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.
P.S. Mr. Rogue is encourage to write what he will on his lame, disorganizaed, incoherent blog. I subscribe to nothing there anymore, not even out of morbid curiousity. I care not a wit about his trouser-less gas passing there. Mr. Rogue needs to refrain from letting his poor gas-passing habits seep into the discussion here on Truth & Shadows. [And gee, Truth & Shadows shouldn't be the dumping ground for every marginally interesting yet irrelevant quotation that Mr. Rogue runs across in his "learned reading," deployed as a cheap-trick for readers to falsely associate such wise words with Mr. Rogue's own thoughts. Retirement has been bad for Mr. Rogue; too much time on his idle hands.]
//
x42 hybridrogue1 : aliens in that Kilgore Trout story communicate by farting and tap-dancing
2014-04-28
{mcb: These x42 comments came before the x43 comment.}
2014-04-28
hybridrogue1
April 28, 2014 at 5:32 pm
"Your beliefs do not match the known facts.."~Nick Dean
My "beliefs" do not match the facts as YOU know them Mr Dean.
Don't give me this tepid "if" the Protocols are genuine pap. Do the Protocols mention Zionism? WTF? The title of the document is THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION. If that doesn't lend a clue that they have to do with Zionism for you, then perhaps you need a refresher course in 'See Spot Run'.
If you can't "recall correctly" because you have never actually read the Protocols, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here.
You call it a "vague laundry-list", although it is in fact a detailed and specific guide book on the means and methods for achieving global political power. It is an agenda that has clearly come to pass in every detail put forth in that work.
Until you are prepared to make an argument here of more substance than the hot gas passing through the seat of your trousers Mr Dean, you are going to find it hard going here.
"A supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries"
~David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden Germany in June 1991
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 28, 2014 at 7:01 pm
As usual Mr Once's irrelevance to the discussion at hand is duly noted.
As usual Señor has nothing at all pertinent to this conversation, just another limp attempt at slander and defamation.
And if as usual the anonymous entity decides to write a book length tome of flatulent bullshit here, let it be. The forum is open to twitchy web-bots such as he/she as well as lucid thinkers.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 29, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Señor reminds me of those aliens in that Kilgore Trout story, who communicate by farting and tap-dancing.
The allegory fits him like Spandex tights.
\\][//
x44 Señor El Once : holding to the same standards that demanded of others
If Mr. Rogue is going to be calling others out for "arguments from ignorance" from not having read the material in question, it is not "slander or defamation" to hold Mr. Rogue to the same standards that he demands of others. That Mr. Rogue conflates this as such, is a sign.
Mr. Rogue wants to play the victim by implying that "slander or defamation" were now instigated against him... because he previously spectacularly trapped himself by his own hypocritical actions of the same nature: "arguments from ignorance" from not having read the material in question [on a {--redacted--} theme.]
How seriously does a sincere seeker of Truth have to take discussion participants with such character assessments?
Mr. Rogue is under no obligation to be a Pavlov's dog in responding to everything from all who post here. This includes his circus-act little buddy with the B.O. of a tube-sock, Mr. A.Wright, [who ought to be making an appearance any minute, now that his name has been invoked.]
//
x45 hybridrogue1 : defend the racist
2014-04-30
April 30, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Step right up and defend the racist on this page Mr Once, be my guest.
\\][//
x46 Señor El Once : anything Mr. Rogue writes needs to be vetted
April 30, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Because Mr. Rogue's character allows him the ability to lie, cheat, and weasel [long history on this blog] without a moment's hesitation [proven again and again by his posting frequency; his inability to "think twice before posting once"], anything Mr. Rogue writes needs to be vetted, particularly his insults that are the mainstay of his argumentation techniques.
//
x47 hybridrogue1 : the creature's defamation of my character
April 30, 2014 at 6:27 pm
The readers of this blog will surely note that the entity calling itself Señor El Once, makes only rare appearances here anymore, and that those are primarily to continue the creatures defamation of my character with what are proven lies and exaggerations.
He will make association with any sort of scoundrel or nutcase to take such opportunity to fart and tap dance.
\\][//
x48 Señor El Once : Mr. Rogue projects well his weaknesses onto others
What Mr. Rogue calls "proven lies and exaggerations" have ~not~ been proven as such. Just Mr. Rogue saying it is, doesn't make it so. Where's the substantiation?
Thus it falls into the category of "cheating" -- if not worse -- which actually has been a re-occurring theme with Mr. Rogue in debate.
Also, "defamation ... is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual..." Regardless of the harm to Mr. Rogue's character, if a statement about him is true and is substantiated as such [as I have repeatedly done], then it is not defamation. It becomes a valid character assessment.
"Tap dancing and farting in spandex tights? Defending the racist on this page? Defaming the character of others?"
Mr. Rogue projects well his weaknesses onto others. But it is still cheating and lying.
If Mr. Rogue wants to peg an agenda to my efforts, it would be these (and only these) definitions of "discredit:"
- to cause to be disbelieved or distrusted
- to reject as untrue or of questionable accuracy
- to destroy confidence in the reliability of
When my {-redacted-} hobby-horse finally gets a chance to romp, I want the words of sociopath Mr. Rogue already discredited in the eyes of the readers by his own historical, hypocritical, defamatory actions.
If Mr. Rogue doesn't want this to happen, then he is encouraged to modify his negative behavior such that he doesn't leave fresh trails of ammunition that can and will be picked up, loaded, and shot back at him. Ignoring me would go a long way towards that end, too. Autodidactic sociopaths, though, don't follow the advice of others unless cornered.
Here's something for Throw-Back Thursday (February 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm).
//
x49 hybridrogue1 & James Hufferd : Once upon a lonesome weary
Once upon a lonesome weary I met a maid all daft and bleary
Lingum whipt and left roadside she made a dreadful mocking bride
She told wild tales I took as true ones that turn the bright sides blue
But through the cranking dank ringed cleft I found the lies that there were left
So now the bell of mordus rings and plates of merde the servants brings
Mystical tidings mysterious things that hush the songs that the harpy sings
Twelve knights of grace spoke not in haste but counsel to a finer taste
We linger there and wonder wide where is center if side is side?
The truth the truth the jester cried is neither black nor white but pied
So now again we're on the road
Which is the prince which is the toad?
And will it be that just a simple kiss brings a change of places…
\\][//
__________________
Thank you Mr Once for bringing to my attention this poetic gesture on your behalf by yours truly on that page; it's the best thing there...
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/the-fog-of-words-how-we-inadvertantly-reinforce-the-911-official-story/
\\][//
James Hufferd
May 1, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Hear! Hear!
To which I might only add, Once is not enough…
x50 Señor El Once : hopes of reflected brillance
Picking up Mr. Rogue's ammunition from April 28, 2014 at 7:01 pm, reloading, aiming, and firing: "As usual [Mr. Rogue's] irrelevance to the discussion at hand is duly noted." So are the quotations from others with which he pads his overwhelming presence on T&S in the hopes of reflected brillance shining onto him.
Seeing how Mr. Rogue enjoyed throw-back Thursday so much, here's another from August 2, 2012 at 2:24 pm and written by me.
[Different discussion participant] has made every single posting on the tangent Protocols theme from an admitted position of ignorance: he not having read them and not being prepared to write on them. How "irresponsible" is that?
Not only have I been there and done that, I hear an echo in the April 28, 2014 at 5:32 pm comments from Mr. Rogue towards Mr. Dean:
If you can't "recall correctly" because you have never actually read the Protocols, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here.
Mr. Rogue banties about the phrase "twitchy web-bots" but with no firm grasp on what such an entity is. A "bot" is an algorithm that doesn't tire of going over the same themes again and again. As a bot, it has its goals/beliefs from which it can't ever being convinced otherwise.
A distinction must be made between a bot and a religious fanatic, the latter of which applies to me. I'm religously fanatical about Truth with a capital "T", "a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue." Because Truth is being messed with and obscured with regards to 9/11, I make course corrections to my beliefs. A bot? Not so much. Moreover, other than my lone surviving {-redacted-} hobby-horse, I do tire of going over the same themes again and again. My patience runs thin. Because I stand behind my words and am organized, I'm becoming better able to avoid the tendium of carousel spins by providing a GOTO link, such as the Throw-Back references. Mr. Rogue? Not so much.
Mr. Rogue isn't a bot, except in a mildly obsessive-compulsive sense as an offshoot to his sociopath disorder. In fairness, if I was in Mr. Rogue's boat of being retired, divorced, and living in his mama's basement with his birds, obsessive internet participation would probably consume me, too. But I'm not. I have a life.
At the beginning of this, I mentioned Mr. Rogue's padding quotations. When discussions go into the technical nuts-and-bolts, Mr. Rogue's found quotations serves him only so far. When his reference sources get shredded for being skewed, having errors, and having blatant omissions, Mr. Rogue doesn't have enough "reflected brilliance" absorbed to carry on RATIONALLY, nor does he have the integrity to re-evaluate and course-correct his beliefs. [What was the phrase that Fonzie could never say: "I was wrrrruhruhruh. I was wrrraugh. I'm wrrrrooorooro..."]
And now we have this dangerous piece of re-usable ammunition called "arguments from ignorance" that Mr. Rogue dropped relating to having the fortitude to read rationally and objectively (for nuggets of truth) the references that the opposition provides. I'm predicting that the lucidy of Mr. Rogue [as evidenced by all his responses to me in this thread but also historically] will quickly turn into the "ludicrous."
Because I'm a fair and honest fellow, it doesn't bother me forearming debate opponents with my game plan, my references, my speculative 9/11 opinions. In fact, I want them prepared, because that's the only way they'll be able to argue in a coherent, lucid, rational fashion that might convince me of my errors. I'll then make the course-correction and offer public apologies.
Although I abhor winning by a technicality, such as debate opponents defining standards for debate that they hypocritically don't abide by themselves: I'm not a bot; my patience is waning; if my debate opponents are proven hypocrites (or worse), I'll take the easy win early to get back to my life, because it really won't be a case of me re-loading and shooting their own ammo, but of them having buried the land-mine themselves that they then proceed to step on.
//
x51 hybridrogue1 : shame the intemperate with mere words
2014-05-02
hybridrogue1
May 2, 2014 at 1:54 pm
"Ah but who has the power to shame the intemperate with mere words??
A plague…a pandemic of curses follow thee like a pack of jackals on a moonless night ye hypocrites. Pass thee by me in silence rather than speak with the tongues of serpents…for the time is near and thou error is as the piles left by elephants, and the stench is worse."~Magus Maverik
hybridrogue1
May 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Great epistemic errors like Sirens call from those treacherous stony shores…
Circe sips a glass of wine, fire in her breast – smiling at her victims, who are so weak of mind and spirit that they deliver themselves to her barren still born mercy.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm
To address the comments of Señor El Once on May 2, 2014 AT 12:54 PM:
> "if I was in Mr. Rogue's boat of being retired, divorced, and living in his mama's basement with his birds, obsessive internet participation would probably consume me, too. But I'm not. I have a life."~Señor
. . . . . .
More of this faulty characterization of myself by this fanatic wind-up wanker.
I do not live in a basement. I do not live with my mother. My participation on the internet is not nearly as obsessive as this hysterical entity is with me.
There has only been one short comment on this thread by Señor el Turgid that has not been an attempt at character assassination against my person.
. . . . .
Let us look into this:
> "When my {-redacted-} hobby-horse finally gets a chance to romp, I want the words of sociopath Mr. Rogue already discredited in the eyes of the readers by his own historical, hypocritical, defamatory actions." ~Señora — May 1, 2014 AT 7:08 PM
What is interesting here is that the entity wants me to be "already discredited in the eyes of the readers".
Now why could this be? Why would he/it need to have my person discredited prior to the entity's exposition? The answer is obvious — the entity knows it has no case that can be proven by reason, so it must eliminate and discredit any lucid challenger by defamation beforehand.
That Señora is such a dolt as to make this so crystal clear on T&S, no longer surprises me. The entity is so drowned in hysteria now it blabbers on and on without a thought as to what it reveals of its own psychopathic intentions.
What will surely come from all of this is that the entity will have completely discredited itself – having come a long way in already accomplishing this – before it ever gets a chance to let its stick-horse of a hobby-horse romp.
\\][//
x52 Señor El Once : varied definitions of character assassination
Mr. Rogue calls me:
- "fanatic wind-up wanker"
- "hysterical entity"
- "Señor el Turgid"
- "Señora"
And then has the gall to write within the very same sentences that ~I~ am attempting "character assassination"?! Not just another example of Mr. Rogue being a "cheater" and "hypocrite," but also demonstrates his mysognostic streak that permeates his insults.
What is interesting here is that the entity wants me to be "already discredited in the eyes of the readers."
Now why could this be? Why would he/it need to have my person discredited prior to the entity's exposition? The answer is obvious — the entity knows it has no case that can be proven by reason, so it must eliminate and discredit any lucid challenger by defamation beforehand.
If the answer were so "obvious" to Mr. Rogue, he would have gotten it correct, like from reading what I wrote. Mr. Rogue is not really as bright as his poorly formatted quotations from others would lead us to believe.
It isn't that Mr. Rogue is a lucid challenger. He's not. After his reference sources that he quotes to support his contention are shredded, Mr. Rogue becomes "lucidity challenge," as extracted at the beginning of this comment with his "irrational" name calling.
Mr. Rogue lies, cheats, and weasels, particularly when cornered with weak and faulty arguments. (Examples available upon request.)
Mr. Rogue is a hypocrite, as proven with his "arguments from ignorance" statement regarding the protocols visa vis Dr. Wood's work. Mr. Rogue doesn't have the integrity to take down legitimately in part -- let alone the totality -- of his opponent's references (e.g., Dr. Wood, nuclear reference material). Leading to more dissembling lies, cheats, and weasels.
Sure, Mr. Rogue is not an agent and never really was in my book, because hell, I disagree with less than 5% of what he posts. Just pushing his buttons. He might not live in his mum's basement, but he does use her mailing address and contact telephone number. What other alternatives are there, then, to explain Mr. Rogue blithely spouting little lies and cheats, whose exposure is like the aforementioned landmine that he himself buried and then is forced to trod upon and discredits him?
Textbook sociopath. Mr. Rogue doesn't see it as lying, cheating, or weaseling. And he'll lie, cheat, and weasel some more to twist things around.
I'm tired of the carousel rides. My patience has run thin.
When my hobby-horse comes prancing into view, I want Mr. Rogue locked in the smelly barn of his blog biting his tongue.
But what I want and what I'll get are two different things.
Therefore, assuming the worst that Mr. Rogue ain't going away, I want Mr. Rogue prepared to give his "lucid arguments" that -- if they really are so lucid and valid -- have no need of more instances of lies, cheats, and weasels. Were Mr. Rogue not such a sociopath, I would be adding that Mr. Rogue should admit when he's in error and when his grand view of 9/11 requires amending.
"Convince me or let me convince you."
Yep, Mr. Rogue is expected to be an objective, fair, rational, reasonable, honest, debate opponent here. Failing that, he assassinates and discredits his own character.
//
x53 hybridrogue1 : in a mode of obsessive hysteria
2014-05-05
hybridrogue1
May 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm
These incessant attacks and slurs from Señor on T&S reveal the entity to be in a mode of obsessive hysteria. I have indeed kept a journal of this madness on my HR1blog, on a page devoted to this nonsense. But it is meant as a historical record of this maniacs antics and blithering, not anything to do with an obsession on my part, but a defensive log of counter commentary.
The current thread on T&S is revelatory to my assertions here. The entity has thrown several, at least five, temper tantrums on that page that were completely unprovoked by anything I said that could possibly have anything to do with the entity itself, other than the fact that I responded back showing this to be the case. This jejune squalling from Señora, intending to defame me, does the exact opposite, this creature defames itself. And of course I find this delightful to no end. The creature is making itself a bed of thorns that it will have to sleep in hereafter. Maxwell's silver hammer has turned to shit.
What is Señora asserting here? That I have lied about something? What is it that I have lied about? I have seen no instance of the entity making a single specific charge, only assurances that he has many compiled in some 'HR1 Dossier'. I have read a lot of theories and speculation put that I am "sock puppeting", an allegation only backed up by empty and scurrilous speculation. The entity counts the number of comments I make and asserts this is some proof of my being a "Q-agent", when it is nothing more than his jealousy that I am free to stay engaged and have wide ranging knowledge on quite a number of topics.
When I point out ramifications that could arise from the issue of a thread topic, I am sometimes accused of "hijacking" the thread. But I hardly ever fail to show how I think it follows by a sequence of points that I include when introducing a proposition. I think it adds to a lively discussion, after all, Mr McKee's articles are well constructed and complete. After a few remarks on these points and the ones that stand out for oneself, it is only natural for rumination of how other things tie in with the ideas in the original text, and as in most open conversations among people it takes on a life of its own. At any rate the case of 'hijacking' is closely tied to the beancounting that the entity is so convinced can prove some statistical proof of bad intent.
And on the other hand the entity can itself lay down a long highway of verbosity that almost inevitably leads to nowhere. Ofttimes these things can run on to thousands of words and manifest nonsequitur. And yes we can define such as the classic Argumentum Verbosium. And the entity will inevitably claim that it is because myself and others cannot stay attune to a complex argument.
But it is not the "complexity" of the argument that makes it spurious, it is because the entity does not actually prove its points, and takes wild leaps of speculation to bridge points that are already themselves but a string of suppositions.
I offer for proof of my assertions here, this blog itself. Hardly a thread has gone by here without some bizarre voodoo hoochiecoo, a great portion of it, allegations against my integrity.
The entity complains of making snide play with the names I use here for him. This is small and lite wordplay, that can not be fairly compared to the charges that I lie and dissemble, or try to fool with rhetoric. And I would point out that is is hypocritical to make any complaint of calling names, when the names he uses are serious charges of "cheating" and "lying", or attempting to hide the truth of some matter.
I will add that I get mail at my own address. I do not like telephones, so didn't have on for a long time. I do have one now, but few have the number. Don't call me, I'll call you.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm
"Mr. Rogue is a hypocrite, as proven with his "arguments from ignorance" statement regarding the protocols visa vis Dr. Wood's work. Mr. Rogue doesn't have the integrity to take down legitimately in part — let alone the totality — of his opponent's references (e.g., Dr. Wood, nuclear reference material). Leading to more dissembling lies, cheats, and weasels."~Señor
And Just what is this "ignorance" I am accused of having? It is the spurious charge that I do not know, and have not read and understood Wood's arguments. And this assertion is made based on an affair involving False Advertising by Mr Once that the book had information beyond that which is found on her website. It does not. And going into the facts of this affair again, after time after time explaining it, is indeed a fucking carousel.
I know Wood's work well, and when I went through physical book, I found nothing at all of any substance whatsoever that was new or different from the website. I informed the entity of this and offered to send the book back to him in pristine condition. As I have detailed previously, I offered to send the Book back to him. His refusal to take it relieved me of any and all obligations that might have been standing.
One obligation that Señora seems to think I still owe is a 'chapter by chapter rebuttal' of the Book. This is preposterous under these clear circumstances. After being conned into this 'deal', I find it is all based in pretense and misrepresentation, and I am held liable to some 'obligation'?
Nonsense, I owe the entity nothing at all in anyway whatsoever.
As with this instance, all of his other charges derive from his deluded and fevered imagination.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 3, 2014 at 11:42 am
Señor cannot make the obvious distinction between 'colloquialisms and slang insults' v 'substantive accusatory slurs'.
It should go without saying that if someone calls another a "motherfucker", that this is not meant to seriously assert that the person has had sex with his mother.
These allegories {farting tapdancing – humorous titles describing the entity by non d'plum} are given special and excessive weight from Señor's perspective, when in fact they are minor compared to the substantive accusatory slurs meant to seriously malign my character and honesty.
He continues to call me a "liar" and has yet to point out a single specific lie that I have supposedly made. Where's the substantiation?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Yes I meant, nom de plume rather than "non d'plum"…Lol
\\][//
HufferdCruzeiro@aol.com
May 3, 2014 at 12:57 pm
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
hybridrogue1
May 3, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Yes Mr Hufferd,
That was a plum quote you have added there. Straight as a plumb line, in fact sublime, and subliminal in the same instance. Instant karma is fruit of the loom from a distant tomb.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 4, 2014 at 1:25 pm
'The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research' is the top thread on T&S yet again today.
As the comments are closed, I wonder what new readers make of it? I think it is clear that the supporters of Judy Wood showed themselves to be naught but raving cultists. Not a one of them had any idea of what they were talking about; all they had was devotion to THE BOOK.
All the rational argument came from her critics. And it is there plain as day for the candid world to see. However little is left of the candid in this world..?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm
On T&S; May 3, 2014 @ 11:42 am, I challenged the entity calling itself Señor el Once to prove a single lie that he accuses me of.
As I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, the entity is going to have an impossible time proving one. It is going to have to construct some rhetorical framing, that will likely be another grand stand of verbosity, some churning logorrhea of foaming fulmination.
And this is exactly what is offered here in Señor El Once's response of May 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM:
Nothing but spin, and no clear unambiguous proof of a single lie. This is why I demand an example of one – just one, to avoid these spinning cartwheels, farts and tap dances.
The kicker is this — "I just can't resist postings these final choice examples of Mr. Rogue lying." — and the examples the entity uses as "lies", simple frustrated attempts to untangle myself from this obsessed maniac. A frustration that continues to this very thread, wherein the entity uses the same technique of false frames and deluded interpretations to make claims that I "lie, cheat, and weasel"
Just one example of false framing:
–"Of course, this January article is followed by a solid five months of Mr. Rogue negatively reviewing Dr. Wood's book without having read it before an offer of the book with conditions was extended during the discussion to Mr. McKee's June 2, 2012 article, "The Judy Wood enigma" (around June 7, 2012)."~Señor
The assertion here that I was "negatively reviewing Dr. Wood's book without having read it.." is obvious dickspittle. I was reviewing Woods works based on her website – which Señor admits has no substantive difference as to Wood's assertions.
But it was this very basis that led me to finally relent to Señor's high pressure sales tactics and agree to receive THE BOOK. So yes indeed at one point, after being harangued for weeks if not months, I yielded to the hype and thought, 'why not?' .. why not get the book and see for myself if there wasn't something new and compelling within its covers. But there was nothing. It was all hyperbole and crass salesmanship.
I was happy to take receipt of the book. After all, it took having THE BOOK in my hands by which I was able to discern that it was indeed a scam. So again, as previously described, any and all perceived obligations by el Kabong, are delusional.
The entity referring to itself as Señor still hasn't offered as single instance of an unambiguous "Lie" that I have told, that doesn't have to be "interpreted" by his spinning rhetoric.
"Ho-hum," indeed.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm
More from, Señor El Once's response of May 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM:
"So Mr. Rogue dissembles here in order to distract from the fact that he weaseled out of it.
Wherein he quotes me:
– 'I informed the entity of this and offered to send the book back to him in pristine condition. As I have detailed previously, I offered to send the Book back to him. His refusal to take it relieved me of any and all obligations that might have been standing.' –
Ho-hum, such blatant cheating and weaseling.
After the objective review [which never happened], the requirement was to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along."~Señor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The "requirement"? What requirement? There were no more requirements nor obligations once I realized this whole BOOK deal was nonsense. Any and all "requirements and obligations" ended on the entity's refusal to have THE BOOK sent back to him.
The entity cheated itself by making false claims as to the need to read THE BOOK to grasp Wood's theories. He should have known better than to expect me to send this bunk 'forward' to anybody, especially when I had offered it back to him.
The entity tried to burn me by high pressure salesmanship into acquiring something I had no interest in. The entity ended up burning itself in the bargain – and will obviously never get over it.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 5, 2014 at 5:36 pm
"Mr. Rogue owes me nothing at all in anyway whatsoever [except that I say he has overstayed his welcome at T&S.]"~the entity posing as Señor
Such an opinion is the entities right to hold. However, if my "welcome at T&S" is to be decided, it will be Mr McKee's decision solely.
The entity has expressed such an opinion here before, even making empty threats that I was close to banishment sometime back.
And while on this subject of banishment, etc., the entity tries to make hay out of the affair at COTO, suggesting that I was banned. This is not at all the case. I left in disgust of my own accord. This is all spoken to on my HR1 blog in great detail in a post: 'Variation on Milgram'. I do not leave URLs to my pieces on T&S because Mr McKee seems to frown on it. But a browser search can surely locate the thread for anyone interested.
And while on the subject of anyone being interested. I would posit that there is hardly a soul on T&S that gives a flying bat-fuck about this feud between the anonymous entity and myself. This is likely just so much verbal chowder to the readers here. I myself am only concerned because the entity is so intent on defaming my good character and reputation.
As the entity cannot make a clear and unambiguous proof of a single lie, that doesn't have to be "interpreted" as such by his spinning rhetoric… I think this should stand as my last entry on this dish of flambe. However, if the need arises I claim my option of speaking freely again should I be provoked.
\\][//
x54 Señor El Once : play-acting the innocent or the forgetful, senile participant
I wrote [May 2, 2014 at 4:27 pm]:
Mr. Rogue lies, cheats, and weasels, particularly when cornered with weak and faulty arguments. (Examples available upon request.)
Mr. Rogue, unable to be patient and complete his argument within one comment, replied with three on T&S: May 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm, May 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm, and May 3, 2014 at 11:42 am. Within the first comment, he writes:
What is Señora asserting here? That I have lied about something? What is it that I have lied about? I have seen no instance of the entity making a single specific charge...
Readers should note Mr. Rogue's play-acting the innocent or the forgetful, senile participant, because during the debates Mr. Rogue was called on each instance of a deceitful statement immediately after they were published.
At the end of his last comment, Mr. Rogue requests examples.
{SEO} continues to call me a "liar" and has yet to point out a single specific lie that I have supposedly made. Where's the substantiation?
Ho-hum. So many lies to chose from, and this wasn't even a full tally of Mr. Rogue's more dubious efforts.
The one lie that I will promote here is that Mr. Rogue -- as part of his weaseling out of the agreement to objectively review Dr. Wood's book -- created the "false advertising" straw man with respect to the lack of content differences between the book and the website, and then lied about having debunked the website and Dr. Wood's theories. According to his straw man logic, if no substantial differences exist between book and website, no book review was allegedly required.
Assume for a moment the "false advertising" claim and that the book were a complete subset of the website. If Mr. Rogue really had debunked the website or found sources that debunked it web-page-by-web-page, then he could and would have re-published those efforts, provided links to them, and avoided months of discredit to his character. Because he never re-published such thorough and complete efforts in the T&S debates, his COTO home court, or on his blog, and cannot produce a URL to a source (other than Dr. Greg Jenkins, whose efforts were not thorough or complete), we can deduce this boastful claim from Mr. Rogue was a ~lie~.
Returning to the "false advertising" assumption, Mr. Rogue has admitted to ~not~ finishing reading the book, and gave no indication as to what chapter he actually made it to. Moreover, Mr. Rogue's frustration with the material led him to physically destroy the book, so he has nothing to reference today. Thus, he has no basis for his claim, and by default the assumption is invalidated.
Of course, this little "false advertising" Rogue circus act came after many months of unfruitful weaseling using other tactics.
Mr. Rogue boasts without links:
I have indeed kept a journal of this madness on my HR1blog, on a page devoted to this nonsense. But it is meant as a historical record of this maniacs antics and blithering, not anything to do with an obsession on my part, but a defensive log of counter commentary.
Morbid curousity had me revisit his blog after finally unsubscribing a couple of weeks ago. In the same weekend as the three T&S comments date-stamped above, Mr. Rogue made 23 dubious comments pertaining to me or elements of my nuclear 9/11 argument on his blog. [Sarcasm] Clearly, it has "not anything to do with an obsession on [Mr. Rogue's] part." [/Sarcasm] El-oh-el. Maybe this should be tagged as another ~lie~.
As for Mr. Rogue's claims of his blog being a historical record, readers won't find postings from me, nor any back-and-forth debates, nor consistent and dutiful links to where comments were made. Occasionally, Mr. Roge does quote-mine from me to re-frame out-of-context in a dubious manner. Ergo, it fails on what it is meant to do as a historic record. And even in its alleged purpose of being "a defensive log of counter commentary," what will stick in the readers eyes are the many "offensive comments" made by Mr. Rogue that begin to clearly paint himself as a misogynist, homophobe, and worse. Not just against me, but against his former home court, COTO.
Here's where I pick up dropped ammo from Mr. Rogue:
The creature [Mr. Rogue] is making itself a bed of thorns that it will have to sleep in hereafter.
Mr. Rogue writes:
The entity complains of making snide play with the names I use here for him. This is small and lite wordplay, that can not be fairly compared to the charges that I lie and dissemble, or try to fool with rhetoric.
The "small and lite wordplay" to which Mr. Rogue refers has often been used knee-jerk fashion to substitute for a substance-filled response, undermines what substance he might offer, and in more recent times has taken on serious misogynistic undertones.
Agreed that the charges of lying, dissembling, and fooling with rhetoric cannot be fairly compared with his "small and lite wordplay", because the latter can't be proven, but the former was and is.
Substantiating my accusation of Mr. Rogue dissembling, Mr. Rogue writes:
Señor cannot make the obvious distinction between "colloquialisms and slang insults" v "substantive accusatory slurs."
This is very clever framing on Mr. Rogue's part.
For the moment, remove the adjectives, the accusation is that I cannot make a distinction between "colloquialisms & insults" versus "slurs." Indeed, I don't, because they are pretty close to the same in my books.
Re-framing this properly, Mr. Rogue cannot make the obvious distinction between "colloquialisms, slang insults, and slurs" versus "substantive, substantiated, accusatory statements." The former isn't ever really proven and is offered only as a tactic to illicit an emotional response to derail the discussion into a flame war. The latter is proven and is offered for the accused, if sincere and honest, to correct the record, to apologize if applicable, and to amend their ways.
If Mr. Rogue were called "a liar, a cheat, and a weasel" out of the blue and if it was left at that, Mr. Rogue would certainly have a case about this being "substantive accusatory slurs."
However, when these same words are accompanied by the specifics of (a) what the lies were, (b) what the cheats were, and (c) what was being weaseled on, "substantive accusatory slurs" become "truthful descriptions of character", and that makes them far more damning. They are indeed "serious charges" and should have been met with substantiated corrections and behavior changes. To have met them with "not meant seriously" slang insults and slurs, as was Mr. Rogue's habit, served to validate the charges and set them in concrete.
Mr. Rogue writes:
And Just what is this "ignorance" I am accused of having? It is the spurious charge that I do not know, and have not read and understood Wood's arguments.
No, and this demonstrates a "cheat" on Mr. Rogue's part. The true argument is for nuclear means on 9/11. Dr. Wood's work is used primarily as a convenient tool to collect together lots of pieces of anomalous evidence for serious and objective consideration. Just like Mr. Rogue did not step through Dr. Wood's book chapter-by-chapter or her website page-by-page, Mr. Rogue did not step through section-by-section my work that stands on the shoulders of Dr. Wood and others. Oh, sure, at one point Mr. Rogue gave a fair response to a 12-point mini-thesis on the nuclear theme. His responses were countered and shredded, and in fact help comprise the work from me. Technically, the ball has been back in his court, but another cheat on his part is acting as if my arguments have been disposed.
Mr. Rogue wrote:
I know Wood's work well, and when I went through physical book, I found nothing at all of any substance whatsoever that was new or different from the website.
First of all, Mr. Rogue admitted that he didn't finish reading the book and no longer has the book to serve as reference today, so his findings are suspect.
Secondly, Mr. Rogue had the benefit of my book review and my assessments well before he had a copy in his hands. Readers should look up Mr. McKee's June 2, 2012 article on T&S, "The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research". My comment from June 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm re-enforces in a major way the telegraphing of my intentions with Dr. Wood's book.
Disproving Mr. Rogue's "False Advertising" ploy further, here's a quote from my comment from June 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm, which is before Mr. Rogue received his copy.
{Mr. Rogue asked:}
"Besides being made of paper and ink, what is the substantial difference between the information on the web and this book? You have never made this clear."
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.
Thirdly and most imortant of all, it doesn't matter whether or not the book had anything of substance new or different from the website. The task was to objectively review the book (or the website) for the good, the bad, and the ugly.
So Mr. Rogue dissembles here in order to distract from the fact that he weaseled out of it.
I informed the entity of this and offered to send the book back to him in pristine condition. As I have detailed previously, I offered to send the Book back to him. His refusal to take it relieved me of any and all obligations that might have been standing.
Ho-hum, such blatant cheating and weaseling.
After the objective review [which never happened], the requirement was to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along. Therefore, if Mr. Rogue had the funds to return the book to me, he could have just as easily sent it along to someone else and fulfilled at least that part of his obligation. Mr. Rogue was communicating at one point with Dr. Jones who would have made an excellent candidate, and I even suggested such. I also recommended Mr. Adam Ruff.
One obligation that Señora seems to think I still owe is a 'chapter by chapter rebuttal' of the Book. This is preposterous under these clear circumstances.
No, it wasn't preposterous. Still, Mr. Rogue has been relieved of his obligation by me after over half a year of being patient. By his dissembling, it was clear that I was never, ever going to get that which I had commissioned. And by that point, even if I did, I would not be able to trust it, for Mr. Rogue can't be trusted. Not that bad and ugly wouldn't have been found, but that the remaining good that Mr. Rogue would have been obligated to acknowledge would cause huge problems for the other theories-du-jour that he promotes.
Curious readers should look for Mr. McKee's January 11, 2012 article "When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie", which is about the timing of HybridRogue1's first arrival at T&S. My comments of January 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm and January 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm would be of particular interest, because I telegraph in a major way what I had been doing with Dr. Wood's book and would likely do in the future.
Of course, this January article is followed by a solid five months of Mr. Rogue negatively reviewing Dr. Wood's book without having read it before an offer of the book with conditions was extended during the discussion to Mr. McKee's June 2, 2012 article, "The Judy Wood enigma" (around June 7, 2012). By the time the discussion happened under Mr. McKee's September 12, 2012 article, "Ignorance trumps ideas during annual 9/11 'discussions': a reluctant rant", Mr. Rogue is in full weasel mode. Refer to my comment from September 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm that re-publishes original conditions.
After being conned into this 'deal', ...
"Conned into this deal?" El-oh-el. My comment of June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm under "The Judy Wood enigma" shows exactly how Mr. Rogue was "conned into this deal." El-oh-el. Here's a choice quote from the offer email of June 7, 2012.
And you can bet that if you accept it and default on the conditions, I'll use it as well-spent cheap excuse to (figuratively) bloody your nose again and again on the theme of Dr. Wood. And even if you do not accept it with the conditions, I have every intention of making hay (and bloody noses) out of that situation as well. Win-win for me in getting at nuggets of truth.
[After being conned into this 'deal'] I find it is all based in pretense and misrepresentation, and I am held liable to some 'obligation'?
Although I didn't link much in this comment (to avoid this going into moderation), sufficient information has been given for curious readers to validate my words. Cheater that Mr. Rogue is, the "basis in pretense and misrepresentation" is entirely on his side.
Nonsense, I owe the entity nothing at all in anyway whatsoever.
Mr. Rogue owes me nothing at all in anyway whatsoever [except that I say he has overstayed his welcome at T&S.] The absolving of his obligation has been agreed to for quite some time. If Mr. Rogue has any residual obligation, it is to his God (Truth), to his neighbor (the readers of T&S, COTO, his blog), and to himself (his own integrity) to carry out that which he promised.
I just can't resist postings these final choice examples of Mr. Rogue lying.
[1] 2012-09-26 at 11:01 AM {email from Willy Whitten}:
You're such a fuckin' idiot {SEO}, but you're right about one thing; I don't have to deal with you on T&S...and I have made my last remarks to you on that thread... I am seriously finished with you asshole.
[2] April 11, 2013 at 3:32 pm, "The Judy Wood enigma"
I am off of this lunatic's endless carousel ride.
[3] "PROLOGUE New Wave 9/11" (2013-04-19), Mr. Rogue's article on his former COTO home court that his actions got it deleted:
The entity calling itself 'Señor', can go around and 'round on it's creaking carousel for as long as it wishes. Alas, I am through with this.
If there be any more spins beyond these final words, we'll know someone grabbed the handles and was manually pushing the carousel into its revolution.
//
x55 Señor El Once : spam detection algorithm frowns on links
Mr. McKee does not "frown on" links, but the spam detection algorithm does. Comments can have at least one link without interference. At some number of links greater than one (I'm not sure of the exact number), the comment goes into the moderation queue and requires Mr. McKee to approve it.
+++
Mr. Rogue boasts:
As I have not purposefully told any lies on the blogs, the entity is going to have an impossible time proving one.
Not impossible; already done; link provided to more than one.
Mr. Rogue is in such a hurry to "to construct some rhetorical framing" to dig himself out of his litany of (tiny) lies that he dumps "another grand stand of verbosity, some churning logorrhea of foaming fulmination" in less than an hour, finds that he was too hasty, so dumps a second one 49 minutes later and then a third one 29 minutes after that, in addition to the "dickspittle" that he undoubted added to his blog.
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. The onus is on Mr. Rogue to provide links to where he (or they) did this thorough debunking. {Mr. Rogue made his boasts of his personal efforts under a now-deleted "Prologue" article; Mr. Rogue made boasts of others' debunking efforts in places still alive and alluded to already.}
To my recollection, Mr. Rogue has only offered up the efforts of Dr. Greg Jenkins, who indeed has made some valid criticisms of Dr. Wood's work but who also has not debunked A-to-Z evidence collected on Dr. Wood's website, let alone re-purposed into other theories that don't have gaps.
Mr. Rogue dissembles by hyping that no book review is required if the book matches the website and if the website has been completely invalidated. Mr. Rogue cheats by trying to frame the situation as if the book, "being an improved subset of the website", were a scam simply to receive and objectively review.
The true situation is that nobody (of note in the 9/11 Truth Movement) has offered a chapter-by-chapter review for the good, bad, and ugly in Dr. Wood's book. I was urging Mr. Rogue [and David Chandler, Let's Roll Forums, September Clues Forums, John Wright of 9/11 Blogger...] to change that and to take it out of contention legitimately [with my help], which would have brought great stature and honor within the 9/11 Truth Movement. My gain? Acknowledgment of the remaining good nuggets of truth that would be re-purposed into nuclear hypotheses.
Mr. Rogue failed -- gloriously -- probably because Mr. Rogue always relied too heavily on the works of others (many with PhD's), adopted their quoted opinions wholesale, and could not be prodded into looking for nuggets of truth in places that those opinions labeled "disinformation." [Dr. Wood and September Clues fit into this category.]
All-or-nothing is the disinformation game, which sweeps from the table nuggets of truth at the first signs of possible deceit by design in order to disappear such nuggets from further consideration that could be inconvenient to larger agendas. Mr. Rogue was so eager to operate the broom on all of Dr. Wood's collected evidence that he acted the hypocrite in not applying the same "all-or-nothing" to his various PhD sources which, if not rejected completely, should have been questioned with regards to assumptions, references, scope, and methodology to find their true limits of applicability.
Owing to Mr. Rogue's tendencies to rely heavily on the works of others, to his inabilities in recognizing deficiencies in those works, to his stubbornness in acknowledging -- when not validating -- such gaps and errors once brought to his attention, and to his own sociopath ego that can't admit being wrong, Mr. Rogue frames his own credibility.
Dr. Wood's book served its purpose as an objectivity test that Mr. Rogue failed spectacularly. All continuing indications are that it remains a good predictor of Mr. Rogue's open-mindedness elsewhere. Indeed it already has with respect to Jeff Prager's work and references already submitted into fourth generation nuclear devices.
//
x56 Señor El Once : sociopathic game playing
A sociopath may show a number of traits that make them unpleasant to be around: such as pathological lying, a lack of empathy, overwhelming selfishness, disorganized, abrupt in speech, easily annoyed, quick to show temper, a disregard for laws and social mores, and a failure to feel remorse or guilt. They act more impulsively and lash out at those with whom they are angry. They tend to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society.
Woes unto me for falling into Mr. Rogue's sociopathic game playing. Mr. Rogue writes:
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.
My "Señor El Once" alias is probably sufficient for most readers to determine my gender, and no amount of even half-assed cyber-stalking will cough up evidence that contradicts it. Beancounter that I am accused of being, Mr. Rogue in this thread alone has purposely told at least ~five~ (5) lies with regards to my gender by calling me "Señora". The lies of this nature increase exponentially on his blog when all misogynistic references to female body parts for me are taken into consideration.
Now Mr. Rogue weasels some more with regards to a subjective definition of what constitutes a lie.
No, a lie remains untruthful and dishonest even if its usage is for other purposes such as to insult, to cheat, to create false impressions, etc.
Mr. Rogue has been caught in many lies of substance in our debates since January 2012, yet Mr. Rogue play-acts the innocent: "Who? Moi? Guilty of uttering things that were known to be untrue? Oh how quaint!"
I can readily reference a small subset of such lies for the curious (other than "Señora"), but the one lie that I happened to choose to promote to address Mr. Rogue's boastful & repeated claims of "me not proving a single one" had to do with his claims of debunking Dr. Wood's work (website). At the time on "Prologue", he clearly bragged of a comprehensive published effort authored personally by him. Given that article's self-destruction, I'm willing to count published efforts from Mr. Rogue that used extensive quotations from others or even published efforts from Mr. Rogue that just linked to other authors' articles that in total address all nooks-and-cranies of Dr. Wood's evidence collection.
Never happened. [And to my knowledge, doesn't exist whether or not authored by Mr. Rogue, otherwise he (or I or others) would have found it and referenced it already.]
This lie is a central part of Mr. Rogue's weasel to avoid reviewing Dr. Wood's book (or work) in a more scholarly, objective, rational, thorough, reasonable, prudent, honest manner.
Mr. Rogue has spent literally years in this forum regularly hypnotically suggesting that Dr. Wood's "looney, crazy, woo-woo" work have no nuggets of truth. "Don't look here, sheople! Move along now!"
What makes Mr. Rogue's actions even more dubious is that Dr. Wood's work isn't the end-station or end-all-cure-all. A mere test of objectivity, it twas.
He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.~Luke 16:10 New American Standard Bible
My gender? A very little thing [el-oh-el]. An objective review of Dr. Wood's book? Also a very little thing; one sentence each on the good, bad, and ugly per chapter would have gone a long way. Statements of intent? More little things.
All and more flumuxed by Mr. Rogue.
Yet he expects the "much" of his integrity, reputation, and character to remain prestine despite his being unrighteous in the very little things? It don't work that way.
When my nuclear hobby-horse gets to the races, Mr. Rogue's participation will have "liar, cheater, and weasel" painted on the side so readers will know to vet his hypnotic assertions, and I will know how seriously to take his comments.
P.S. Before I could complete this, Mr. Rogue spams the forum with two more entries, one of which stated:
This is a debate over whether the entity posing as Señor el Once has any substantiation to prove me a liar. He hasn't done so, and cannot possibly do so, for I haven't made any lies here, or on any other blog.
Serves as a great example of -- drum roll please -- "pathological lying." I provided substantiation before, and I provided it again with different examples, even. "Failure to feel remorse or guilt", anyone?
I don't give a damn. Just leave me the fuck out of it... Enough of this bullshit!
Mr. Rogue just needs to pony-up the moxie to stay "the fuck out of it." Throw-in the towel now, Mr. Rogue. Whereas I used to thank Mr. Rogue for his stilted opposition that helped me hone and improve my arguments, his lies, cheats, and weasels made me lose my respect for him.
//
x57 hybridrogue1 & Señor El Once : still hasn't proven a single one
2014-05-06
hybridrogue1
May 6, 2014 at 11:01 am
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
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 6, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Look, this is not a debate on the merits of Wood's book nor her theories as they appear on her web site. This is not a debate on the merits of Nukes, nor DEW. This is a debate over whether the entity posing as Señor el Once has any substantiation to prove me a liar. He hasn't done so, and cannot possibly do so, for I haven't made any lies here, or on any other blog.
If the entity wishes to go on spewing it's diddly squat ruminations on it's favorite rocking-horse, I don't give a damn. Just leave me the fuck out of it.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 6, 2014 at 12:44 pm
So how is it that Once again a thread on T&S has been hijacked by the entity posing as "Señor el Once"? Well, the sequence is documented on this very thread by Date/Time-Stamps.
The proximate cause arising from the entity leaping into the field with spurious allegations directed at me in defense of an obvious White Supremacist. From that point on the mass of verbosity builds to terrible proportions, until the finale with the brisance of a fuel-air burst. Again, a toe in the door and the Nookiedoodoo Salesman gains entry and sets up it's dreadful kiosk of slur and whine.
Too much too often too hard too bad. Enough of this bullshit!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 6, 2014 at 2:07 pm
And I could care less if a stalking maniac has lost "respect" for me.
Spew on anonymous entity, the repetition of bullshit remains bullshit nevertheless.
\\][//
Señor El Once
May 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm
A sociopath may show a number of traits that make them unpleasant to be around: such as pathological lying, a lack of empathy, overwhelming selfishness, disorganized, abrupt in speech, easily annoyed, quick to show temper, a disregard for laws and social mores, and a failure to feel remorse or guilt. They act more impulsively and lash out at those with whom they are angry. They tend to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society.
hybridrogue1
May 6, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Señor just can't stop the blabber …
I am quite sure most of us on the blog knows the profile of a sociopath. I know that I have studied the psychology and pathology of and the distinctions between a "sociopath" and a "psychopath".
But it is the implied 'relevance' to the context of this thread that is the ever expected slur from this anonymous entity. One may wonder if this entity was identifiable as 'the person' behind it's camouflage of anonymity, if it would be so bold and blatant in it's defamation campaign.
When is enough enough? Only this phantom knows…
\\][//
x58 Señor El Once : "Obsessing," anyone?
Señor El Once
May 6, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Señor just can't stop the blabber ...
Ooo! Another lie from Mr. Rogue used as a projection to boot, for it is he -- not I -- who cannot stop the blabber and absolutely has to have the last word.
Because numbers are so helpful in seeing patterns, Mr. Rogue's 97 comments (so far) comprises 42.5% of the total (so far 228). Damn if my 12 comments including this one aren't a mere 5.2% of the total.
Or looked at more objectively, 23 of Mr. Rogue's 97 comments were aimed at me, which is almost two (2) times my total output. How special that makes me feel! That special feeling only grows when considering since last Friday the >40 comments on his disorganized blog entry dedicated to me! 23+40 is over five (5) times my piddly output. Oh woe's me!
Just as telling, 17 of Mr. Rogue's comments were Mr. Rogue poorly quoting from other sources. To boost the perceptions of his intelligence, to ping for life-signs, and to give him the last word in the discussion.
"Obsessing," anyone?
If Mr. Rogue would have let my comment from April 28, 2014 at 6:29 pm simply be, even though it made a challenge for him to avoid hypocrisy, 15% of the total comments would not be, either.
Just watch how this comment will generate several from Mr. Rogue. He'll want to break 100 and get the last word!
//
x59 hybridrogue1 & Señor El Once : Sashadick rides again
2014-05-06
hybridrogue1
May 6, 2014 at 5:04 pm
Word count – not comment counts. The entity again brings in the irrelevant issue of my blog. I attempt to spare T&S the output I am capable of.
If the entity wishes the field to itself here, it will have to end this spurious bullshit defamation of my person.
And using the spin of the number of comments made, while hiding the number of words used, is another example of the entity's sneaky, cheating techniques.
The entity provokes and is flummoxed that I defend.
Sashadick rides again on his mighty steed with rockers.
\\][//
Señor El Once
May 6, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Mr. Rogue is fully capable of doing the word count. Instead of doing the work, though, he drops the cheating innuendo that the word count comes out in his favor. That's a pattern that he repeats, like in his cheating book/website review efforts. "Oh, I've already done that. We've already discussed that. I've already debunked that…" All hat and no cattle.
//
x60 hybridrogue1 : pronounced 'rick' or 'reek'?
2014-05-09
{mcb: prelude to an outing. "F. Ryk" or "Franklin Ryk 1998 (@ 12 yrs)" is supposed to be me. In 2014, he becomes 28.
Mr. Rogue was angling for outing me on his blog. 2014-05-09.
Here are veiled threats on T&S.}
2014-05-12
So Seenyor,
Is that last name pronounced 'rick' or 'reek'?
Let's have a peek…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-05-12
Silence is Golden.
Let it remain so…
\\][//
x61 Señor El Once : hasn't demonstrated enough of the warning signs of a sociopath
May 13, 2014 at 5:33 pm
WTF? Mr. Rogue seems to be addressing me:
So Seenyor, Is that last name pronounced 'rick' or 'reek'? Let's have a peek... \\][//
Silence is Golden. Let it remain so... \\][//
[Comment will resume shortly once Mr. Rogue's deplorable blog is reviewed...]
Oh, I get it.
Mr. Rogue feels that he hasn't demonstrated enough of the warning signs of a sociopath: easily annoyed, abrupt in speech, quick to show temper, overwhelming selfishness (see his posting count), disorganization (see his blog), and pathological lying (when he gets cornered and what I take issue with the most).
Now he's aiming for: "a disregard for laws and social mores, a failure to feel remorse or guilt, and a lack of empathy. [Sociopaths] act more impulsively and lash out at those with whom they are angry."
What "social mores" are we talking about?
Violating the Privacy of Others is Improper Netiquette
Avoid sharing personal information about other people without their permission and knowledge. This includes sharing personal details, full names, addresses, phone numbers, and images. No one wants to find out that their privacy has been violated.
Mr. Rogue is trying to publicly out me.
... I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
~Rod Dreber
On outing anonymous bloggers
I'll add another caveat to the words of Mr. Dreber.
If you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have the right person, because the damage you can do to the wrong person's career can be real and irreversible.
Actually, I'm not so anonymous. Mr. McKee, Dr. Fetzer, and JerseyG know my identity. That Mr. Rogue doesn't know my identify can be attributed to two things. [1] He has never asked me nicely for it; he never really had a need to know; and through our interaction these past two years plus, he proves that he can't be trusted with it. [2] Mr. Rogue isn't nearly as intelligent and savvy as he pretends to be, and this false deduction stands as a glaring example.
My identity can be found embarrassingly quickly, as was demonstrated a couple of months ago on FB by some definite agents at "9/11 Debates" who promote the official story, anomalies and all.
My firewall is weak and was purposely never shored up when first exploited several years ago by an unethical and immoral spook. Why? [1] Because I do stand behind my words. [2] It is one thing to cyber-stalk me and learn about me. It is quite another to publicly publish my identity against my wishes. That takes a purposely callous, unethical, and immoral person, particularly when they'll probably reveal it in the middle of a bunch of ad hominem and defamation [as would be the case, say, on Mr. Rogue's blog] that will be vacuumed up and served up for YEARS in Google-style background checks the next time I (or my wife) search for employment to support our family.
At this point, I know that Mr. Rogue is twitching: "You effing hypocrite, as if calling me a liar, cheat, and weasel isn't the same thing what with my real name exposed!" I maintain that it isn't, because Mr. Rogue substantiated such assessments via his actions. Mr. Rogue could have apologized, corrected the record, and modified his behavior. (He didn't, and then after running down the clock would repeat the same flagged statements.) Plus, I didn't out Mr. Rogue (or his mother), or any of their contact information. [Cyber-stalking Mr. Rogue for-free doesn't reveal much -- if his name is believed --, except that his long history of 9/11 activism on the internet ain't nearly as long as he boasts.] More importantly, being in retirement, Mr. Rogue isn't looking for work where his online activities would be a concern. And Mr. Rogue says he doesn't give a fuck what other people think of him anyway.
Be that as it may:
Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.
I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can't hide behind the "I didn't say that" that anonymous blog commenters can. So I don't think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ...
Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don't care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn't be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.
~alaskanlibrarian
Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing
Here's a story to help misguided Mr. Rogue see the error in his ways. One of the churches I attend prints out each Sunday a program with an inspiring quote on the cover. The poem of a 12 year-old (from 1998) about truth graced that program in 2012 (?) when its author's mother was the featured Sunday speaker. I felt the poem worthy enough to enter into my home-grown database of quotable quotes that my home-grown web coding randomly serves up to my blog and website.
The author (F.R.) is neither me, nor my offspring. Don't take my word for it. Were Mr. Rogue to send that name to Mr. McKee, Mr. McKee has my permission to give it a "yeah" or "nay" just so an innocent isn't smeared.
So when Mr. Rogue wrote:
Silence is Golden. Let it remain so…
Let this apply to Mr. Rogue in the damage that his selfishness wants to inflict on an unsuspecting innocent, as well as on me.
Let this apply to Mr. Rogue in any response that he is tempted to make to anything I post on any subject. I have lost my tolerance and patience for Mr. Rogue's sociopathic ways-and-means that makes him unpleasant to be around. And it really isn't Mr. Rogue's job to respond, anyway. He should STFU.
This is checkmate for both Mr. Rogue personally, and his preposterous fantasies to having debunked 9/11 having nuclear components.
And so it goes...
//
x62 hybridrogue1 : let's not be coy
2014-05-14
hybridrogue1
May 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm
I suppose the term "plausible deniability" could very well apply here.
The story is indeed 'plausible' — and yet the profile is so extraordinarily similar, that I have deep doubts as to it's truth.
As far as how "public" the outing – that is rather slim as to the size of the readership that attends my blog, that is aside from the fact that Seenyor so constantly promotes attendance to it by comments such as the one above.
Seenyor has the option to simply deny up front that he is the person I suspect he is. And that person remains anonymous on this blog at this time.
So let's not be coy Mr Once. A flat out denial would serve the so framed "innocent party" well at this time.
Your move honcho.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 13, 2014 at 11:22 pm
"WTF? Mr. Rogue seems to be addressing me"~Señor
Seenyor is simply a phonetic spelling of Señor. So what does he mean, "seems to be"? It is certainly much more obvious than the issue we both dance around at this time.
I prefer to dispense with constantly needing to seek out the "ñ" in the name in order to address things the still yet anonymous entity.
No I am not looking for a job. I don't gather that the entity is looking for one either. My concern is still that I am being slurred and defamed by someone who is hiding in the shadows as an unknown entity, while my name is public knowledge here and on every blog I attend to with any regularity.
Whatever insults this entity has to suffer do not touch his real person at all.
This makes a very uneven playing field here – and I have to doubt that the entity would be so bold with his spurious allegations were he the public person that I am. This is a simple concept that should be readily obvious to anyone attending this back and forth.
I really have no interest in who this person is. My interest rests entirely on the retention of my good name. The entity seems to pretend such concern for someone he has only heard about from some inspirational speaker. Yet he does so with such a passion as to belie this tale.
Now he frames this as some sort of continuity, as if he has proven in anyway that I am a "liar, a cheat, and a weasel" – and he HAS NOT. He can not, because he is the one who lied about the nonexistent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK. And this has been gone over in such detail here and elsewhere that is is utterly astonishing the entity still tries to play this same scurrilous canard.
So now, the anonymous entity is a liar. But the real person behind the mask is untouched by this fact – THAT is what bothers me.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 14, 2014 at 12:29 am
Now, let Señor el Once pause for a moment and ask himself why and how this conversation began on this thread in the first place.
The entity had nothing much more to say here besides his usual token nod to Mr McKee for a job well done. Other than this he wasn't involved in any of the discussions any further. That is until he found the slightest excuse to go on the attack again, by defending the once resident Nazi here, Mr Dean.
This is how it always goes, thread by thread here; a toe in the door and a blast of defamation attended by his rocking horse topic. Every single goddamned thread.
The entity has made very clear his intent to "discredit Mr Rogue in the eyes of the readership" And "When my hobby-horse comes prancing into view, I want Mr. Rogue locked in the smelly barn of his blog biting his tongue."
It is obvious by the very words spewed onto this thread and many previous ones that the entity has one major goal here, to discredit me, to slur and defame. His rocking-horse business even takes a back seat to this agenda. And it is equally as obvious that all of this revolves around his initial lying PR regarding the Wood BOOK, and his revisionist version of the actual history of how I came to finally accept a copy of said book, and my subsequent discovery that there was no substantial difference between the information in the printed work than what had been on the Wood website.
At some point this anonymous entity's hysteria over this affair has got to peak and flame out in some spontaneous combustion, because the readership of this blog is going to grow as sick of it as I am.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 14, 2014 at 1:48 am
As per my assertions above I refer to my comment above of MAY 6, 2014 AT 11:01 AM:
Particularly the second section:
'Wood's BOOK v Wood's website according to the Señor entity' – where in the entity's own words he admits that there is no substantial difference between the website and the book.
However many times this needs to be reiterated and pointed out it will be.
\\][//
x64 Señor El Once : some sort of continuity of lying, cheating, and weaseling
Mr. Rogue wrote:
Now [SEO] frames this as some sort of continuity, as if he has proven in anyway that I am a "liar, a cheat, and a weasel" – and he HAS NOT.
Ho-hum. Did, too, liar! And I'll do it again right from Mr. Rogue's volley of four (4) responses. In the same posting, Mr. Rogue wrote:
I really have no interest in who this person [SEO] is.
I flag the sentence above as being a lie, because it is contradicted by Mr. Rogue's cyber-stalking and sociopathic desire to "get (more) even."
My interest rests entirely on the retention of my good name.
It is a yet-to-be validated assumption that Mr. Rogue ever had a good name. The more Mr. Rogue comes unhinged on his blog with misogynistic rants, the less likely it ever was since even before his last divorce.
Were Mr. Rogue concerned about the retention of his good name, he wouldn't be so gung-ho to fall in the trap of smearing anyone else, let alone an innocent, uninvolved party.
Thus, I flag Mr. Rogue's sentence above as a lie, too.
My concern is still that I am being slurred and defamed by someone who is hiding in the shadows as an unknown entity, while my name is public knowledge here and on every blog I attend to with any regularity.
Mr. Rogue's concern is unfounded as he frames it, because it isn't defamation when it's true. My anonymity has nothing to do with the substantiated instances of Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and a weasel. It is a bit of cheat to frame it in this manner.
Plus, Mr. Rogue's cavalier attitude toward mixing his pen-name with his real-name doesn't have to equate to others. If Mr. Rogue were truly concerned about the reputation of his name brand, he would have been more attentive to not demonstrating repeatedly the very actions of which he is accused.
Mr. Rogue writes:
[SEO] can not [prove that I am a "liar, a cheat, and a weasel"], because he is the one who lied about the nonexistent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK.
What sort of a weaseling, cheating straw-man is this? El-oh-el.
The agreement on which Mr. Rogue weaseled was a good-bad-ugly review of Dr. Wood's book. It doesn't matter whether the book came before or after the movie; it doesn't matter whether the book came before or after the website; it doesn't matter whether the book was a complete subset of the website or completely unique from the website. A book review is a book review.
An ironic point is that Mr. Rogue made claims (a) that others have analyzed and debunked Dr. Wood's website in total and (b) that Mr. Rogue himself had done so personally himself. Gee, if I supposedly "lied about the nonexistent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK," then Mr. Rogue could have nipped this in the bud two years ago by copy-and-pasting from (a) and/or (b) into his highly anticipated book review and been done.
Except for the glitch that (a) and (b) were both lies. Except for the glitch that this "nonexistent difference" strawman argument is a relatively new weasel move.
Here's where the ghost of Mr. Rogue's physicially destroyed copy of Dr. Wood's textbook gives its destroyer, Mr. Rogue, a gushing nose-bleed (figuratively) as well as the path to Mr. Rogue's redemption.
If we give unmerited leeway to Mr. Rogue's lying assertion of "non-existent difference between the substance of the Wood website and the BOOK," then an objective, web-page by web-page, good-bad-ugly review of Dr. Wood's website would erase the claim of Mr. Rogue continuing to be a weasel on the objective review of Dr. Wood's work.
As with before, Mr. Rogue is under no obligation to find "bad" or "ugly" on any webpage, but owing to copious amounts of truth being a requirement for all disinformation vehicles, Mr. Rogue is under obligation to find "good" which means acknowledging and rescuing nuggets of truth.
Moreover, Dr. Wood's work was never held up as the 9/11 end-all-cure-all. It has consistently been promoted as an objectivity test to get acknowledgment of anomalous 9/11 evidence and outcomes that need to be explained properly.
If Mr. Rogue wants redemption for his tattered reputation, he is expected to approach Dr. Wood's website from the perspective of the very real possibility of late-3rd-generation or early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear weapons [PDF] and their applicability to 9/11, whereby Dr. Wood has collected a nice set of evidence.
Whatever insults this entity has to suffer do not touch his real person at all. This makes a very uneven playing field here...
Oh, I get it. Rather than rectifying the specific bad behavior that legitimately and truthfully labels Mr. Rogue "a liar, a cheat, and a weasel", immoral Mr. Rogue would rather pursue his reckless path of outing the person behind a pen-name so that he can "even up the playing field".
Mr. Rogue doesn't have a job to lose and will never be looking for a job ever again. [Not married with a working spouse. No kids.] He doesn't give a fuck what people think about him.
Mr. Rogue under-estimates the power of Google to index his defamation filled blog to give via Google-style back-ground checks "ever-lasting punishment" to those he outs unethically and smears. A lot can happen on my employment front in the years between now and the earliest I can start withdrawaling from an IRA without penalty.
Mr. Rogue made a challenge at 10:51 pm:
Seenyor has the option to simply deny up front that he is the person I suspect he is. ... So let's not be coy Mr Once. A flat out denial would serve the so framed 'innocent party" well at this time.
That option was taken way up front and over five hours prior to this. Mr. Rogue isn't being coy. He's being stupid.
And if phonetic Mr. Rogue is too technology-challenged to copy-and-paste "Señor El Once", he could type "Sr. El Once" or "Mr. El Once" and avoid the dreaded "ñ" altogether.
//
x65 hybridrogue1 : new epic twaddle
2014-05-14
hybridrogue1
May 14, 2014 at 8:11 pm
"If Mr. Rogue wants redemption for his tattered reputation.."~Señor
Among verbose explosion of the new epic twaddle from the anonymous entity posing as Señor El Once is found this preposterous assertion. As my reputation is "tattered" only within the delusional confines of this entity's fevered imagination, I can only say that his continued harangue centered on the BOOK is a matter long extinguished by the facts.
If Seenyor is unacceptable for this crazed lunatic, then 'crazed lunatic' will be a perfectly acceptable stand-in for me.
I should think this bullshit has gone far enough on this thread. The crazed lunatic can hold any deluded and scrambled brained opinions he wishes, and rock himself to sleep on his little rocking horse, the mighty steed, El Nookiedoodoo
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 14, 2014 at 8:26 pm
–"Mr. Rogue under-estimates the power of Google to index his defamation filled blog to give via Google-style back-ground checks "ever-lasting punishment" to those he outs unethically and smears. A lot can happen on my employment front in the years between now and the earliest I can start withdrawaling from an IRA without penalty."~The Crazed Lunatic
Aww, the thought of it just breaks my heart…
However as this penalty the lunatic posits would only be viable if he were indeed the poor 'outed' individual he claims not to be — or so it would SEEM, sans an actual up front denial – which I note still does not accompany his epic rant above.
So..which is it you raving lunatic?
\\][//
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.
\\][//
x66 Señor El Once : The Bat-Shit Crazy Conspiracy Alternative Guide to The National September 11 Memorial and Museum
Let's build on a quote from a participant:
"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 (February 2012)
The game plan can be summed up as: "Parallelism."
You use the structure of their documentation, their museum maps, their museum guides, their museum exhibit (artifacts, images, text), their websites, their lessons plans, etc. to create the one-to-one, parallel, conspiracy alternative documentation suite. With talent and time, one could even mimic the look-and-feel down to the layout, colors, and fonts.
If I were doing this project, I would quote their text verbatim, include museum images, and follow it immediately with a deconstruction (maybe in different color and/or font) of the dissembling that just took place. I would have one-to-one correlations between exhibit items, their museum map location, and the alternative explanation. It would be great if assistants could methodically tour through the museum taking copious amounts of pictures, the better of which make it to this project and get correlated to map positions and section(s)/page(s) for relevant deconstruction. It would not limit itself to any concensus "best-evidence"; if some evidence has multiple, viable, alternative theories, they will be presented fairly and objectively. [I ain't working on this without my nookiedoo hobby-horse.] Maybe even our own Mr. Rogue would author one of the appendices on propaganda techniques and how they were at play.
Could be a single monolithic project ("The Bat-Shit Crazy Conspiracy Alternative Guide to The National September 11 Memorial and Museum") that then can be spun into smaller derivative projects (brochures, maps, pocket-guides). I'd also go for high-quality, color printing to make it a real keep-sake for tourists to purchase or for free (or at costs) from a street-vendor/protester before entering the museum.
Wishful thinking would be to ask nicely the museum and/or museum PR firm for the source media files for all of their promotional material and actually receive them, given that the museum is publicly funded and subject to freedom of information and fair-use realm ("for the purposes of critique or commentary" or "satire is protected free-speech" so not copyright infringement.)
Success will be measured by when the museum gift department makes copies of "The Bat-Shit Crazy Conspiracy Alternative Guide to The National September 11 Memorial and Museum" available for sale and it becomes their best-seller.
//
https://www.facebook.com/911memorial
https://www.911memorial.org/lesson-plans
x67 Señor El Once : revolution to junk the heap
Mr. Hufferd's analogy of water in the gas-lines of a vehicle when referring to the US government was somewhat appropriate, I think. However, Mr. Rogue was correct in pointing out that the rust, corrosion, and corruption ran deeper. As such, Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff -- being products of Amerikana-throw-away-society -- advocate revolution to junk the heap.
The Helegian problem with this is that it leaves a purposeful and deliberate void into which -- drum roll please -- the corporate/banking/MIC NWO steps into.
No, the US government needs to be looked at as, say, a 1966 Ford Mustang Fastback rusted and full of rodents in someone's drafty shed. Even if we were to agree that not many of the original moving parts are worthy of saving -- NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. --, even if we say that body damage is too extensive to various panels and must be replaced rather than re-worked -- members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches --, the Mustang form ideal of what the car was or could be are worthy of tireless restoration, even if the "muscle" under the hood is replaced with Tesla coils.
Benjamin Franklin was asked
"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?" His reply was: "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Thomas Jefferson:
"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
The task is laid out before us.
//
x68 Señor El Once : those who aspire to be King of the Mountain set up themselves to be knocked down
The following sentence from misogynistic Mr. Rogue sums him up quite well:
Personally I have become fed up with the screwball shit I am getting from Hufferd and his new sidekick the lying slandering Seenyor, the twatfaced boy from Colorado.
Assuming that "Seenyor" references me, if Mr. Rogue were "fed up", he would cease and desist. Don't feed the trolls. His continued participation here contradicts the sentiment of being "fed up." Burn.
"Slander" is spoken. "Libel" is written. Having never conversed verbally with or around Mr. Rogue my opinion of his character, Mr. Rogue's "slander" games are on the same untruthful grounds as "fed up." Burn.
And were Mr. Rogue to shift his game tactics to charge me with "libel," he is reminded that it depends on false information. If the information isn't false and is in fact substantiated as being true, then it isn't defamation (slander or libel) regardless of the dings to his reputation. Burn.
What have I supposedly lied about? According to Mr. Rogue, my lie probably was pointing out the instances of Mr. Rogue supposedly lying. Before calling anyone a liar, I document why their statements are untruthful. This would then make it easier for Mr. Rogue to come clean, either by substantiating why his statements are truthful instead of being blatantly untruthful, or by acknowledging the apparent disconnect and clearing it up. But no. Mr. Rogue all too often takes that opportunity to pathologically weave more of the same tangled web.
Since Seenyor only makes commentary on TS anymore other than to make his scurrilous attacks against me, ...
Assuming again that "Seenyor" references me, I have commentary that doesn't mention Mr. Rogue. Readers already know how to tag the relative truthfulness of Mr. Rogue's remarks. Burn.
With reference to Mr. Rogue's extensive posting count, those who aspire to be King of the Mountain set up themselves to be knocked down.
... we shall now dispense with my arguing the facts and making prescient points, and turn to the flame that this son-of-a-bitch wants to throw.
Mr. Rogue copied-and-pasted those "prescient points" that were authored by others and aren't argued that well by Mr. Rogue on his own. Flame wars, on the other hand, are Mr. Rogue's specialty. Although they aren't in vogue on T&S, Mr. Rogue is encouraged to go that route so that he arrives much quicker at "flame-out," "burn-out," "getting kicked out."
There is no use offering a sane argument to such a vile unprincipled creature as the entity calling itself Seenyor.
Assuming again that "Seenyor" references me, let us dissect the pathological lies that permeate just this one sentence.
"Sane argument" for Mr. Rogue in the past has meant side-stepping with great fan-fare and skulduggery the opportunity to legitimately read and analyze reference material.
"Sane argument" for Mr. Rogue in the past has meant finding creative names to call his opponent -- "twatfaced boy" above --, rather than the more fruitful endeavors of objective analysis on one extreme or "not engaging" on the other.
I am vastly more principled than Mr. Rogue on all levels -- within my family, within my community, within my work, within my hobbies real-world and on-line -- and consistently demonstrate such principles. He knows this, too. Truth is such a formidable opponent, and that is what makes it so "vile" to an "unprincipled creature" of Mr. Rogue's branding when he comes into the cross-hairs.
Do the initials F.R. ring a bell for Mr. Rogue? Unprincipled Mr. Rogue is |<--this-->| far from revealing the real name behind them under the misguided belief that this will somehow balance the taint to his reputation colored by his own words and actions.
It doesn't matter whether F.R. are my initials, that of a relative, or not related to me in the slightest. "Vile, unprincipled" Mr. Rogue has other aspirations for them in his supposed "sane arguments" that would have nothing to do with the discussion but has everything to do with integrity and principles.
Foreshadowing my debate strategies because I am principled, I drop the phrases "honey-pot" and "fouling out." Honey-pot applies to the real names that are me, but more especially to the real names (F.R.) of real people who aren't. Fouling out applies to the consequences of Mr. Rogue's flaming (out) actions, whether or not his outing attempts hit pay-dirt.
No skin off my nose.
I no longer have problems pushing Mr. Rogue's buttons. I want him caught in the honey-pot and fouling out. Why? I'm fed up. I've already attempted two years plus "sane discussions" with Mr. Rogue, and he can't even bring himself to get onto the same literal page to voice an agreement or disagreement with specifics. He'd rather rip up a book rather than legimitately review it. He copies-and-pastes too much from others, and gets burned by failing to understand it so he can be defended.
Applicable definitions of Discredit to Mr. Rogue in T&S:
- to cause (someone or something) to seem dishonest or untrue
- to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
- loss of credit or reputation
- lack or loss of belief or confidence
//
x69 hybridrogue1 : Mere vulgar abuse
Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation.
Law of defamation – SlideShare
http://www.slideshare.net/33534894/law-of-defamation-15972472
Jan 13, 2013 · What is Vulgar Abuse?It has been pointed out by lawyers that many otherwise slanderous statements may be dismissed by the court as mere vulgar abuse.
\\][//
x70 Señor El Once : "vulgar abuse" contradicts the serious
Mr. Rogue posts a dull link as an attempt to justify lamely his own bad behavior (e.g., insulting, inflamatory language both here and his blog) and to claim his usage isn't defamatory.
Looks a bit like a "weasel" move in my book.
Although "otherwise slanderous statements may be dismissed by the court as mere vulgar abuse," Mr. Rogue misses the key point that "slanderous statements" aren't the issue; "libelous statements" are. More time and effort must be exerted to get such "vulgar abuse" published, so it's a bit different than Mr. Rogue running-off at-the-mouth for his birds' edification.
More contemplative time in authoring and editing before publishing might result in honed work that isn't vulgar. For when "haste makes waste" in his postings, control of the publishing media together with cooling-off time might lead a vulgar author to revisit and edit his works for the reputation-, respect-, and trust-damaging offerings.
Mr. Rogue seems to be saying, his words are "not intended to be taken literally or believed." If his intentions were serious, he wouldn't have inserted such "vulgar abuse" that contradicts this. And talk about taking away from the seriousness of other points his work might attempt!!
Turning the tables, my words are intended to be taken literally and believed, but I have no problems with being fact-checked. If in error, I'll mend my ways. Mr. Rogue does have a problem with fact-checking, because that's always what does-in his reputation.
When I call Mr. Rogue "a liar, a cheat, and a weasel", I am not issuing idle, "vulgar abuse." No, these were the character traits that Mr. Rogue demonstrated by his own actions, in his own words, substantiated with accurate quotes and reference links: fact checked.
Mr. Rogue also seems to be saying that his "vulgar abuse" (here and elsewhere) is not "likely to cause real damage to a reputation." What does Mr. Rogue know? And is this even an honest statement?
I couldn't imagine being so afraid of being who I actually am as a public person ...
Mr. Rogue's "failure of imagination" doesn't set the standards for the internet or best-practices.
Mr. Rogue's retirement from gainful employment seems to give him extra courage on the public internet, while fueling his failed imagination about potential damage to others.
[SEO] better hope I never find out who he really is – This blog will turn into LA Confidential and tell all.
The above, dishonest, unethical, admitted intentions of Mr. Rogue are sufficient, valid reason for exhibiting more prudence online. Mr. Rogue is untrustworthy with personal information. When sociopath Mr. Rogue in debate is beaten back, cornered, or proven wrong, he will reach for irrelevant personal data and leverage it for whatever he can. Win by cheating is still a win in his books.
I fully expect Mr. Rogue to continue to sniff my ass and around the honey-pot that is my real identity. When sticky honey finally spills onto his keyboard, he may yet discover the similar efforts of his predecessors in this regard that justify the very coy anonymity that he abhors. Perchance he will learn this in time to avoid repeating their errors and "fouling out" with a red-card.
Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue continues to discredit himself, causing all readers to disbelieve the accuracy and authority of Mr. Rogue. Bravo. Let the loss of confidence be complete before "nookiedoo" gets invited back for a romp.
//
x71 hybridrogue1 : does not seriously contend that someone is literally whatever term used
2014-05-29
2014-05-29
The covert entity, who has read a fuller explanation on my blog knows full well that I am referring to my use of colloquial slang in my descriptive "name calling" when I mention the term "vulgar abuse" – which as defined is NOT defamation.
On the entity's website there is a very good collection of my INSULTS.
There the entity asks this question:
–"Can they be substantiated or do they fit as defamation?"~Bridges
The anonymous entity obviously cannot, or is not willing to make the distinction between purposeful insult, using common street slang that does not seriously contend that someone is literally whatever term used. For example "motherfucker"; no sane individual would think that a person calling another a 'motherfucker' is actually accusing that other person of having sex with his mother.
However the use of the terms; "liar," "cheat," "weasel," and "agent" are in no way restrained when the fact is that these are charges meant seriously. As it is the entity has attempted to seriously convince the readership that I have lied, that I have cheated, and have weaseled out of a deal. As Bridges seriously attempted to frame me as an agent by accusing me of using a 'sock puppet', we shall still use that term as one of his serious charges, although he seems to recant on this more recently.
The entity boldly claims 'substantiation', he makes very clear that he is seriously accusing me of lying, and that he can prove it. However, he has made no proofs, but instead weaves twisted tales from a subjective perspective that prove nothing other than it is Bridges himself who is lying – in a vicious and serious manner to defame me and convince others of his lies.
That making such charges are in a substantially different category than calling someone names using common street slang should be obvious. It is the serious intent to convince that makes Bridges' arguments defamation.
It is obvious that I am certainly not seriously contending that Bridges fucks his mother, or that he was born out of wedlock, or that his mother was a canine… or any of the other clearly colloquial insults I have used.
But. Since Bridges has been making these serious charges – I do indeed make the counter charge that he is the one who is a liar.
His first lies were in his trying to convince me to take a copy of the Judy Wood book, saying I could not fairly judge her work from the information on her web site. This is a bald faced lie, and it is false advertising, and it is even admitted in so many words by Bridges himself, in that he cannot name one substantial difference between the information and the book and what is on the website.
His contention that the legend identifying the buildings that were damaged in the area is "worth the price" on it's own is utter tripe and nonsense. And that is the only benefit having the physical book holds, even according to the anonymous entity.
And I should think it clear after all of this water under the bridge, the real reason this entity is so desperate to remain anonymous. And that is because he is bound to be revealed for the slinking lying shyster that he is. But this will have no bearing nor effect on the real person guilty of this vicious charade, as long as he can remain in the shadows behind the masks he wears on the Internet.
"El-oh-el" indeed.
But further, the fact that my insults are not meant to be taken literally, as explained above – for the entity to now try to intimate that I don't mean anything else I say to be taken literally and seriously is just another one of his spurious rhetorical spin jives. Every argument we have gotten from this covert operator is a collection of such spin and spurious verbosity.
Just as he has attempted to turn the information on Vulgar Abuse to meet his villainous needs, all else that comes from this liar is the same nonsense.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 29, 2014 at 6:48 pm
"Let the loss of confidence be complete before "nookiedoo" gets invited back for a romp."~Seenyor
This is a none too veiled admission that the entity is attempting to defame my character so that the "loss of confidence" will be complete. And as far as his romper room nookiedoodoo ever getting out of the gates on a pair of rockers is a highly dubious proposal in itself.
One thing about a psychopath is the "superficial charm", that is an obvious trait of the anonymous entity Seenyor. His whole style is wrapped up in this, as his always using the saccharine "Dear Mr So&So", as I have pointed out the charm of a snake in the grass.
He is also methodical and well organized, and presents himself to others as "the wholesome family man". He rarely uses 'cuss-words', and puts on an act of 'the vapors' at such language when it is used by others; his 'Nanny Act', as I have described and complained about so often.
His viciousness is veiled by this facade, but his intent is plain to see when one looks at the overall effect he achieves, his dead serious defamation, all put in sugary polite language.
As I said earlier, reading his blog, as well as his extremely verbose commentary on T&S, in his long diatribes against me; he is projecting his dark psychopathic personality onto me. It is his best defense, to point at someone else as being the personification of what he is himself.
He frames me as the mirror image of himself. He is also a copycat of my creative personality, he practices it. Anyone can see this in his sign-off logo: // , which is a takeoff on my, \\][//. Much of his commentary is taking what I have said, and turning it around, using the very same language but switching characters. He lacks creativity himself, but is good at mimicking it when he sees how it can draw power to himself. And this is one of the reasons that he has become obsessed with me and wants to destroy the original that he is trying to become.
Yes, 'Mad Max' has become more than the title of a movie.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-05-29
–"Mr. Rogue in this thread alone has purposely told at least ~five~ (5) lies with regards to my gender by calling me "Señora". Señor~MAY 6, 2014 AT 1:41 PM
Framing such a trivial thing as calling the entity "Señora" as a "lie", when it is obviously just a jibe, a slight, an insult; is such a weak argument for calling someone a liar, that any other accusations that I am a liar should be seen in the same context – that of grasping at straws. And when investigated, every single instance of the "lies" this entity has "proven" turn out to be the same tepid technique of 'making a mountain out of a molehill'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now here is the date/time stamp of Señor's veritable admission that there is virtually no substantial difference from the Wood's book and website. I have already deconstructed this. But as it is evidentiary, I want this recorded:
–"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
2013-05-29
Wood's BOOK v Wood's website according to the Señor entity:
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.
hybridrogue1
2013-05-29
Señor Maxitwat's is a COVERT OPERATION, in that he is an anonymous covert entity slinging barbs and slurs from behind his faceless gravitars.
To postulate that such a covert entity may indeed be a spook is certainly a reasonable assumption to make. It is the operator and his operation being covert that make it impossible to prove one way or the other.
Of course it is futile to demand that a covert character assassin come forward and identify himself. However, there may yet be a way to discover who this lying prick actually is. The longer this creature harasses me, the more effort I will put to making such a positive identification. I have some feelers out at the moment. Perhaps one of these will bear fruit.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
May 29, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Just as I had anticipated when Seenyor made his first inflammatory remarks to Mr Hufferd, he is now back with his agenda of character assassination. It took him some time to pump up all his colored balloons, while he was scouting out my HR1blog for ideas, but now he is back full steam on his endless carousel of bullshit and fartdancing.
Seenyor takes advantage of T&S to pursue his ugly agenda's having nothing to do with Truth and Shadows, other than the fact that I am in attendance here. This is selfish disregard for the rest of the readership here. I find it highly repugnant and repulsive as I am the main target here, but others should be insulted as well by this garbage game of loading up these threads with his own personal tripe.
\\][//
x72 Señor El Once : no place in a serious discussion
2014-06-01
{mcb: Even as version 2, this was never completed.}
++++++++++++++++++++
My one (1) post generates five (5) responses from Mr. Rogue inside of 46 minutes! Followed 27 minutes later by a sixth (6). On May 29th, the ratios were 7:1, seven postings from Mr. Rogue for a single one of mine. This is without counting the sociopathic, frothing threats made on his blog. Haste doth indeed maketh waste!
Mr. Rogue writes:
The anonymous entity [SEO] obviously cannot, or is not willing to make the distinction between purposeful insult, using common street slang that does not seriously contend that someone is literally whatever term used.
The weasel entity is making a false argument. Willingness or ability to make a distinction is not the issue. Applicability is the issue, whereby a "purposeful insult, using common street slang that does not seriously contend that someone is literally whatever term used", has no place in a serious discussion. Objective readers could classify such persistent usages of such as a deliberate attempt to derail serious contemplation/discussions.
However the use of the terms; "liar," "cheat," "weasel," and "agent" are in no way restrained when the fact is that these are charges meant seriously.
Mr. Rogue is wrong. While indeed the terms "liar," "cheat," and "weasel" are meant as serious charges, they are also restrained. By what? By the very evidence that substantiates them. Were there no evidence and no repeated demonstratrations by the liar himself, such charges would evaporate and would backfire.
As it is the entity has attempted to seriously convince the readership that I have lied, that I have cheated, and have weaseled out of a deal.
Substantiation from Mr. Rogue's repeated actions has convinced the readership that Mr. Rogue pathologically lies, cheats, and weasels.
As [SEO] seriously attempted to frame me as an agent by accusing me of using a 'sock puppet', we shall still use that term as one of his serious charges, although he seems to recant on this more recently.
There goes Mr. Rogue again, kicking dead horses with "agent" names. Was once seemingly the only logical conclusion to explain Mr. Rogue's lying, cheating, and weaseling. Now I suspect a sociopathic mental disorder.
As for my charges that Mr. Rogue uses sock-puppets, this is a different issue. Sock-puppetry is only cheating when used within the same discussion either as a false group support or as a deceitful tool to lead the discussion (astray) and give the non-sock-puppet a false victory.
As long as Mr. Rogue brings up sock-puppetry, I have reason to suspect that "veritable1/veritytwo" as well as "A.Wright" are online alter-egos of Mr. Rogue. If Mr. Rogue has one sociopathic mental defect, then likely he has others, like multiple-personality disorder and schizophrenia.
The entity boldly claims 'substantiation', he makes very clear that he is seriously accusing me of lying, and that he can prove it.
Mr. Rogue gets it correct above. I did prove it, and Mr. Rogue continually serves up fresh examples.
However, he has made no proofs, but instead weaves twisted tales from a subjective perspective that prove nothing other than it is [SEO] himself who is lying – in a vicious and serious manner to defame me and convince others of his lies.
Ooo, and then Mr. Rogue fumbles. The pathalogical lies, cheats, and weasels of Mr. Rogue aren't fleeting; they are persistent.
But. Since Bridges has been making these serious charges – I do indeed make the counter charge that he is the one who is a liar.
Ooo, copy-cat. Mr. Rogue needs to substantiate his charge with quotes and links. Otherwise, such verbiage can be painted truthfully as just another lie, cheat, and weasel.
His first lies were in his trying to convince me to take a copy of the Judy Wood book, saying I could not fairly judge her work from the information on her web site. This is a bald faced lie, and it is false advertising, and it is even admitted in so many words by Bridges himself, in that he cannot name one substantial difference between the information and the book and what is on the website.
Brilliant lying and cheating from the master weasel.
It was never a case of whether or not Dr. Wood's work could be judged from her web site. The true context is that Mr. Rogue wasn't doing that! He wasn't visiting her web site 1st-hand and sifting truth from error, page-by-page; he was closed minded to locating any valid nuggets of truth. Mr. Rogue's reviews amounted to 2nd- and 3rd-hand, hearsay, perjorative assessments that themselves were never full and complete. Upon reflection, copying-and-pasting cherry-picked quotations from Dr. Greg Jenkins was the pinnacle of Mr. Rogue's debunking efforts of Dr. Wood, which is pretty sad given that Dr. Jenkins work has issues, too.
Mr. Rogue was not being objective or scholarly. He was the biggest detractor from Dr. Wood, yet he couldn't be bothered to fairly evaluate any of her web pages for good, bad, and ugly.
So I fucking called Mr. Rogue's bluff. He wasn't about to plunk down $45 to acquire a book that he deemed "disinformation" from 3rd-hand sources. So after almost half of year of Mr. Rogue arguing from his strong-hold of ignorance, I finally offered him a copy with conditions and consequences if it fell into default (as I had publicly done with others):
- You will give Dr. Wood's textbook an objective and thorough [cover-to-cover] reading.
- You will share your good, bad, and ugly reviews. If the "good" is missing, I clobber you with your own copy.
- If pressed in debate (e.g., on Truth & Shadows), the good, bad, and ugly reviews will extend down to the chapter level. Again, if the good is missing, I clobber you.
- If the book is found worthy, you are to pay-it-forward (or loan/give your copy) to someone else influential in the 9/11 discussion (or leadership).
- If the book is found totally unworthy at the end of your reading, then you should probably give it to someone who will appreciate it.
"False advertising!!?" El-oh-el. A book review is a book review and does not depend on being uniquely different from a website. Nowhere in the conditions or the run-up is any dependence on a book being unique from a website. This lame-brain argument doesn't even come to Mr. Rogue until he's churned through half a year ~not~ reading it, ~not~ writing down what is wrong with it, and in general ~not~ doing anything productive to debunk it.
The book was a test of objectivity right from the very beginning, which Mr. Rogue failed in a spectacular fashion. The whole purpose of the book was to get participants in the discussion onto the same, literal page so that they wouldn't be arguing from ignorance.
x73 hybridrogue1, Emmanuel Goldstein, & A.Wright : the U S Department of Defense is affiliated with AE911truth
2014-06-03
{Starts with some research.}
http://davis911truth.org/911-conspiracy/architects-and-engineers/
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon.html
The group stalks Judy Wood online, so that they can mount a defense to any of her appearances or videos. Shutting up Judy Wood is an obsession of theirs.They also carefully censor their own videos online, to make sure that there are no negative comments about them, or any alternate theories.
One of the board members, Justin Keogh, purchased 9/11 Blogger, and subsequently banned all discussions about the pentagon on the site. After he took ownership, it was heavily moderated for the purpose of censoring alternative theories, and singularly promoting AE911truth.org
We were supposed to manage security as the organization's techs, but they kept trying to put people on our technical team who were either incompetent or obviously governmental agents. It was a constant fight to prevent new people from having access to the private data. It was as if they wanted to share the information with anybody and everybody. The private information was about every individual who had signed AE911Truth's petition, donated, or volunteered. It included full names, addresses, schools, degrees, contact information, statements regarding each individual's views on 9/11, and statements about their level of interest in helping "the cause". Sometimes, more information would be extracted about people by calling them to ask private questions, the answers to which would then be added to the data. A governmental spying treasure trove was created.
In private calls, Justin Keogh repeatedly encouraged us to bilk money out of the organization by making claims about what is "normal" in the tech industry. We persistently refused. Eventually, he turned on us. After refusing to bilk the organization or allow spies into the database, Justin locked us out of our own server. When we tried to institute countermeasures, Richard ordered us to stand down, and he let us know that Justin essentially ran the organization. This is something that we found rather interesting, since this was the same person who was trying to coax us into stealing from the charity that he supposedly ran. Ironically, we were then forced out of the organization as if we were criminals.
+++++++
Emmanuel Goldstein
June 2, 2014 at 12:54 pm
I have researched AE911truth tax returns and the following confirms my findings. How interesting that the U S Department of Defense is affiliated with AE911truth.
THE SHAKY MORAL FOUNDATION THAT AE911TRUTH IS BUILT UPON
We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything; including the stuff that nobody was supposed to see.
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon.html
FIELD INTERFERENCE 013 AE911TRUTH: A FAILURE BY DESIGN
Thomas and Sarah Corriher of http://healthwyze.org are on the show to discuss their experiences as tech workers for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They found themselves the targets of a "cult shunning" when they questioned the goals of the organization, and left their tech position in disgust
If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best "scientific forensic evidence", only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.
Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 "research", including the unscientific '9/11 Commission Report'. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.
hybridrogue1
June 2, 2014 at 5:54 pm
"This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make."
~Emmanuel Goldstein
This is balderdash Goldstein, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Wood's loopy ideas, whereas ALL of the evidence points to controlled chemical explosive demolition.
See this report:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 2, 2014 at 6:18 pm
Goldstein,
I just read the hit piece by by Sarah C. Corriher at the URL given in your commentary. It is first of all, Islamophobic bullshit. Second of all it is all a bunch of slurs with ZERO to back it up.
I encourage all here to give a read, and deconstruct this junk attack as I have.
There is a precedent to this type of character assassination by Wood and her supporters that go all the way back to the Morgan Reynolds – Judy Wood hit pieces on Professor Steven Jones that accused him of having a part in debunking the Ponds Fleichman cold fusion fraud – and yes theirs was a fraud, but one outed by the entirety of the nuclear physics community, not Jones.
It seems Judy Wood launched her career by attacking others, and continues attempting to bring attention to herself by attacking others.
Her 'DEW' proposition is a scientific fraud, and her PR is unprincipled defamation, all part of her 'black arts' voodoo bullshit.
\\][//
fremo
June 2, 2014 at 8:02 pm
Emanuel Goldstein reads like a knife thru the ribs.
Here we stumble along forensic paths and roads smothered 16? deep in ppm unignited thermitic chip laden DUST, past the molten steel flowing 'like lava in a volcano', molten pours from steel towers, air heavy with elemental sulfur and 6%Fe spheroids burning lungs and paint off cars; the sound of explosive sequences recorded and witnessed boom boom boom boom (count me down Emanuel) BOOM -before, and during, and after plane strike -blasts dissolving history and thought alongside 11stories per second of complex steel framed high rises in free fall: radial arcs of stripped bare high grade builders steel fragments shot 600?..into barges for China.
those survivors left able, staggering past the OCT or creatioNIST narrative into the light of evidence absolutely up and running of conventional but extremely sophisticated incendiary/explosive demolition——–only to find mr.Goldstein…Biblical in exhortation of technologies and weapons acting BEHIND the conspiracy already complex enough by virtue of its "new phenomenon" "thermal expansion" agnotology designed to look EXACTLY in evidence like controlled demolition—–tough enough to prove THAT in a world of bent judicial/administrative procedure employing professional LIARS up to the Presidential levels determined to control it….hard enough for THAT truth to be argued in itself.,
ONLY TO FIND these clever archangels of death employing even FURTHER deceptions behind THAT, dressed beyond complexity to another, deeper, cause and effect.
It's all in the timing.
hybridrogue1
June 2, 2014 at 8:55 pm
"ONLY TO FIND these clever archangels of death employing even FURTHER deceptions behind THAT, dressed beyond complexity to another, deeper, cause and effect. It's all in the timing."~Fremo
Yes, it is a two front war, the first front against the 'official' bullshit story, and a second front against the well funded 'crackpot' disinfo stories.
It is tiresome to have to fight a rearguard action on top of attempting to gain ground against the MSM lollipop machine. There is a continuity obvious in the 'No Planes' 'Video Fakery' 'DEW' and 'Nuclear' bunghole spewing anal hurlant that has the same sort of stench as each.
I have just added the actual history of the 'The Pons and Fleischmann — Jones, Cold Fusion Affair' to the article:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/#comment-1647
\\][//
Emmanuel Goldstein
June 2, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Remember how the tobacco industry ridiculed the scientific correlation of tobacco and cancer? Remember how the petroleum industry ridiculed the scientific correlation of the health consequences of tetraethyl lead in gasoline? Remember how the NFL ridiculed the scientific correlation of football-inflicted head injuries and irreversible brain damage? Remember when the asbestos companies ridiculed the scientific correlation of asbestos and lung cancer? Ask yourself, what business interests would benefit from ridiculing the scientific correlation of the WTC destruction by DEW and free energy (off the grid)? I can guarantee you that it's not the thermite industry! LOL :)
HOW WASHINGTON AND ITS ALLIES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO TOPPLE GOVERNMENTS & MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION
In 2011 it came to light that the U.S. military had developed a 'sock puppet' software for creating and managing fake online identities. These sock puppet accounts were to be used to spread propaganda on social media sites, forums and blogs. The software which was described as an "online persona management service" allows one soldier to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world. When this program was exposed the U.S. government claimed that the program was never used on English speaking audiences. Considering that these are the same people who swore up and down that the NSA surveillance program never targeted U.S. citizens, we can take that with a grain of salt, but it's worth noting that they explicitly acknowledged in their statement that the program was intended for covert operations in foreign countries. BTW…Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden is alerting us to…
http://scgnews.com/how-washington-and-its-allies-use-social-media-to-topple-governments-manipulate-public-opinion
hybridrogue1
June 2, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Goldstein,
Your twaddle doesn't address anything that isn't already common knowledge about the fascist police state as far as the readership of this blog is concerned. All of this rhetorical balderdash is non sequitur and does not link to a valid assertion that the DEW proposition has merit.
Edward Snowden is a self proclaimed government spy who hasn't alerted us to anything we don't already know.
So who's the "sock puppet" on this page? Everybody here already knows my name. I know who Fremo is, Adam Ruff, Adam Syed, and most of the others.
There are only two entities here who I would suspect as agents provocateur, yourself and one other that needs no highlight at this juncture.
The fact of the matter is that Pons and Fleischmann did more harm to the quest for cold fusion than anyone else, except for perhaps Wood, with her screwy PR which taints the concept even further.
Another fact is that controlled demolition by chemical explosives has been proven beyond any doubt. To assert that any other mechanism could mimic all of the singular characteristics of controlled demolition is absurd on the face of it.
You Goldstein, have no case, and trying an end-run around the facts of the matter by bringing all this external rhetoric into play isn't going to get you to the goalpost.
\\][//
ruffadam
June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am
DEW's destroying the towers is debunked garbage. Funny (NOT) how these supposed truther bloggers just pop up from time to time and try to throw their debunked theories into the mix here in order to give the opposition an advantage. They can simply point to the DEW garbage and say "see how all these truthers are engaging in wild speculation based on whacky theories."
Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus. So to the corporate media whores out there who think they can equate the entire truth movement with these bogus red herring theories you had better think again. Some of us know that these theories and the ones who promote them are working for the same people who pulled off 9/11. We know they are attempting to undermine the real truth movement and their efforts are more and more transparent every day.
The fact is the truth movement has already won the information war and all the other side is doing now is trying to fight a delaying action to hold off their total defeat, capture and arrest, trial, and eventual punishment for treason. That includes the corporate media by the way who are guilty up to their eyeballs in covering up mass murder and treason. Your days are numbered. As to the so called truthers who continually attempt to derail us with nonsense like DEWs or Nukes your days are numbered as well. Your attempts to derail us are not working anymore and your Sunstein tactics don't work anymore. I reject you completely and totally and recognize you for what you are and for what you are doing and so do MANY others. You are DONE!
The three WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 were blown up with explosives. The pentagon crime scene was staged and the observed plane flew over the pentagon and away. The media and government are guilty of covering up these facts which makes them all traitors and guilty of treason. The truth has not been contained by ALL of their efforts and it is breaking out into the wider world and their time is running out. WE KNOW!
A.Wright
June 3, 2014 at 7:42 am
"The fact is the truth movement has already won the information war and all the other side is doing now is trying to fight a delaying action to hold off their total defeat, capture and arrest, trial, and eventual punishment for treason."
There is something missing there between trial and punishment .what is it ?….I just can't remember . it's probably nothing important. Oh yes , conviction. But wait a minute ..
" That includes the corporate media by the way who are guilty up to their eyeballs in covering up mass murder and treason." ,"The media and government are guilty of covering up these facts which makes them all traitors and guilty of treason. ".
I see, they were already pronounced guilty even before the capture and arrest bit so that explains it. It does save time.
"see how all these truthers are engaging in wild speculation based on whacky theories."
"The three WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 were blown up with explosives. The pentagon crime scene was staged and the observed plane flew over the pentagon and away."
I see what you mean.
hybridrogue1
June 3, 2014 at 8:21 am
"It's all in the timing."~Fremo
A very prescient point. We notice of course that right on the tail of Mr Goldstein's tale, the ever flatulent Mr Wright joins in right on cue.
His petulant pouting anal hurlant blubbering the bladder of his cheeky "concern for justice". One needn't even sit on this whoopy-cushion to get the frapping effect of the novelty toy.
"Conviction" – yes a term that has several definitions dependent on context.
At any rate an interesting juxtaposition of critic/enemies of AE911Truth – both ends of the spectrum in an obvious coordinated attack.
\\][//
A.Wright
June 3, 2014 at 9:14 am
My comment was actually right after Mr. Ruff's 'let's round up the guilty,and put them on trial' rant, followed right on cue by a 'twaddley- makey- uppy words pre-adolescent ' type comment by someone else.
hybridrogue1
June 3, 2014 at 9:47 am
So now we get the chunky style flatuals from Wright, sort of like phlegm con carni with GMO corn kernels. As appetizing and nutritious as hot dog flavored water.
\\][//
Emmanuel Goldstein
June 3, 2014 at 10:17 am
WELCOME TO SPOOKSVILLE
This post is for those involved in an ongoing self congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual, mutual masturbation fantasy of ongoing total and perpetual self-delusion and denial of the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable forensic evidence That Dr. Wood presents:
If Richard Gage has evidence of WTC destruction with the use of a welding material (thermite), then why hasn't he filed a court case like Dr. Wood did? Dr. Wood does not ask for donations. Why does Richard Gage ask for donations to his truth club? Where did Richard Gage come from? Dr. Wood has a long and verifiable history.
To put it simply, what happened to the buildings (mid-air dustification) is evidence that a technology exists that can do that to buildings. But that technology doesn't have to be used to do that to buildings but can instead be used for good purposes, like freeing people from the energy-control system by providing free energy to the world. So, the evidence of what happened on 9/11 is evidence that free-energy technology exists.
It might come as a surprise to the spooks that post here, but Dr. Wood does not present a theory in any way, shape, or form. Dr. Wood presents a forensic study. And, because she only presents evidence and an analysis of the evidence, her work cannot be refuted. This causes a lot of problems for those interested in covering up what happened. (transnational energy lobby)
Dr. Wood does show parallel evidence, such as an incandescent light and a fluorescent light in her book, to demonstrate the fact that although "hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot." This does not mean that Dr. Wood has "a lightbulb theory." Similarly, it does not mean that Dr. Wood has a Thomas Townsend Brown theory either. She also doesn't have a Leedskalnin theory, or a Tesla theory. And surely Tesla was not the first. John Hutchison replicated the work of Tesla. So, those that claim John Hutchison is a fraud would be claiming that Tesla was a fraud too.
Dr. Wood does not have a Tesla theory or a light bulb theory or any other kind of theory. You cannot solve a crime with a theory. Either you know something or you don't. You can't file a federal qui tam case based on a theory without being sanctioned (fined) for wasting the court's time. Dr. Wood filed such a case and was not fined by the court.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
But again, the easiest way to cover up evidence is to refer to it as "a theory." After all, why is there still a cover up of 9/11? The facts are known to those who want to know them. But most people would rather call these facts "a theory" and keep them covered up. Knowing that Dr. Wood does not have a theory, she doesn't have one to be wed to. In contrast, perhaps we should question Mr. Rowntree on why he is so wed to his theory that thermite destroyed all seven WTC buildings?
Occam's Razor is to minimize assumptions. Dr. Wood only looks at evidence and does not make assumptions. If there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion, Dr. Wood states this. But from the evidence, we can rule out Thermal Energy and Kinetic Energy as the destructive mechanism. And from the evidence, we can conclude that energy was instructed (directed) to do something differently so that the binding energy of matter was affected in a particular geographical region (directed).
The evidence that Dr. Wood presents rules out Thermal Energy as the destructive mechanism. So those who claim "Dr. Wood promotes laser beams from space" actually identify themselves as promoting disinformation. The buildings were not cooked to death nor beaten to death.
9/11. Finding the Truth. A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson. Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
hybridrogue1
June 3, 2014 at 12:20 pm
" Dr. Wood only looks at evidence and does not make assumptions." ~Goldstein
I have heard this bullshit too many times now to let it pass without comment.
The assumptions that Wood makes are as clear as the spin she puts on the evidence and the way it is presented. Her readers are coming away from her work with the very specific idea that a directed energy weapon was used to fell the towers on 9/11.
Who is she trying to kid that she makes no assumptions under these auspices? Who are you trying to kid Goldstein?
I'll tell you who you are trying to kid; the gullible and the naive, and the just plain stupid.
Wood claims to present no theories, but to simply offer the evidence. This is not so, and anyone who understands PR knows that it is the 'spin' and the 'slant' of a presentation that projects the bias of the presenter. The ways the issues are framed, reveals the assumptions held by the author/presenter. There would be no controversy about Judy Wood if she didn't have an obvious interpretation and opinion of what the evidence she shows means.
More to this is the fact that she makes the assertion that she makes no assertions, as if she truly believes this to be the case, and this can be said to be 'confirmation bias'.
My interpretation of the evidence, not just what is within the Wood presentation, but in all that I have been able to review in the past almost 13 years, is opposed to Wood's interpretation. I make that clear in what I have written here. And I assert that whether intentional or not, Wood presents disinformation with her interpretation. She dismissed the evidence that conclusively proves explosive demolition. She fails to address her critics in anyway whatsoever. When confronted by a qualified and knowledgeable critic, she begins to sputter and spew unintelligible nonsense. She refuses to see illustrations that are placed right before her eyes.
She even presents videos and images [on website and book] that taken together in a proper deductive manner belie her entire interpretation. There are many pictures and videos that she has addressed that show solid steel beams being blown out, that show squibs, and demolition waves rippling down the building ahead of the dust cloud. These are clear evidences of explosive charges going off.
It is this evidence that conclusively proves a controlled explosive demolition, that disproves the various alternative theories of the use of exotic weapons to destroy the WTC.
\\][//
x74 Señor El Once : Objectivity Test was administrated using Dr. Wood's book. Subject failed miserably.
Let it be known that I -- the T&S resident champion/troll on themes Dr. Wood, DEW, and nuclear devices -- did not bring any of these subjects up first. Moreover, I tastefully waited patiently to see if the discussion would wander by itself out of those weeds... weeds that my pet hobby-horse, the infamous "Neu Nookiedoo", loves to nibble on.
Mr. 911truthsea wrote:
DEW, thermite or nukes? Nukes fits the facts best.
The situation was not mutually exclusive. No harm in saying that "nano-thermite played a role in the destruction" as did the kitchen-sink that they threw at the entire WTC complex, but the evidence and supposed analysis that would make nano-thermite into being the primary mechanism of destruction is 9/11 Truth's sacred cow in need of being slaughtered. Nano-thermite cannot explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, the anomalous damage to vehicle along West Broadway and in the parking lot, etc.
Brief detour, I had a FB discussion with a supporter of "plain old ordinary DEW" [e.g., Dr. Wood] and could not seem to grasp what I meant by "nuclear DEW". My question to her was: "How do you power 'plain old ordinary DEW'?"
Don't let me rain on any parades regarding free-energy from space or hurricanes. But gee! Getting energy from nuclear sources is old hat to the MIC, and would be a nice alternative to keep available for the 9/11 psyops. And as luck would have it, fourth generation nuclear devices explain really well the evidence as well as the delays and omissions in investigative activities.
If Mr. Goldstein is still monitoring this discussion, he is encouraged to review the material and discuss.
Many 4th generation nuclear devices are derivatives from fusion and neutron devices. Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation is short-lived, dissipating withing 24-48 hours... which correlates well to why date-stamps on samples were after (sometimes by weeks) this dissipating period. Neutron radiation, if part of the process like to "release excessive excess energy" lasts for the duration of the detonation event and can be targeted in useful directions, like upwards. Tritium was measured, haphazardly and delayed, which were perfectly in line with the stilted scope of the Tritium Report whose task it was to explain the measured tritium as coming from content of the towers, such as airplane exit signs, sights from weapons, and time pieces (like watches); it re-defined trace-levels to be 55 times larger; it stopped taking samples at its select sampling sites when the tritium values were well under EPA thresholds for health risks; assuming the above issues aren't isolated, then even the very published data itself should be vetted and certainly remains insufficient to be the entire story on tritium at the WTC and its true sources, like fourth generation nuclear devices.
Dr. Judy Wood's work is closer to the mark than the "established 9/11 Truth Movement" is willing to admit.
Think about this: even before the 9/11 Memorial was open, the 9/11 Truth Movement had look-alike brochures to counter the PR. On the other hand, Dr. Wood's website has been around for quite some time (with certain pages still with "Under Construction" and dates from 2006.) Dr. Wood's book was published in 2010. Where exactly is the scholarly, peer-review report on either the website or the book that definitively chapter-by-chapter (web-page-by-web-page) legitimately smacks down the bunk from Dr. Wood? Missing in action. Why? Because it doesn't have as much bunk as many clowns want you to believe:
It can be said however that Judy Wood's loopy ideas do not qualify as proper scientific theories...
Objectivity Test was administrated using Dr. Wood's book. Subject failed miserably. Subject stopped reading Dr. Wood's book, probably at page 96 before November 2012, when the quote below was first written. In a fit of sociopathic rage, subject violently rips apart the 500 page book for bird cage lining, so subject conveniently no longer has book available as a continued reference or to pass along to someone else.
It matters not where she goes with the rest of her argument, ...
Not true. It matters. Nuggets of truth, and all that jazz. Plus, it was the assignment that the above weasels out of.
... for the whole thing is based on this proximate and false proposition.
Not true and never substantiated or personally analyzed in detail. The Subject is talented at hypnotic suggestion but not objective review.
Heigh-ho, Nookiedoo! Away!
//
x75 hybridrogue1 : false pretense
2014-06-04
hybridrogue1
2014-06-04
"…assignment that the above weasels out of."~Seenyor
Interesting word, "assignment". It implies that the one "assigning" has some valid authority to make such and assignment.
One needn't "weasel" out of an "assignment" made under false pretense, such as those encountered in this incident.
To have to repeat the real story of this on each and every thread of T&S becomes a bore. But the entity makes it necessary:
Now here is the date/time stamp of Señor's veritable admission that there is virtually no substantial difference from the Wood's book and website. I have already deconstructed this. But as it is evidentiary, I want this recorded:
–"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/
So … Wood's BOOK v Wood's website according to the Señor entity:
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.
And I will repeat this as many times as need be:
When Seenyor refused to take the BOOK back when I offered it, he forfeited any and all debts of any kind that he felt he was due, be it monetary, or the tasks of debating the issues any further or of passing the item forward.
I have no ethical duty that he can claim to. That is simply the way it is, and I need add nothing more to this explanation. But I will repeat it as often as necessary:
No "deal" was broken in offering the BOOK back, because the "deal" was tainted by false advertising as the proximate cause.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-04
–"Let it be known that I — the T&S resident champion/troll on themes Dr. Wood, DEW, and nuclear devices — did not bring any of these subjects up first."~Señor
Let it be known that it is not a matter of whether the entity brings the subject up first. It is the matter of the entity needing to slur and defame me while making his case. And yes it is indeed defamation, as I have explained he is lying when he continues to reference the ordeal of THE BOOK.
The entity creates many complex lies in his attempts to frame me as the liar here. Close examination of any of these charges the entity makes shows that they are all created out of stinking cheese cloth and twisted rhetorical games. Unraveling each and everyone of these disingenuous tales would be a lifetime project, as the entity continues manufacturing almost daily it would seem.
Unlike this slinking spiteful character assassin, I have no desire to make a lifetime project out of dealing with his obsessive nonsense. As such, I call upon the entity known as Señor el Once to cease and desist in any further defamation, and to make his case for whatever he thinks happened at the WTC on 9/11 without the spurious allegations against my person.
Obviously I have no problem speaking to the issues themselves. It is only the underhanded techniques used by the entity to attempt to win his case by undermining my person by Gross Ad Hominem.
Enough.
\\][//
x76 Señor El Once : *Beep!* *Beep!* Nope. Ain't there. Fail.
The aforementioned "Objectivity Test" that the subject spectacularly failed had these three agreed upon parts:
(1) read cover-to-cover Dr. Wood's book in a fair and objective fashion,
(2) provide a chapter-by-chapter good-bad-ugly review, and
(3) pay/pass it forward to someone else.
Nowhere in the above is any provision that overlap between a book and website makes the assigned book review null-and-void. *Beep!* *Beep!* Nope. Ain't there. Fail.
Nowhere in the above is any provision for sending the book back. *Beep!* *Beep!* Nope. Ain't there. Fail.
If the purpose of the book was to inspire rational discussion within the 9/11 Truth Movement, then any blatantly cheating, lying, weaseling suggestion to "send the book back" as opposed to "passing the book on to those who would appreciate it" [even a public library] would defeat this intellectual purpose, as well as the spirit of "pay-it-forward."
When Seenyor refused to take the BOOK back when I offered it, he forfeited any and all debts of any kind that he felt he was due, be it monetary, or the tasks of debating the issues any further or of passing the item forward.
Squirm the weasel does.
By his own admission, the sociopathic clown didn't finish reading the book. His reference to page 96 was probably as far as he got (November 2012). Condition #1 down. To avoid further boring into specifics, the sociopathic clown violently defaced the book so its pages could line his bird cages. Condition #3 down.
As for Condition #2, the sociopathic clown late to the game now tries to float a "false advertizing" argument of the dubious nature that if the book overlapped the website in content, no book review was needed according to his logic. Not so by any reasonable person's standards. A book review is a book review; a content review is a content review, be it website or book.
But if such overlap were such a dastardly deed, the sociopathic clown could have written that up as part of the bad in his good-bad-ugly review. In fact, the sociopathic clown would have had an easy job of the review if we were to believe his other pathalogic lies regarding (a) the clown himself having written up and published an extensive, detail review of her theories from her website and (b) someone else in internet-land having published such a detailed review for copy-and-pasting.
What makes this oh so worse for our resident hybrid sociopathic rogue clown is that plenty of information was available in advance with regards to how I was using Dr. Judy Wood's book to inspire rational discussion from the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Whether or not they accepted my offer, hay was going to be made from the situation.
[No, I do not consider Mr. Rogue a leader of the 9/11TM. But the sociopathic clown spent half a year disparaging Dr. Wood's work, largely without specifics. The one exception were copy-and-pasted passages from Dr. Greg Jenkins. Whereas some of criticism had merit, some of it was just as far-fetched and didn't. Even if we give credit to those valid points from Dr. Jenkins, the fact remains that Dr. Jenkins (nor anyone else) did not definitively take anything out of contention; he just raised doubt on a few items in order to sweep valid but otherwise unexplained evidence off of the table. And to rely on Jenkins 2007 efforts to debunk a book published in 2010 is rather stupid. But this is exactly what the aforementioned sociopathic clown thought he could do when he accepted the conditions.]
As for our resident sociopathic clown, he doesn't like substantiation about why he comes across as a pathalogical liar, a cheat, and a weasel. Guess this is the strain of alphafa that a science-challenged, integrity-challenged, objectivity-challenged individual sows, but the warning about me making hay with any defaulting on the conditions came with the conditions and with how I handled previous pay-it-forward attempts. *Ding! Ding! Ding!* for the "ah-ha moment."
Our resident sociopathic clown cannot make good on Condition #1, Condition #2, or Condition #3. He knew that he would not make good on them when he accepted, based on how he ran out the clock and made sure that accepting the offer didn't preclude him from continued negative assessments of Dr. Wood's work.
I have no ethical duty that he can claim to. That is simply the way it is, and I need add nothing more to this explanation.
Exactly, mostly because I have relieved the sociopathic clown of his obligation when it became clear he didn't have the mind, spirit, or focus for the challenge and, in an unstable way, physically destroyed "Where Did the Towers Go?"
Owing to his failing marks on a very straight forward "Objectivity Test", what Mr. Rogue forfeits is his credibility on the subjects of Dr. Wood, DEW, and nuclear DEW... and possibly in general. Mr. Rogue should heed his own words, his own promise, his own needs: "[Mr. Rogue] needs add nothing more to this..."
But I will repeat it as often as necessary:
No "deal" was broken in offering the BOOK back, because the "deal" was tainted by false advertising as the proximate cause.
The irrational logic of a sociopath, trying to weasel "offering the book back" into the assignment and conditions...
I will repeat this as often as necessary:
A book review is a book review; a content review is a content review, be it website or book.
To the extent that any advertising was done -- be it deemed true or false --, it could have been re-used to made the task of the book review easier. Any existing reviews on website or book from others could have been re-purposed for the assignment.
All of the nonsense about "false advertising" is a side-circus act of our sociopathic clown meant as a straw man to alleviate him from his "not-doing" a review, on purpose. Fail.
And the review could have been so simple in its initial form: for each chapter, three (3) sentences on what was good [required], what was bad [optional], and what was ugly [optional]. From there, various topics and themes could have been explored further.
I now know that Mr. Rogue does not have the intelligence, focus, or organizational abilities, which is why he's not be asked to complete the task. I cut my losses on ever getting anything rational, logical, open-minded, and complete. And I thoroughly enjoy making hay out of the situation, the spectacular fail of a wanna-be Wood-DEW-Nuke debunker.
Three (3) responses to my one (1) comment so far? Why couldn't this failure of an objective person not have been more patient and waited to collect all of his thoughts... before posting more pathalogical lies.
It is the matter of the entity needing to slur and defame me while making his case. And yes it is indeed defamation, as I have explained he is lying when he continues to reference the ordeal of THE BOOK.
The public record on T&S does not start or end with the linked comment [June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm, almost exactly 2 years ago]; a good portion of the book ordeal is certainly published within the discussion comments. [Do CTRL-F and then type "el once" to locate my postings.]
How pathetic that Mr. Rogue must pathalogically lie in a failing attempt to re-write our personal but public history!
Whereas Mr. Rogue does not forfeit the right to write his hypnotic ignorance, he does forfeit the right to have his words trusted at face-value or at all. And due to his uncharitable, unworthy, disorganized, incomplete, and lame efforts to discredit the work of Dr. Wood and others on nuclear-DEW themes, Mr. Rogue ought to banned from such discussions on T&S.
[Coincidence that Mr. Rogue's participation only gets the discussion quickly degenerated into flame wars, probably even with purposeful insertion of known-lies, known-cheats, known-weasels -- ANYTHING -- to derail an attempt at a level-headed, rational, logical discussion on nuclear DEW themes? Coincidence that Mr. A.Wright shows up to getting Mr. Rogue cranking a different distracting carousel? Coincidence the tag-teaming of some others?]
Unlike this slinking spiteful character assassin, I have no desire to make a lifetime project out of dealing with his obsessive nonsense.
Then don't. Ignore me. Please. Just ignore my comments.
You made promises about this in the past. Many times. All of them broken.
As such, I call upon the entity known as Señor el Once to cease and desist in any further defamation, and to make his case for whatever he thinks happened at the WTC on 9/11 without the spurious allegations against my person.
False statements are requisite for defamation to occur. When the statements are true, however damaging to a reputation, they are not defamation.
If Mr. Rogue wants me to cease-and-desist from any further pointing out what a lying, cheating, weasel he is, particularly on subjects like "neutron nuclear DEW" and Dr. Wood's material, ...
... First and foremost, Mr. Rogue can cease-and-desist in his participation here on T&S. COTO is ready for Mr. Rogue's triumphant return from his Ashram.
... Secondly and probably more importantly, Mr. Rogue can cease-and-desist with his participation style and tactics that quickly unravels as lies, cheats, and weasels.
Meanwhile, though, when I said that I would make hay out of any defaulting on the agreement, I have made good on my word. Mr. Rogue deliberately walked right in front of my noisy, clacky, dusty, hay baler, and what gets bound up and tied in baler-twine are neat bales of lies, cheats, and weasels stacked up for reader consumption and to sour their stomachs on Mr. Rogue.
//
x77 hybridrogue1 : Because it is not so...
2014-06-04
hybridrogue1
2014-06-04
Señor launches cartoonish assault on AE911Truth & HR1 right here on T&S
–"Meanwhile, though, when I said that I would make hay out of any defaulting on the agreement…"~Señor
As explained I do not "default", I REBUKE said "agreement".
I counter here that the entity known as Señor continues his lies with every post he makes here. He does not want to discuss the Nookiedoodoo theory, he wants to expend the vast majority of his efforts on his defamation agenda.
Exotic Weapons at WTC:
Because it is not so, it is simple to prove that there were no exotic weapons used to destroy the WTC complex on 9/11. Because it is not so, there is absolutely no evidence that exotic weapons were used.
Because it is not so, any "proofs" of such weapons and their use will have to be manufactured by rhetorical slipcraft. And that is the easiest of all things to prove in argumentation.
First of all, by proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition; this alone is proof that such exotic weapons were involved. And this proof is prima facea, and settled argument.
But further, it can be shown that the whole argument for both DEW and Nukes is built of spurious nonsense made up entirely of supposition, with no other basis than pure imagination.
Because it is not so that exotic weapons were used, the entity must distract the forum with this extraneous bullshit and lying rather than prove his rocking horse is alive and not a toy on curved rails.
I again refer to my comment just prior to the entity's latest outburst of bullshit. The history of the incident of THE BOOK is clear and simple. It should not need to be reiterated time after time here.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-04
The Hypocrisy of "The Well Respected Man About Town". Señor El Once
–"Assuming that "Seenyor" references me, if Mr. Rogue were "fed up", he would cease and desist. Don't feed the trolls. His continued participation here contradicts the sentiment of being "fed up." Burn."~Señor El Once – MAY 27, 2014 AT 5:08 PM
–"I no longer have problems pushing Mr. Rogue's buttons. I want him caught in the honey-pot and fouling out. Why? I'm fed up. I've already attempted two years plus "sane discussions" with Mr. Rogue…"~Señor El Once – in the very same comment as above.
. . . . . . . . .
So pointing out Señor's blatant hypocrisy, by the simple fact that he can be "fed up" and blabber on for a whole page, at the same time claiming I am "contradicting" myself by continued participation. Such blatant hypocrisy is never isn't recognized by this entity who claims to be:
–"vastly more principled than Mr. Rogue on all levels — within my family, within my community, within my work, within my hobbies real-world and on-line — and consistently demonstrate such principles." –
Hahahahaha – no seriously, WTF? Yes he certainly demonstrated SOMETHING in that commentary.
Seenyor also claims that I want to "Win" at all costs. It is bullshit. I don't want to win anything, I don't want to, have to, or need to "debate" this son-of-a-bitch. I just want the asshole to stop badgering me.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-04
And so I have to wonder, what would this "upstanding family man, and well respected member of his community" think if that community were to discover that he has this secret life on the web? A covert operation as an anonymous phantom working as a character assassin against an innocent party who is himself publicly known.
So yes I understand the desperation that grips Seenyor to consider such revelations being made. It is at a crucial point in this affair, and Seenyor should consider these consequences of his actions, whether it is likely or unlikely that he might be revealed.
I think it not worth taking that chance, regardless of how remote he thinks the possibility.
His judgement so far is far from sound. His calculations on this one point are a make it or break it situation for the Seenyor entity.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-04
"False statements are requisite for defamation to occur. When the statements are true, however damaging to a reputation, they are not defamation."Señor El Once – JUNE 4, 2014 AT 3:37 PM
Yes indeed, but as I have pointed out the Señor entity's allegations are not true, they are in fact lies revealed by his own confirmation that there is no substantive difference between Wood's website and her book. [Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM]
So defamation does occur because these statements by the entity are proven false by his own testimony. And now we go round'n'round on this same fucking carousel that has been cranked up over and over again by this lunatic stalker.
The Señor entity is a LYING PRICK.
Now, is there a single person here who thinks that I am seriously asserting that the Señor entity is a disembodied engorged sex organ capable of communication by speech or writing? Of course not. And this is why calling the entity a PRICK is not defamation. And by his own definition, calling him a LIAR is not defamation because I have proven that his story about the BOOK is untrue.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 4, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Dear readers,
IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH NOW?
Is it not obvious that none of this has to do with Mister Señor's nukiedoo nonsense and everything to do with his attempted character assassination of yours truly?
He has spent literally no time at all trying to defend his bullshit nookiedoodoo nonsense, but instead piles reams of flatulence attempting to defame my character.
This is clearly his main agenda on T&S. He has proven that himself on the last two threads.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 4, 2014 at 6:43 pm
So now that the entity has effectively hijacked another T&S thread, how much more from Mr Blablabla, from our very own Robin Goodfellow?
The blithering snake seems to have only one obsession, and that is my possession. He can never gain it, and I won't give it up. Has he lost his mind? Or has he always been as crazy as a shithouse rat?
Señor Maxitwat's is a COVERT OPERATION, in that he is an anonymous covert entity slinging barbs and slurs from behind his faceless gravitars.
And now Seenyor has the hypocritical gall to assert that it would be "UNETHICAL" of me to reveal his real identity – after close to two and a half years of this maniac stalking me and attempting to assassinate my character!!??
Whatever moral bearings could be driving that thinking is certainly mysterious.
This is absurd as anything else this crazy prick has come up with. How does he figure he is immune to justice?
Who could blame me if I get the chance to yank his mask off his lying face?
So yes, he had better hope I never get verification as to who he really is.
After all of this there will certainly be no hesitation on my part.
\\][//
x78 Señor El Once : "win-at-all-costs" contention of Mr. Rogue's desceitful participation
First response in 35 minutes. Second response 10 minutes after that, is a copy-and-paste from May 30, 2014 at 8:30 pm, and isn't even relevant. Third response? More inapplicable and lame copy-and-paste.
Such clownery, from our dear Mr. Rogue!
[May 30, 2014 at 8:30 pm ] Seenyor also claims that I want to "Win" at all costs. It is bullshit. I don't want to win anything, I don't want to, have to, or need to "debate" this son-of-a-bitch.
And to make his point more clear about not wanting to, not having to, and not needing to debate in any rational or logical fashion, Mr. Rogue lays down some wimpy lies, cheats, and weasels precisely so such a debate won't happen.
Interesting that Mr. Rogue hasn't quoted from his threats that don't just contradict his denial, but also prove the "win-at-all-costs" contention of Mr. Rogue's desceitful participation.
[May 29, 2014 at 11:34 pm] One of these days I am going to find out for sure who this motherfucker is, and that will be the day when all hell breaks loose on the anonymous entity!
[May 30, 2014 at 5:33] There is only one card left on the table for him to have any hope of my not revealing who he is upon discovering positive proof; and that is for him to cease and desist his slanderous campaign NOW. ... Because there will be no negotiation on this matter when I get positive proof as to his identity.
COTO wants their misogynistic village idiot back! [Actually they don't, but Mr. Rogue was never banned so can make a triumphant return.] Mr. Rogue wants me to stop badgering him about his pathalogical lying and disingenuous agenda without him having to stop such. I want Mr. Rogue just to stop.
Win-win-win when Mr. Rogue leaves T&S for greener pastures.
Facebook. Mr. Rogue should get on Facebook. The perfect, time-sucking, memory-hole, bit-bucket, forum for a Mr. Rogue with way too much time on his hands, way too much ego in his head, way too much... Ooo, and get this! FB is perfect for the style of "dialog" quick back-and-forth and back-and-forth exchanges. Ron Wieck, Elizabeth Tague, and others anxiously await Mr. Rogue's edification in FB places like "9/11 Truthers are Crazy" and "9/11 Debates".
P.S. If Mr. Rogue isn't used to pressing SHIFT-ENTER to get a line break, he may end up pre-maturely publishing his thoughts. Writing off-line helps, as does copying-and-pasting from what might have been published elsewhere. Mr. Rogue will quickly discover the tricks to pushing (or being pushed) into the FB "read more" scroll region, to bumping article placement relevance, etc. Most important of all, Mr. Rogue will see how quickly his words disappear, unless he takes steps (a) to write things more worthy of preservation and (b) to preserve his writing himself, like on his blog.
//
x79 Señor El Once : Hypnotic suggestions of this nature. No proof. No quotes. No links.
Three-to-one again.
... I have pointed out the Señor entity's allegations are not true...
No, Mr. Rogue has only made hypnotic suggestions of this nature. No proof. No quotes. No links.
Look what I posted on 2012-07-22 and what Mr. Rogue responded after having the book about a month:
I am going to read Wood's book, and I will keep the book regardless of my assessment of her analysis, simply because it is a handsome volume, with the most comprehensive collection of images from the events, plus interesting charts and figures.
Guess what Mr. Rogue did not do? He didn't read the book. And he didn't keep the book, either, preferring to destroy it. Doesn't keep his promises. Not a man of his word. Intregrity challenged.
By 2012-09-25 and over three months of patience on my part, Mr. Rogue began his more concerted weasel moves.
At 2012-07-22 or 2012-09-25, did Mr. Rogue ever dispute what the agreement was? Did he dispute anything at the time about the history of our exchange? No.
And part of the reason "my" version of the commissioned book review (which is also public on T&S) is the correct one, is that IT WAS SET UP FROM THE ONSET WITH A "CONTROL," an independent 3rd party who was BCC'd with the offer and conditions, precisely to pre-emptively cut-off suspected attempts at a later date of Mr. Rogue lying: "Those weren't the conditions! That wasn't the offer! I'm right. SEO is lying!"
The very lame and much more recent attempts [afterthoughts] to frame the agreement as "false advertising" with regards to perceived differences/similarities between book or website -- besides being irrelevant to a objective review of content -- are pretty jejune. Had they had any significance, weight, or bearing, September of 2012 was their "sell-by date", not June of 2014.
Hey, dear readers. Want to see a very recent example of Mr. Rogue lying?
And now we go round'n'round on this same fucking carousel that has been cranked up over and over again by this lunatic stalker.
"Lunatic stalker?" Yeah, right. I was on T&S first, trying to encourage rational discussion on 9/11 issues that the mainstream movement tried to derail, like themes from Dr. Wood. Mr. Rogue's January 2012 entry into T&S was the start of his stalking of me, this forum, and overwhelming everybody else.
Then the idiot invites me to his then-home-court (COTO) via his ego-links from T&S to COTO. And what did I discover? Behind-your-back, misogynistic, ad-hominem, pot-shots. On his home-court, he got his ass, hat, and coat handed to him, nessitating him ramping up his blog for more of the same.
The Señor entity is a LYING PRICK. ... And by his own definition, calling him a LIAR is not defamation because I have proven that his story about the BOOK is untrue.
No, Mr. Rogue has only made hypnotic suggestions of this nature. No proof. No quotes. No links.
Mr. Rogue remains the pathalogical liar.
And who's the prick?
Who could blame me [Mr. Rogue] if I get the chance to yank his [SEO's] mask off his lying face? So yes, he had better hope I never get verification as to who he really is. After all of this there will certainly be no hesitation on my part.
Yep, yep, yep. When he can't win fairly, objectively, legitimately, the misogynistic prick of a rock has no hesitation to take actions that would further the fall of his integrity beyond any redemption.
Facebook should be Mr. Rogue's new playground. And rather than using his "real name", the fool should uses his rogue alias. Be off and good riddens, Mr. Rogue.
... so that fourth generation nuclear DEW can be discussed by more rational, logical, and level-headed participants here on T&S. Clearly, Mr. Rogue has nothing valuable to contribute, and his failed objectivity test proves he'd learn nothing either.
Enjoy Facebook, Mr. Rogue.
//
x80 hybridrogue1, ruffadam, Craig McKee : keep the fuck out of my blog
2014-06-04
hybridrogue1
June 4, 2014 at 7:53 pm
"Lunatic stalker?" Yeah, right. I was on T&S first,"~Señor
Sure the entity was on T&S first. However his stalking me over to COTO, and staying just long enough to see the fruition of the reason he showed up there: My exit. Is one part of this stalking – the other is right here on these threads, wherein, just like this one, he has nothing to offer T&S besides this character assassin game. I have never started one of these rows. I never mention the entity by name, and try my best to keep his excuses at a minimum.
I have gotten a lot of advice from this lunatic, and I think it is only right to offer that platter back to him, he can buzz off and continue playing on Face Book, he should go back to COTO where the idiots there would indeed greet him back with open arms. And he should keep the fuck out of my blog. If he doesn't like what he reads there, then he should stay out.
As far as my continuing on with T&S, that is a matter for the owner manager of this site, Mr McKee, and has nothing to do whatsoever with what the raging lunatic Señor thinks.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 4, 2014 at 7:39 pm
"Guess what Mr. Rogue did not do? He didn't read the book. And he didn't keep the book, either, preferring to destroy it. Doesn't keep his promises. Not a man of his word. Intregrity challenged."~Señor
Oh yes, I was impressed with THE BOOK when I first received it, it is a nice hefty volume. And when I did get into reading it, and I did read more than the entity is intimating here – I discovered that there was nothing new aside from the fact that it is a physical object, from any of the information on the website. And yes this pissed me off after all the brouhaha put to me in the entity's sales pitch.
Again; I offered to send the BOOK back to Señor – he refused. He has since admitted there is no new information of any substance in that book, regardless of all the pressure cooker bullshit salesmanship he had to go through to get me to agree to his offer.
Why didn't the entity take the BOOK back when I offered? Obviously so he could go through this slamdance routine he goes through today.
And if he thinks he can start using my sign off logo as his own, it is only one more proof of what a crazy motherfucker this crackerjack is.
\\][//
Craig McKee
June 4, 2014 at 8:20 pm
I am tired of reading this same stuff over and over again between you two. No more on this thread. And, as of now, it is officially against the rules to mock someone else's name.
hybridrogue1
June 4, 2014 at 9:52 pm
Hi Craig,
I doubt if there could possibly be anyone more "tired of reading this same stuff over and over again…"
Not only this thread, but ANY THREAD. I am however satisfied with the new rule as per mocking someone else's name here. I can live with that easy enough. Especially if there is no more of this continued harassment.
Thank you, Willy – \\][//
alwhitesands
June 5, 2014 at 3:21 am
Way back at the end of 2011 I was using an unfamiliar computer at a cafe to log on to 9/11 Blogger which I had been following with interest, the heated debate about the Pentagon and as I scrolled down I stopped on Craig's header re his banning from Blogger. I was intrigued.
So to Truth and Shadows and, well folks, I've been here almost every day ever since. I've read every word, followed every link to all the info and to COTO. Saw all that go down. I like to think I've got to 'know' something of the personalities of the regulars here and some there. I've got quite attached to T&S but who would know, I hardly ever comment (I must be one of those 'lurker readers' – I wonder how many of us are out here) but us Lurkers take EVERY thing in.
It's been a rocky ride. There was a two week silence from this blog last December and I got a bit concerned especially as it followed a nasty thread concerning the Pentagon (again) and also the T&S Facebook posts had stopped AND Craig didn't respond to a couple of Merry Xmas emails (lol) … I was getting paranoid. I had nobody's email. I googled T&S only to be confronted by a header by someone claiming to be born free detailing his treatment from the barbarians at T&S and no news about Craig McGee being abducted by aliens. I finally found Jim Fetzer's email and after a reassuring reply that Craig had been recently on a radio interview I breathed a sigh of relief.
Bottom line is ….. Willy, maybe you should've read that ferkin book.
hybridrogue1
June 5, 2014 at 8:03 am
Mr Whitesands,
I found your comment interesting, and I know you "lurk" COTO as well. But I don't see the connection between your little story and how it leads to your "Bottom line". It is what is called a non sequitur – that means "it doesn't necessarily follow". There is an inexplicable leap from one thought to another.
I have another story, longer ago and totally disconnected to the blogs, 9/11 or any of the rest of this. It's about a friend of mine in California during my movie days in Hollywood. He is a sculptor like I am, and we worked on many shows together. We were part of a little click of sought after sculptors for the sci-fi fantasy genre. We'll call him Jim [because that's his name].
Well Jim and I both got to the position of being 'in the money' as they say. I went out an bought a brand new Mazda RX7, a pretty popular car in 1983. It was silver, zoomy, and cool. It was a great set of wheels, I never had a single problem with it.
Jim decided to get a brand new Firebird, hot-red hot rod mean rumbly and fast. He leased it rather than buy it. I don't know why, or if it would make any difference in the outcome of the story. But he of course signed a contract for the lease, just as I signed a contract to make payments on my car rather that pay cash for it.
About 2 weeks after Jim got this car it started having mechanical problems. It ended up in the shop. It was a lease-mobile so the company leasing it to Jim paid for the repairs. Jim was given [funny coincidence} a red RX7, a couple years old as a 'rental' while his car was in the shop.
The Firebird was in the shop quite awhile. Almost 2 weeks as I recall. Jim was elated when he finally got it back. About 3 days later I got a call, it was Jim, he was in a parking lot in Hollywood and asked if I could pick him up. I lived in Van Nuys at the time, it wasn't a long drive, and I liked doing Laurel Cnyn in the RX7. So I got to where Jim was, and picked him up. I saw a tow truck with the red Firebird hooked up. Jim was furious. Seems the 'same thing' was going on with the Firebird that they had supposedly fixed.
So it was back to the rental car for Jim. This went on like this for months. I don't think Jim was able to drive that car for more than a solid week in all that time. Thing is, all the time Jim was driving the rental, and the Firebird was in the shop, he was paying his rather hefty monthly lease for the new Firebird.
Somewhere around 4 months of this Jim demanded a new car, the same kind, a red Firebird, but a different one that would work. The leasing company said that this was impossible, that he had leased this one and was still under contract for it. This conflict went on for another couple months, the whole time Jim driving the rental car. Jim went to a lawyer. The lawyer read the contract and told Jim, that was the deal he had signed and he would have to live with it.
Well, Jim simply stopped paying his monthly payment, and the lease company took him to court, and Jim was forced to pay a pretty meaty severance fine to get out of the contract. And he never got to enjoy that car.
Moral of the story? Jim was really pleased and excited when he first got the car home, and when he was able to actually drive it for the first week or so.
But it turned into a deal from Hell for him.
But hey, he signed the deal, he agreed to the contract. Everybody was right and he was wrong. You know how these things go. Just like paying income tax, the system is right and you are wrong if you rebuke the 'debt' you owe.
In the system's eyes, Jim was in default.
This might be an allegory to something here. Maybe. Depends on one's point of view I suppose, one's innate since of fairness opposed to the conditioning to the "ethics" of the system.
Personally I think Jim got screwed. He got a raw deal regardless of the technicalities. In my view, morally he should have been able to just walk away from that lemon and the "deal".
\\][//
ruffadam
June 5, 2014 at 9:00 am
Personally,
I skip right over any post from Senior el once and save myself a lot of time and stress. I have no obligation whatsoever to read anything he/she/it posts nor do I care at this point to address anything he/she/it says no matter how false or defamatory it may be. He/she/it can start calling me a child molester Nazi with aids as far as I give a crap at this point. I literally do not care AT ALL and will not read any response from he/she/it.
x81 Señor El Once : The expression "over-acting" ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue.
Out of 72 comments at time of writing:
- Emmanuel Goldstein has 3 (4%)
- RuffAdam has 3 (4%)
- SEO has 5 (6.9%)
- Mr. Rogue has 36 (50%)
Emmanuel Goldstein made 3 comments that generated 7 comments from Mr. Rogue. SEO made 4 comments that generated 12 comments from Mr. Rogue [just on T&S]. The expression "over-acting" ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue from his Hollywood daze.
Mr. Rogue's hyperventilation here is but an act to distract the forum from a rational discussion of nuclear DEW or fourth generation nuclear devices, which is the natural extension from Dr. Wood's efforts and fills in the gaps.
Mr. AlWhitesands said it best:
Willy, maybe you should've read that ferkin book.
The only reason why the book came into the picture was that Mr. Rogue could not be bothered to parse the source website for the good, the bad, the ugly. This applied to Dr. Wood's website as well as September Clues and other discussion venues. Blow-hard Mr. Rogue was all about making boastful statements without substantiation.
Mr. Rogue claims that I badgered him for months about getting the book. In reality, I badgered him for months to get informed first-hand about the content (book or website) and to mine nuggets of truth. I badgered him to be fair, objective, and open-minded.
Getting the book into Mr. Rogue's hands was a good-faith gesture to get Mr. Rogue over his stumbling blocks and into a valid review.
Talk about screwing the pooch called "Mr. Rogue's Objectivity!"
Mr. Rogue wasn't expected to agree with every sentence in the book, or its conclusions (if they could be found).
Expected was that Mr. Rogue would contemplate rationally the material and isolate the specific areas of error, down to the page number and figure caption if required. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would re-use analysis of others to help bolster his case. Expected was that Mr. Rogue with assistance from me and the forum would take down legitimately any nonsense found therein. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would acknowledge what wasn't nonsense for re-purposing in more appropriate theories.
Mr. Rogue says that he was tricked or conned into it. If any trick was played on Mr. Rogue, it was in the facts (a) that Dr. Wood's work might have inapplicable concepts but very little nonsense, (b) that Mr. Rogue would have to acknowledge large numbers of truth nuggets that only inconveniently fit into other mainstream 9/11 theories, and (c) that the DEW/Nuke/Wood debunking resources are primarly internet echo-chambers that neither individually nor collectively achieve a definitive debunking goal.
Thus Mr. Rogue was going to have a difficult time. Happens all the time in science and engineering when a stated hypothesis is disproven by the research and testing. But Mr. Rogue didn't approach the task with a hypothesis. Mr. Rogue approached it with an agenda and pre-ordained conclusions, which the (a)-(c) facts confounded.
If any deceit was involved, it was entirely on Mr. Rogue's side [and gets exhibited regularly today trying dig himself out.] He lied to himself regarding his ability to read and analyze the book. He vastly over-estimated the number of debunking resources available from which he could plagarize his comprehensive debunking review. On this front, both he and Mr. RuffAdam continue to lie today with statements like:
- [RA] DEW's destroying the towers is debunked garbage.
- [RA] Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus.
- [HR] [T]here is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Wood's loopy ideas...
- [HR] Her 'DEW' proposition is a scientific fraud...
How can I be so sure this is a lie? Mr. RuffAdam wrote on November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am:
... I have been remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing for a long while now. I have failed to fully explain and argue my case on many occasions... One such issue where I have been negligent due to my "burn out" is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated ... exactly why and how Judy Wood's theory is wrong. I am going to change that.
...
I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so... We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW's was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself.
Obviously, if such comprehensive DEW debunking were available in November of 2012, there would have been no need for Mr. Ruff to assemble his task-force for such an assignment. If Mr. Ruff would have completed his decisive debunk of DEW theories between November 2012 and now (June 2014), why, he would have have provided the link.
Because Mr. RuffAdam admits that he doesn't read my comments, it is fitting that his own words be used to skewer him [June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am]:
Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus.
This is not true. What is true is that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers are just like Mr. RuffAdam and Mr. Rogue, two science-challenged, proud, high school graduates who defer to opinions of leaders within the 9/11 Truth Movement, particularly those with PhDs. The vast majority form their opinions from 2nd- or 3rd-hand sources, not from their own assessments of original sources.
And those 2nd- and 3rd-hand sources that report on original sources? They are plagued with improper framing, improper scaling, improper analysis, and being incomplete.
[Video Fakery] On the first pass of my tour through video fakery, I accepted the video analysis at face value. What eventually soured me were the lame and deceitful explanations filling the void once imagery was taken off the table. There was little sharing and collaboration to see how a nugget from one meme might support or undermine something in another meme. With this sour taste in my mouth, my second pass was able to detect more of the deceit in the original video analysis and many of its conclusions, like "no real planes at the WTC."
To be sure, video fakery (leading to NPT) has unraveled to be a disinformation honey-pot.
What disturbs me is that valid instances of video fakery on 9/11 exist (e.g., four versions of a helicopter shot), a persistent nugget of truth that debunkers of video fakery are all too eager to sweep from the table. If valid instances exist, what other instances are there? More importantly, to what purpose? To and/or from what is it drawing our attention?
[DEW] Most who try to debunk directed energy weapons do not have a good grasp on it, which is evident by their framing. Quick they are to say "beams from space" and then "WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 destruction started from within the building, not from the tippy-top down, therefore no DEW." Thus, potentially valid cases of "beams from space" in other buildings are ignored. More importantly, "beams from space" is not the only form that DEW devices can take. In fact, most of the fourth generation nuclear devices loosely fit into the category of DEW devices.
[Mini Nuke] Most who try to debunk nuclear devices do not have a good grasp on nuclear-anything. As such, they miss the skew and omissions from those with PhD's who are assumed to have a good grasp on it when their 9/11 TM reports steer thinking away from it. The unqualified expression "mini nuke" is actually sufficient to debunk the 9/11 nuke debunkers, because qualifications of fission, fusion, and neutron have vastly different yields and side-effects. Fourth generation nukes change further the configuration and the types of expected yields.
"Cognitive dissonance" refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. It produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in attitudes, belief, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
We're familiar with the cognitive dissonance examples from the general public where anomalous 9/11 evidence is ignored rather than change a belief about the involvement and actions of the government. However, the pains of cognitive dissonance are also visible inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, like when a truther has invested lots of effort into studying, convincing themselves, and convincing others about method A being used. They apparently don't adapt very well to the premise that the evidence can support multiple methods, that more of the evidence supports method B, and that many deficiencies exist with method A being the ultimate explanation.
Nano-thermite (method A) does not explain all of the evidence. It can't even address the duration of the hot-spots. And the PhD who popularized nano-thermite despite its limitation is the same PhD who waved everyone off of contemplating nuclear devices (method B) in a paper that accepted unchallenged stilted reports, didn't even mention neutron devices or their derivatives, and made no attempt to see if third or fourth generation nuclear devices could achieve what was observed.
If Mr. Goldstein is still around, I would appreciate an objective review of the document about fourth generation nuclear devices with regards to it bridging the gaps from Dr. Wood's DEW into something real-world nuclear DEW.
//
P.S. I apologize for the editing oversight that left Mr. Rogue's \\][// sign-off instead of mine on one of my comments.
x82 hybridrogue1 : absolutely no respect
2014-06-06
hybridrogue1
June 6, 2014 at 11:55 am
Señor El Once once again shows that he has absolutely no respect for Mr McKee, and has therefore no respect for this forum. He doesn't give a shit about anything as long as he can make a lunge at me with his defamation dagger.
I was discussing things with Mr Whitesands, not arguing any points about the raging fanatical idiot Señor. I requested Mr Whitesands make his position clearer, that was all.
As pointed out, the slightest excuse and the anonymous entity hiding behind the mask of Señor leaps from the shadows slashing. And he is a lying son-of-a-bitch.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Just one example of Señor's taunting as to the lack of the "essential" BOOK, as if the book had substantial new information, and as if I were even claiming to be making a "book review", both assertions being untrue. And this is 8 months prior to my finally accepting the book, and only one of a constant barrage of such pressure sales tactics:
–"Dear Mr. Hybridrogue,
Judging a book by its cover, I see. I love how your book review comes from the lofty position of not owning it, not borrowing it, not stealing it, and otherwise not having it to read. Bravo!…Your status of not having Dr. Wood's textbook certainly sifts the BS from the honest effort. Thank you."~Señor
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-06
So Mr McKee,
Have you changed your mind about the admonishment for no more of this argument between Señor and I on this thread?
If your admonishment still stands, Señor has rebuked your authority by posting yet another load of defaming bullshit, this time including slashes aimed at Mr Ruff as well as myself.
I would like a clear and final determination on this matter.
I was discussing the remarks of Mr Whitesands, and asking for a clarification on something he had said. I was not confronting Mr Señor in anyway, nor continuing the argument. But as in all instances here Señor will take the slightest excuse to jump back in with his slashing character assassination attempts.
What is it to be Mr McKee?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-06
Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-06-06
Instead of \\, Señor should use, /\, which represents a dunce hat quite nicely.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 6, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
However Mr Once does not grasp the significance of this. Even 55 times the amount of 3 nCi, is still insignificant compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
Tritium is a non-issue, it is a manufactured argument that has no link to nuclear weapons whatsoever.
As I have explained in my article on controlled demolition on HR1Blog, the positive beyond reasonable doubt proof that the towers were destroyed by explosive demolition, excludes any other mechanism by these facts alone.
Mr Once will not address these issues honestly, because these facts overwhelm and destroy his arguments.
His 4th generation nukes argument is just another red herring to steer the readership to Woowoo Land. The fact that nuclear weapons exist in no way proves their use on 9/11. I don't argue that such weapons don't exist. My argument is that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were not used to destroy the World Trade Center.
Mr Once claims that I am "science challenged", this is not so. But what is so, is that Mr Once is challenged as far as critical thinking is concerned. He takes assumptions, presumption and supposition as if they are facts, and then builds castles of flatulence high in the stratosphere.
If Mr Once wishes to prove nuclear DEW, he must first disprove all the points of controlled demolition. This is an impossible task, for they have been proven for the last ten years or more.
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 6, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Lack of Tritium Exit Signs Control and Contamination of Landfill Leachate
FINAL JULY 2009
ASTSWMO Radiation Focus Group
Federal Facilities Research Center
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 315
Washington, D.C. 20001
Introduction
The Radiation Focus Group of ASTSWMO's Federal Facilities Research Center began
researching tritium issues in 2003. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) began conducting product stewardship activities concerning tritium
containing devices; specifically self-luminescent tritium exit signs.
In 2003, the California Water Board evaluated 50 landfills for the presence of radioactive
materials in landfill leachate. Above-background levels of tritium were found in leachate
at 10 of these facilities.[1]
In 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began conducting
a comprehensive two-year evaluation of 54 landfills that tested for the presence of
radioactive materials in landfill leachate.[2]
The study was conducted as a follow up to Pennsylvania's new requirements for radiation monitoring at solid waste management facilities and to confirm findings of the 2003 California study. In the Pennsylvania evaluation, above-background levels of tritium were noted in leachate at most facilities.
Pennsylvania has done quarterly sampling for the past two years with similar findings.
Studies in New York and New Jersey also have shown similar results.[3]
The source of higher-than-background levels of tritium found in landfill leachate samples is presumed to originate from the improper disposal of self-luminescent tritium exit signs found in construction and demolition (C&D) waste and other solid waste streams, as there are no other known sources of tritium in industrial or consumer products that would cause elevated levels of tritium in landfill leachate.
A tritium exit sign is distributed as a GL device and may contain up to 25 curies (or
25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium sealed in all the small glass tubes. The manufacturers of generally licensed self-luminous tritium exit signs are specifically licensed and must meet the safety criteria in 10 CFR 32 and in the table of dose limits in 10 CFR 32.24. A general licensee who receives a self-luminous tritium exit sign must appoint a "responsible individual" who is knowledgeable with the regulations and requirements for reporting events, transfer, and disposal of the device.[8]
http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Policies_and_Publications/Federal_Facilities/2009.07_Final-Tritium-white-paper.pdf
"It is apparent that tritium exit signs are entering landfills via municipal or residual waste streams. When new, tritium exit signs may contain up to 25 curies (or 25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium. The 2004 Pennsylvania studies indicate that over 90% of landfills had tritium above the 150 pCi/L normal background level, with over 50% above EPA's MCL for drinking water. Pennsylvania studies also show leachate tritium levels in 2004 and 2005 ranged from hundreds of pCi/L up to 200,000 pCi/L. A single tritium exit sign has the potential to cause the tritium levels observed." -Ibid
Follow-up quarterly sampling in 2007, 2008 and 2009 has noted levels as high as 350,000 pCi/L." – Ibid
"From numerous reports of lost or stolen tritium exit signs by Agreement States and NRC, one can conclude that tritium exit signs are being disposed of in the normal solid waste stream.[19] This is supported by the States that sample landfill leachate and find levels of tritium well above natural background. In addition to the 2004 and 2005 Pennsylvania studies, ongoing quarterly sampling and analysis of landfill leachate has yielded several landfills with concentrations in the 100,000 to 350,000 pCi/L range. As noted above, other surveys in the States of California, New York, and New Jersey have found similar levels." – Ibid
350,000 nCi/L at the worst landfill out of 40 in Pennsylvania.
What is the assumption of the word "previously"? The assumption is that previous to the event that the Tritium levels were actually at or lower than EPA standards. This is a presumption that has no data to back it up, it is simply supposed to be so. And the fact is practically all municipal industrial environments are polluted beyond guideline limits as a general rule. Enforcement is lax and 'politically influenced' by the very industries that are supposed to be monitored and held in check.
Now I have already addressed the issue of landfill leachate systems are entirely ineffective for Tritium. This being the case it is most reasonable to assume that previous to 9/11 the Tritium levels were already higher than allowed by EPA standards. They may, and likely are higher yet today.
And these points go beyond the fact of how trivial the infinitesimal amount of tritium 55 times the the EPA standard actually is, in fact billions of times less than even the most attenuated nuclear device would produce. Which is a damn-well good enough reason to discontinue testing.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 6, 2014 at 4:16 pm
For clarity, I do mean Controlled Chemical Explosive Demolition, as is made very clear on my blog page.
I have addressed the idea of the "kitchen sink" earlier in this thread and will not be repeating myself any further here.
I will note one further thing however; I need no "invitation" from the anonymous entity to make commentary on Truth and Shadows. Let us be absolutely clear on this matter once and for all.
Any further remarks here will be addressed to the overall readership of this forum.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
June 6, 2014 at 4:19 pm
As far as "the first-responder ailments" that the nuclear advocates for WTC destruction claim is "Hiroshima like" and being related to "radiation":
Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:
"*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in "typical" indoor dusts."~RJ Lee report
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.
This also has bearing as to the anomalies to do with vehicles:
[1]"The RJ Lee Group performed an extensive study of the Banker's Trust building at 130 Liberty Street to assess structural damage as well as dust contamination. The dust analysis this group performed is, as it is self-proclaimed in the reports, one of the most extensive dust studies performed costing 33 million dollars. Within one of the reports,vi they state:
"The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings' mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker's Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume."
"Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction. This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.
The already oxidized and exposed metal corroded at an accelerated rate after the fires subsided and the corrosive ambient dust resettled upon the vehicles. Fine dust is easily agitated becoming airborne."~Study
[1] Pg. 4 -5 Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
\\][//
June 6, 2014 at 4:27 pm
"No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition."~David Ray Griffin
ABSTRACT
There are 'Signature Effects' to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.
Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate and mimic these very specific signature characteristics.
10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition:
1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions";
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.
[+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as "Ultimate Fact".
Ultimate Fact
[=] The combined evidence of the destruction of the towers is shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition .
> NOTE: Any alternative theory as to the mechanisms of the destruction of WTC, will have to successfully dispute each and every one of these 10 points.
Particularly troublesome for such theories are points 6 – 10.
\\][//
x83 ruffadam : cajole the perps into investigating themselves
2014-06-06
June 6, 2014 at 5:37 am
Dennis I am not a defeatist at all quite the contrary in fact. I just believe in addressing the actual problem rather than trying to cajole the perps into investigating themselves. I see that as a fools errand. What is NOT a fools errand in my humble opinion is going right for the jugular of the system itself. It is the system we have which gave us 9/11 and the USS Liberty and and and…. The system itself is the problem not any lack of evidence on our part. We have enough evidence to prove inside job for ten trials and we could use different evidence sets for each trial. The problem is we do not have a legitimate court to try the case BECAUSE we do not have a legitimate government BECAUSE our government is owned and controlled by corporations. That is the problem. We can solve the real problem if we face up to the real problem. We can solve nothing if we follow the example of the consensus panel and beg and plead with the illegitimate government who executed 9/11 to investigate themselves and I guess arrest themselves at some point. They are just laughing at that.
I am an optimist Dennis I think the people of the world are ready and able to throw off these tyrannical illegitimate regimes and replace them with something better, in our case a legitimate Constitutional republic as the Constitution originally intended. When that happens we have a chance for 9/11 justice.
How do we do it you ask? Well we grow a pair and initiate a hard core tax revolt and stick to our guns, hold our ground, and starve the whole rotten to the core system out of existence. Once the current scoundrels are ousted we elect all new leadership who are forced to strictly adhere to the Constitution and forced by mandate to eliminate "corporations" altogether because the corporate entity itself is the real problem since corporations are the real government. All a corporation is is a legal shield for people to do bad things and avoid personal accountability for their actions. Corporations are psychopaths who serve only one function… profit! A corporation will do anything up to and including buying politicians to achieve profits. The corporations own our government and it serves them exclusively so for all intents and purposes the corporations are the government. The agents of corporations are corporations themselves called lobbying firms. Take away their legal shield for open blatant bribery and racketeering and they disappear overnight. Eliminate the corporation and take back our whole world. Now we can still have organizations which make things, produce goods, build buildings etc BUT we remove the legal shield of the corporation so that the owners and controllers of the organizations become personally responsible for what their organization does. The buck stops with the owner. Can you imagine the major stock holders of Monsanto discovering that they are going to be held personally responsible for all the damage their GMO crops have done? Can you envision how quickly they would dump their Monsanto stock if they were to be held personally responsible for all the bribery, extortion, and murder their agents have done? The corporate shield is the only reason they get away with owning our government. Take away their shield and the whole system will change literally overnight.
Radical enough for you? Well in my view that is what is necessary at this point for humanity to have any hope of a decent and wonderful world.
x84 Señor El Once : fourth generation nuclear devices and their relation to Dr. Wood's work
Mr. Rogue writes:
I was discussing the remarks of Mr Whitesands, and asking for a clarification on something he had said.
No one is stopping Mr. Rogue from discussing this with Mr. Whitesands further. [Mr. Whitesands, thanks for the great quote about "that ferkin book."]
Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Rogue, and Mr. RuffAdam all made introductions and/or detours in DEW and nuclear methods that I would like to pursue further with Mr. Goldstein, particularly fourth generation nuclear devices and their relation to Dr. Wood's work. This document is the basis for further discussion and is requisite reading.
Because Mr. Rogue has shot his credibility and objectivity on these very subjects all to hell, he is not invited to participate. A golden opportunity for him to fulfill his promises of ignoring me. He should stay on the newer thread about the "New Consensus points..." where he re-posted lyrics from the Who.
This point going forward here, Neu Nookiedoo gets to run!
Heigh-ho, Nookiedoo! Away!
P.S. My comment, having more links than two, sat in the moderation queue and needed approval.
//
x85 Señor El Once : one billionth of a curie
Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci), is like understanding that one dollar is one billionth of a billion dollars ($).
The readers should note that this a nanocurie (nCi) mumbo-jumbo comes in a Tritium Report with limited scoping whose goals are fulfilled by the report of providing one plausible explanation for tritium (e.g., airplane EXIT signs, weapons' scopes, watch time pieces, etc.). The report did not venture into other explanations, like involvement of nuclear devices.
Its sampling methodology and even rationale for stopping the sampling were adequate for the limited scope, but precludes the report from being the authoritative comprehensive story on tritium at the WTC. Furthermore, it juked the definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than normal. Between this and the small, selective, delayed, tritium sampling [and other issues], the data in this report should not be trusted at face-value.
But this is precisely what Mr. Rogue does.
//
x86 Señor El Once : exasperate glitches to his programming
Mr. Rogue was not invited to discuss my hobby-horse, Neu Nookiedoo, because he forfeited the right to have his words trusted. These themes seem to exasperate glitches to his programming, because it always seems to lead to pathalogical lying, cheating, and weaseling.
...the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
The discussion in the source paper was not about just any run-of-the-mill EXIT signs. No. They were "airplane EXIT signs." This is an important distinction for two reasons.
(1) Pilotless, droned aircraft may not even need EXIT signs. And even if the aircraft had them, their total numbers were small, the pathway to the few drainage sampling points speculative, and passage of time before measurement permitted much dilution of tritium.
(2) Despite what levels of tritium such EXIT signs contained, the report found it challenging to attribute the measured tritium and its alleged seepage pathways to the haphazard & few sampling points to the aircraft exit signs. Which is why the report then found it necessary to speculate about other sources of tritium in the WTC content, like weapons' sights, time-pieces. More substantiation.
Mr. Rogue writes the following bold-face lie:
Tritium is a non-issue, it is a manufactured argument that has no link to nuclear weapons whatsoever.
Mr. Rogue should school himself on the fusion process. Neutron devices, which are variants of fusion, require tritium as well. I'd wager that most of the fourth generation nuclear devices are deriviatives of neutron devices, and hence fusion based requiring tritium.
As I have explained in my article on controlled demolition on HR1Blog, the positive beyond reasonable doubt proof that the towers were destroyed by explosive demolition, excludes any other mechanism by these facts alone. Mr Once will not address these issues honestly, because these facts overwhelm and destroy his arguments.
Mr. Rogue has set up a filter for me such that all comments from me go directly into moderation. By Mr. Rogue's own words, my comments will never be published on Mr. Rogue's blog. It isn't a question of "Mr Once will not address these issues honestly", it is that cheating "Mr. Rogue will not allow honest debate from me."
Moreover, nothing in the "10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition" excludes nuclear mechanisms.
His 4th generation nukes argument is just another red herring to steer the readership to Woowoo Land.
Mr. Rogue writes the above as if fourth generation nuclear devices do not exist. They do, as the link proves. If they don't exist, Mr. Rogue should take it up with the authors of the paper (Andre Gsponer) and its publishing website (Cornell University Library.)
The fact that nuclear weapons exist in no way proves their use on 9/11. I don't argue that such weapons don't exist. My argument is that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were not used to destroy the World Trade Center.
Mr. Rogue consistently fails to offer up links to his proof. All hypnotic suggestion by an over-acting clown.
Mr Once claims that I am "science challenged", this is not so. But what is so, is that Mr Once is challenged as far as critical thinking is concerned. He takes assumptions, presumption and supposition as if they are facts, and then builds castles of flatulence high in the stratosphere.
Writes the man who accepts the Tritium Report unchallenged, who accepts Dr. Jones "no nukes" paper unchallenged, who assumes that everything they wrote and published is golden, honest, truth. Ergo, the above piece of "critical thinking" is the pot calling the kettle black.
If Mr Once wishes to prove nuclear DEW, he must first disprove all the points of controlled demolition. This is an impossible task, for they have been proven for the last ten years or more.
The above straw-man is a demonstration of a cheat by Mr. Rogue.
First of all, destruction by nuclear means fits within the definition of "controlled demolition." Ergo, I'm not about to disprove all the points of controlled demolition. Not in my best interest.
Secondly, maybe Mr. Rogue meant to write "controlled demolition with chemical-based explosives and incendiaries including nano-thermite." I'm not about to disprove this, because I've always held that they "threw everything including the kitchen-sink at the WTC." To argue mutual exclusivity of demolition mechanisms is to play the disinformation game, right, Mr. Rogue?
We've all seen the clever drawings that trick the eye into seeing a young woman in one instance and then a old, hooked-nose woman in the next. Or the drawing that goes from a picture of Einstein to Marilyn.
Mr. Rogue does not grasp the analogy of 9/11 Tetris, similar to the video game called "Tetris". In the video game, odd shaped figures with square corners fall down; the user must orient the figures such that when they hit the stack at the bottom, they leave the fewest gaps.
In 9/11 Tetris, the evidence blocks fall down and can be oriented in multiple theory stacks. It is just that the theory stack with the fewest gaps is most likely the one that was the primary mechanism of discussion.
... And wouldn't you know it? Before this entry could be completed and published, Mr. Rogue has made a second, two-fold copy-and-paste response to me. "Two-fold copy-and-paste" because it copies from another source, was published on his blog (looks familiar), and now gets re-published here. It was debunked before, so I'll make short-work of it.
Here's the skew that Mr. Rogue personally introduced (to give him the bonafides of a debunker), as I have seen it nowhere else. A quote from the report:
It is apparent that tritium exit signs are entering landfills via municipal or residual waste streams.
Mr. Rogue fails to understand the concept of water flowing under the force of gravity down, as if he didn't know that shit rolls downhill.
The fabled tritium report makes a big deal about measuring tritium at certain drainage points. Meaning, the tritiated water drained off of the WTC. Nowhere do they speculate or make mention of tritiated water flowing backwards, uphill, from landfills. This is entirely Mr. Rogue's ferkin funk. And had this flow-back from landfills been a plausible factor, you can bet your ass that the tritium report would have cycled through that nonsense -- boosting background levels -- before grasping at AIRPLANE exit signs and speculation into tritium from weapons sights and personal time-pieces.
Furthermore, tritium wasn't just measured in the water at drainage points. It was measured in the dew of the leaves of trees downwind. Flowback from downhill landfills don't answer that one.
Mr. Rogue writes:
And these points go beyond the fact of how trivial the infinitesimal amount of tritium 55 times the the EPA standard actually is, in fact billions of times less than even the most attenuated nuclear device would produce. Which is a damn-well good enough reason to discontinue testing.
Time and sample points. Mr. Rogue assumes that the number of samples points was adequate. It wasn't, and pales in comparison to the number of dust samples that the USGS took (that report uranium and other heavy-metals). Mr. Rogue assumes that those select samples points are representative. They weren't, either in location or time.
Mr. Rogue falls into the trap of conflating late sampling with early sampling, whereby the former afford much opportunity for dilution from the very water the firemen pumped onto the WTC. Of course it'll be small weeks later.
Cheating Mr. Rogue wants us to conflate all of these diluted samples at different points in time as being representative of what was sampled immediately after 9/11. Cheating Mr. Rogue doesn't even acknowledge that there were no tritium samples taken immediately after 9/11. The delay is 3 to 4 days (as I recall) for the first of the earliest samples.
Readers should note that Mr. Rogue doesn't want anything to do with me or my hobby-horse topics. Yet at the first opportunity he gets, he tries to bush-whack Neu Nookiedoo and gets his ass handed to him again, with a nice, U-shaped, hoof-print.
Facebook awaits Mr. Rogue's participation!
//
x87 Señor El Once : bearings under my hobby-horse's horse-shoes
2014-06-12
{mcb: Not posted to T&S.}
Damn it! If somebody didn't just spill a couple of boxes of ridiculing ammo on the ground, making walking by this a slippery chore -- what with them cylindrical bullet casings acting like bearings under my hobby-horse's horse-shoes.
Guess I should do the righteous thing of sweeping them up. Bet I'll be able to load them into my gun one day. It certainly has a distinctive deja vu aura about it that says both "I've been re-purposed!" and "Re-purpose me again!" The internet junkie with poor manners obviously saw no hypocritic irony.
Calm down, Neu Nookiedoo!
//
No comments:
Post a Comment