspent-from-demolition chemical-based explosives would be required to achieve and maintain such under-rubble furnace-like conditions? The amounts are massive. And the amounts are explosive.
It is unreasonable to believe that such massive quantities would be unspent and left-over from their original demolition purposes. The amounts are so massive, we wouldn't be talking about hot-spots but either (a) hot-trails thousands of miles long; (b) hot-conveyors in feeding a hot-spot and hoping enough steel; or (c)_ moving hot explosions.
Nuclear devices easily explains the furnace-like conditions. 9/11 was a redundant affair, because nukes in tandem are known to cause fracticide, which could cause them to fizzle and otherwise not meet their expected potential. Fukushima and other historical nuclear mishaps demonstrate quite handily how long a nuclear hot-spot can remain hot.
Mr. Rogue continues with his rhetorical games:
The first assumption that then follows is: Isn't it most reasonable to consider such explosive products as the most likely culprits in keeping the rubble burn going?
It is an assumption but it doesn't have to follow. Explosive products -- to achieve the thoroughness of pulverization -- would require a different placement than the audio evidence indicates, and would be deafening (and wasn't). Once the demolition task is achieved, it is most unreasonable to believe that the quantities of unspent explosive products would be present (and not exploding) in sufficiently massive amounts to keep the rubble burn going.
Mr. Rogue utters a hypnotic suggestion:
To reject this as the most likely prospect is a nonsequitur as far as reason in forensics.
Nonsense.
Mr. Rogue continues:
The reasons to reject it would need be compelling. I have made a long case as to why I do not find the nuclear, the DEW, nor the blend of the two as a compelling argument.
Agreed that Mr. Rogue has made a long case, but not a compelling one for explosive products versus against neutron nuclear DEW.
Mr. Rogue continues on August 31, 2013 at 1:13 am
The seismic evidence points to explosions in the basements. We have gone over this previously. There were explosions in the basements. There is nothing else that explains the seismic evidence.
Agreed, there were explosions in the basement. Seismic evidence does not distinguish between chemical explosions versus neutron nuclear DEW detonation. The actual testimony (and not the coaching that inserted words like "fire", "fire ball", etc.) of those involved could go either way.
In fact, when you consider the burn victims in the lobby of the WTC-1, I believe that directed neutrons could have accomplished it (and the shattered lobby) easier than a fire-ball going down or up the elevator shaft.
Let's us not forget that 9/11 was also a gold heist from the vaults under WTC-4. Don't think they would have used nukes on that one.
Mr. Rogue goes on:
So if a bomb went off, can the nuclear dew advocate claim it was a nuclear device? ... [continued below]
Mr. Rogue easily falls into the disinfo trap of arguing for a single mechanism to explain everything. However, even limiting one's thinking to a single source -- be it chemical explosives or nuclear methods -- still suggests very deep and influential pockets of the perpetrators. So deep, in fact, that they can account for massive, redundant, overkill amounts of that single mechanism. The pockets of the perpetrators were so deep and influential, why would they have limited themselves to a single mechanism to accomplish everything?
[Continued from above] ... Not after all of the complex arguments describing the weapon as energizing a beam in a contained process.
Mr. Rogue purposely misframes the concepts at play in the neutron nuclear DEW.
In the instances of neutron devices high in towers, the purpose of the generated beam of neutrons was not for its life-damaging abilities nor for its damaging-inflicting power, because that is limited to embrittlement after-effects. Its purpose was to get the neutrons out of the way. The neutrons were not needed to create massive chain-reactions and a larger explosion; the neutrons were not needed to inflict collateral injuries to life forms outside the towers.
However, by expelling the neutrons upwards in a beam, many goals could be achieved. (1) The blast and heat waves would be reduced to tactical sizes. (2) The blast and heat waves could be directed somewhat. (3) The amount of created radiation of all forms would be limited, localized, and short-lived.
(Edited for clarity):
The proponent cannot have it both ways. Either they were [nuclear] bombs or they were [nuclear] beam weapons. If they were [nuclear] bombs, all of the attendant arguments for the lack of substantive radiation fall flat.
Wrong, the proponents of neutron nuclear DEW can have it both ways.
As already explained, the beam portion of the weapon was largely thrown away, leaving from the same weapon tactical blast and heat waves without substantiative lingering radiation. (Where are the government reports on actual radiation levels? Suppressed. Ought to have been a red flag to all.)
Because the various output yields and configuration of the neutron nuclear DEW devices have been explained many times, I will attribute this deliberate malframing -- not to his misunderstanding -- but to his character traits that tend towards cheating and lack of integrity. This charge is augented by the following lie and cheat.
And this point is augmented by all the other arguments made showing how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation are:
Why ineffective leach fields are the most likely source of most of these substances in metropolitan industrial centers. Which the city of New York most certainly is.
First of all, five types of radiation are to be considered: alpha, beta, gamma, neutron, and tritium. Official reports proving the first four to be "at or below trace background levels" are missing. Much easier to suppress an entire report than it is to tweak all measured values within the report to be within such a range.
As for "how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation" [tritium], Mr. Rogue plays the games of (a) ignoring that minuscule is not the same as nothing, (b) ignoring that the minuscule was used with regards to amounts that would have negative health impacts, (c) ignoring that the minuscule amount was not measured in a timely fashion everywhere, and (d) ignoring that the minuscule was still 55 times greater than expected and necessitated re-defining what "trace and background levels" of tritium was.
Mr. Rogue tried to use argument of toxic elements [in particular tritium] leaching back to NYC from leach fields before, and was pushed back. He brings nothing new to the table to merit the re-hash. If this were valid, the tritium report would have used it to explain the tritium measured at the WTC. The tritium reports referenced the amounts draining off of the WTC at certain locations. No where in that tritium report is there this unfounded speculation of "leach fields" with tritium flowing back to the WTC in New York and attributing the anomalous nature of the 9/11 evidence, tritium in particular.
//
x170
Señor El Once : Drop it [SEO]. Leave it be.
2013-09-03
Dear Mr. Dsn6,
Thank you for your sentiments (2013-09-13).
I will not dwell long on Mr. Rogue, because he expressed (August 31, 2013 at 9:40 pm):
I want this thing between us to end. ... Drop it [SEO]. Leave it be.
Sounds like good advice.
So that you get a bigger picture before butting heads with him, Mr. Dsn6, I paraphrase what Mr. Rogue has mentioned about himself over time.
Starting from his youth, he was allegedly an "autodidact polymath" (paraphrased by me as, "self-taught cuz ain't nobody that can done teach 'im nuthin'") and a genius in art. Art became his focus early in life, and his talents & paid opportunities to express those talents made post-high school formal education a waste of time. Being an "autodidact polymath" and artistic genius, though, I'm sure he was very intellectually curious and a voracious reader, which explains all of his "doctorates equivalent studies" and why he has such a good vocabulary and writing skills.
Mr. Dsn6 asks:
Next, was the amazing amount of gratuitous posts he wrote. I wondered, is the man bored or obsessed or both?
The benefits of retirement. The points you bring out in cue two are valid, though, that Mr. Rogue should take to heart. His frequency in posting was always something that I flagged: in general on all articles and to me specifically. I mean, when a single posting from me generates three or (in cases) TEN postings in response -- and only few of them have cherry-picked sentences worthy of response --, then maybe at the very least this displays a
haste that needs to be tempered down into one posting, full of thought, delayed for completion of thought and cooling of emotions, and that addresses item-by-item what piques his interest (or ire).
I think technology isn't his friend in this regard: mobile technology. Small screens; no keyboards; no mouse or trackball; limited authoring software; limited patience with off-list authoring; and cost-limited data downloads. Makes writing off-line more challenging, and inspires tweeterish length postings.
I only called Mr. Rogue
an agent when I wanted to push his buttons.
It is not a position that I hold to. I can't prove it. But I can prove the other things I've called him: (L-word, C-word, and W-word). Outside of my hobby-horse area, I disagree with less than 5% of what he writes. Retirement, stubbornness,
"autodidact polymath", and large artistic ego (short for,
"can't admit when he's wrong") more easily explains his nature.
Now ask yourself this important question: Would a bonafide 9/11 Truther obstruct, filibuster and engage in all-out snark like he has?
Oh, I've asked the question to myself several times in the past, all right, and it inspired me to push his buttons. A parallel and more trouble-some question is why he plays word-smithing games to cover over issues with whom & what he champions? A great example is side-stepping valid criticism of an individual's work and spinning it into being defamation of the individual's character and a personal attack on the individual.
Even before I completed this, Mr. Rogue thinks of us as a tag-team. Not that it "was so" or "planned", but if it "becomes so" organicly, consider this me tagging you, Mr. Dsn6. And now this September 3, 2013 - 12:34 pm posting as well.
I'm not familiar with the "Frank Luntz" references (but just now googled it to an American political consultant, pollster, and Republican Party strategist with a specialty of "testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate": not sure it is applicable.)
//
x171
Señor El Once : delight with the same gift
2013-09-03
Mr. Rogue wrote:
So let me delight Dsn6 with the same gift. This ends our conversation as well. I have no more time for these childish games.
I, for one, hope that Mr. Rogue can keep with this promise, because he has failed in so many other instances of similar promises.
And if Mr. Rogue is sincere, his gift should apply to what he writes on Prologue and his blog, even given that they are barely read. Regardless of the limited number of human eyes that see it, Google will, and Mr. Rogue shouldn't be tempted into laying down immoral and unethical smear today to be vacuumed up for delayed-damage later.
//
x172
Señor El Once : disagree with your real-name argument
2013-08-03
Dear Dr. Zarembka,
I disagree with your real-name argument for Mr. OSS (and for myself). In today's world, it is only applicable (a) if you're tenured or retired, and/or (b) if you want to establish or maintain a name-brand under your real name.
Certainly, we are not anomymous to those with a badge and a warrant or to those with overwhelming cyber-dominance. But for most of us working stiffs, the real danger comes from unethical opponents who, for short-term glory (and maybe under orders), exploit a real name in a dubious smear that has long-lasting effects in terms of what Google-style background checks reveal. [I've had the immoral and unethical card played against me -- by an IT professional who in real-life is practically just about sworn to the security and secrecy of real names of users.]
The next jobs we don't get (but need) might not be for reasons of talent or fit, but for the after-taste of Googling upon such a smear or smearish confrontation. [Family names run through the mud can also impact immediate and extended family members.]
Mr. OSS has stated a desire for others to re-distribute his work and run with it. I'm sure he'd agree to take only that which they know to be nuggets of truth -- he's got no problems with others vetting his work --, so it isn't as if Mr. OSS has to be accountable for everything he posted forever.
Furthermore, Mr. OSS's handle is consistently used, for quite some time at that, and in consistent places where his role is more than that of participant [i.e., admin, owner]. Thus, he does stand accountable for his postings. (He isn't alias-hopping.) He can make special requests for his obituary to alias-associate all of the "Batman" handles that he deployed in his cyberlife-time.
With regards to posting limits per day, maybe the limit should be: "One response per day per discussion partner plus one." In this manner, an individual could start a conversation topic (e.g., "plus one") on a given day and then maintain separate subconversations to those responding at the clip of "one response per day per discussion partner."
//
No comments:
Post a Comment