As part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I've been libeled and slandered as "an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist." In reality, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
x180 Señor El Once: Intro: Participant Overreaction to Outlawed Topics
2015-01-14
Most of what follows is one-side of the discussion: my side. However, I have endeavored to provide adequate quotations from my discussion partners so that some understanding of context is achieved.
The topics related to 9/11 advanced technologies. And by golly, the eifer with which people and participants do ~not~ give this reasoned or lengthy consideration is astounding.
{mcb: Not all of the reference links back to Truth & Shadows will work, due to moderation efforts by Mr. Craig McKee, to whom no ill will is thought for his justified and rightful actions.}
No claims are being made as to the completeness of what this content captures from other venues to provide some context. Moreover, the true value in this collection for my die-hard fans are the comments of mine that are no longer published on Truth & Shadows (for valid and not-disputed reasons). Unfortunately, the links on those comments back to Truth & Shadows won't work as expected.
Truth & Shadows has closed forums that dealt with the themes of Dr. Wood and/or 9/11 nuclear DEW. Most of them had more than run their course with hundreds of comments and been run through the weeds, which other areas of this blog documents. However, due to the bad behavior of the discussion participants, Craig McKee has been hesitant in allowing such discussions in unrelated forums, and has other priorities than creating a forum home for this theme.
But it does come up.
This posting tries an experiment to create an off-list (off Truth & Shadows) place for such a discussion to potentially bloom.
{mcb: This was updated 2015-01-30 to also serve as a venue from Mr. Adam Ruff to go to town with either his original challenge [2015-01-27] or my suggestions for modification.}
2014-07-15
Religiously fanatic to Truth that I am, inspiration comes from a partial verse to a hymn:
... How to gather, how to sow, how to feed Thy sheep...
I am so honored to have Mr. Rogue devote two threads to me: Carnival d'Maxifuckanus [started 2013-03-06] and MAXWELL BRIDGES: AGITPROP DISINFORMANT [started 2014-07-08].
Alas, "the gathering and sowing" efforts could use much refinement.
Mr. McKee wrote July 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm:
I’m (not) necessarily hostile to the (nuclear) topic. I’m hostile to how this topic ruins threads on this blog.
The deceitful Mr. Rogue writes July 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
As a participant that had a great number of comments deleted, ... my point always being that the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned. It has been a disruptive matter for quite awhile.
Mr. Rogue did have "a great number of comments deleted." Rough estimate: More than FIFTY (50) between June 26 and July 8.
Me? I had all of FIVE (5) postings deleted, not counting the accidental posting (through email) and not counting a 2014-07-08 comment that did not make it out of the moderation queue.
2014-06-26 couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel
2014-06-26 unable to satisfy the least and slightest request
2014-06-27 Why does Agent A.Wright ignore me so?!!!
2014-07-06 the Kevin Ryan paradox redux
2014-07-07 Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi
2014-07-08 quality of the fine comment [never published]
2014-07-08 email into an accidental comment [shouldn't have been published]
The ratio TEN-to-ONE (or SEVEN-to-ONE) ought to be indication enough about who was purposely trying to ruin threads on T&S. And Mr. Rogue's hostile activities will assure that "the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned".
We can expect Mr. Rogue to try the old mustelid manuever: "It's not about the posting count, but the word count!" One comment, however long, can be easily skipped. But when a participant launches a hostile attack with ten responses to each comment from another, spanning a whole range of sociopathic attacks; when that participant commands 52.9% of the 523 published comments: some other defarious agenda is afoot.
And talk about crank, crank, crank! On top of all of this, as near as I can tell, Mr. Rogue made ~84 comments to his Carnival posting (6/26-7/9), ~50 comments to his Disinformant posting (7/9-7/13), and ~7 postings to his "Controlled Demolition" posting (6/29-7/13)... mostly in dubious preparation for later.
Mr. Rogue writes 2014-07-12:
Justified Ad Hominem: A person’s arguments define that person. When a person’s arguments are found to be constantly disingenuous, it is justified to point such out, to describe such an MO. It becomes a new level in argumentation when this happens. It is not that the issues and points are ignored, it is that they are combined with the history of spurious game playing with such points and illustrating this.
Exactly.
//
x89 Señor El Once : The "challenged" aren't going to come.
{mcb: This is in reference to the x88 comments.}
Meaningful comments on the Pentagon topic have petered out. The "challenged" aren't going to come.
*Sigh.* With Mr. OSS's stellar work off-list and targeted URL bullets, the Pentagon debate was wrapped up four or more times over in as many or more other T&S threads. Somewhat *yawn* to see the two or three A.Wright carousel spins in this very thread necessitating a dizzying dive into "SOC/NOC" witness nuances, before GOTO links are applied to handle the heavy-lifting. *Snore.* But now a new crank to the merry-go-round with a "challenge to cowards." *Snooze.*
Mr. Adam Ruff brags about skipping my comments unread. More power to him! He and a few others should not read any further. Get a head start on ignoring me right now! Certainly don't bother writing a jejune response, because it'll only engage me and allow me to make more nookiedoo-ish comments!
Simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!
x43 Señor El Once : Damn if this doesn't look like a familiar argument
Mr. Rogue wrote:
If you can't "recall correctly" because you have never actually read {--redacted--}, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here... Until you are prepared to make an argument here of more substance than the hot gas passing through the seat of your trousers Mr. {--redacted--}, you are going to find it hard going here.
El-oh-el! Damn if this doesn't look like a familiar argument and something that I might have written myself about a different {--redacted--} theme, minus the "trouser gas" of course.
I am most curious as to what Mr. Rogue's response will be if his debate opponent impulsively and violently rips up a printed version of {--redacted--} and uses it for bird cage liner, as opposed to rationally and objectively considering them one-by-one and as a whole. Even if deemed disinformation, nuggets of truth persist.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
"The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world."~Willy Whitten aka HybridRogue1 aka Mr. Rogue (February 2012)
Over-acting tag-teaming on Truth & Shadows. Here are special messages for Mr. Rogue, "compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments", and Mr. Huff, "sick of SEO claiming we have not done so." They both fancy debate tricks to bolster impressions in their favor.
Forewarned is forearmed. Nookiedoo, my hobby-horse, is ready to take them for a ride, even though the gate to T&S pastures is closed for the Spring grass to grow.
Your WWF highlights: Mr. A.Wright was mentioned by Mr. Ruff, appears, and is taken on by Mr. Rogue who's mighty enough to handle Mr. Owen Meister at the same time.
x165 Maxwell C. Bridges : won't be buried so easily
2014-03-11
The nuclear theory won't be buried so easily, because so much of the evidence -- even that collected by Dr. Wood -- points in that direction.
What will be buried are preconceived notions and deliberate mal-framing (e.g., Dimitri K.) of nuclear devices.
Part 1: 9/11 Debates
The following comments were made under:
9/11 Truth Movement: All Theories Welcome
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
9/11 Truth Movement: Neutron Nuclear DEW
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1415066332071680/
Part 2: Neutron Nuclear DEW at Facebook 9/11 Debates
The following comments were made under:
DEBATE ISSUES
https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-debates/debate-issues/621888681188274
9/11 Debates: Neutron Nuclear DEW
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/662698580440617/
x40 Maxwell C. Bridges : premise: 9/11 was a nuclear event
2014-01-26
{This is a condensed re-posting on Facebook of another article. Fodder for skipping. It gets a total of three postings. This one, a re-start of this one, and then in another forum.}
Part 1: 9/11 Debates
The following comments were made under:
DEBATE ISSUES
https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-debates/debate-issues/621888681188274
9/11 Debates: Neutron Nuclear DEW
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/662698580440617/
x4 Maxwell C. Bridges : it was a controlled demolition. However...
2014-01-10
Agreed: 9/11 was an inside job. It was a controlled demolition. However...
Nuclear weapons were used on 9/11. The principle documents used to support the erroneous belief about 9/11/2001 ~not~ being nuclear are:
- "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
- "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" by Dr. Steven Jones.
- The Paul Lioy et al Report on the characterization of the Dust/Smoke seems to deliver the no radiation premise.
- Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
- Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction by Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.
- "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
- "Where Did The Towers Go?" and website by Dr. Judy Wood.
Executive Summary: a re-configuration of the neutron bomb (or ERW: enhanced radiation weapon) was deployed on September 11, 2001. Such neutron devices (a) are a variant of fusion, (b) expel the lion's share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, (c) can direct those neutrons and subsequently some of the blast and heat wave, and (d) may ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly (<72 hours), such radiation from the neutron devices dissipates quickly. The phrase is coined "neutron nuclear DEW" (directed energy weapon) to describe it. More than several were deployed per WTC tower.
This article will prove the nuclear 9/11 premise by reaching into the maw of disinformation sources and preserving the nuggets of truth that made convincing the disinfo case. That such nugget-mining efforts haven't already been exerted is testament to the infiltration depths of disinformation efforts. The nuclear argument is cummulative and not completely destroyed should individual nuggets be proven inapplicable or wrong. More importantly, when not proven otherwise, nuggets of truth remain and must be addressed in any theory-du-jour in order to be complete.