Hide All / Expand All
Truth & Shadows has closed forums that dealt with the themes of Dr. Wood and/or 9/11 nuclear DEW. Most of them had more than run their course with hundreds of comments and been run through the weeds, which other areas of this blog documents. However, due to the bad behavior of the discussion participants, Craig McKee has been hesitant in allowing such discussions in unrelated forums, and has other priorities than creating a forum home for this theme.
But it does come up.
This posting tries an experiment to create an off-list (off Truth & Shadows) place for such a discussion to potentially bloom.
{mcb: This was updated 2015-01-30 to also serve as a venue from Mr. Adam Ruff to go to town with either his original challenge [2015-01-27] or my suggestions for modification.}
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote: Choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.
For the sake of clarity:
Señor El Once = Maxwell C. Bridges = M. C. Bruecke
x2
jeff : Truth is important and remarkably powerful
2014-08-05
August 5, 2014 at 1:26 am
Hello 'der,
I like your enthusiasm for correcting the misinformation about 911. However, the tactics used on the site are in question. Let's talk sometime. How many buildings were destroyed (or more correctly) vanished on that day in New York? Was it three?
I don't think you, or your readers for that matter, have actually read or comprehended Dr. Wood's work. I can cite examples. Many in fact. But maybe that isn't what this site is about. I don't want to waste your time or mine. Therefore, we can have long discussion if you are actually serious about this topic. However, you may not be. It isn't obvious right now. Let me know.
It would be good to go through this in more detail! Truth is important and remarkably powerful.
best,
jeff
x3
Señor El Once : doesn't take her efforts far enough
2014-08-05
Dear Mr. Jeff, you wrote:
I don't think you, or your readers for that matter, have actually read or comprehended Dr. Wood's work.
I have. [I'm not Craig McKee.]
Her main problem is that she doesn't take her efforts far enough. How does she power her DEW? She proposed (and then later backed-off into dropping dangling innuendo) Hurricane Erin and Tesla energy from space. Why not nuclear means, because this fits right in with late-3rd-generation / early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices, which ultimately is what Dr. Wood describes, but she don't go there.
The evidence? Look into Dr. Wood's work about the dirt trucked in, spread out, later scooped up, and then trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques, yet her website stops short. Dr. Wood gives very short shrift to the under-rubble hot-spots, which failed but fizzling nuclear devices could explain. To brush off the hot-spots, she relies on government reports on thermal images unquestioned and unchallenged. [All it would take would be to mislabel a thermal image from a much later date like November as being earlier in September.]
A person can't even say there was no radiation, because the major flaws in such a position is that nothing was measured PROMPTLY or systematically, leaving sufficient delay for alpha/beta/gamma radiation from a neutron variant devices to dissipate. The tritium efforts were a joke to cover over the red flag that tritium was even present.
I'm open to the concept that cold-fusion may have powered such multiple DEW devices, but too many gaps are present in explaining it. And if you've got variants of neutron devices in these 4th generation nukes, the need for weaponized cold-fusion might not be there.
You can contact me off-list. Here's a re-purposed FB discussion on the matter that can help you locate me off-list.
//
x4
jeff : forensic analysis of Dr. Wood
2014-08-05
August 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Ok.
But, I am not sure that discussing how someone might power a DEW of some kind is a central part of the forensic analysis Dr. Wood undertook. Furthermore, and I think she would be the first to admit this, although I can't speak for her, how would she know that? In the book, if you have read it, you would note that it contains a proper engineering analysis using established forensic methods. There is no need to speculate. What does that have to with the seismic data NIST published in their report as an example?
The book and the evidence, which is what I am happy to discuss, take the reader to the point where they can hopefully understand that the tech used on that day does not have a signature that matches any conventional weapon/explosive/mechanical equipment we are familiar with. It needn't go any further, although I do agree that Dr. Wood has searched out some examples that look sort of similar including Hutchison's work. I can say, as a responsible and prudent engineer, and after personally reviewing Hutchison's work, that he has indeed produced some highly unusual results. That is another discussion however. Also, I happen to know how much energy he used so I am quite prepared to discuss that, only with the understanding that it has nothing to do with Dr. Wood's work however.
Dr. Jenkins couldn't grasp that unfortunately. Whether that was a case of him being deliberately obtuse or merely a mental block only he can answer. But, I can assure you, his calculations start out from the wrong place with wrong understanding of the problem. From that point on, his work appears sound. My question is, who would want to read it, when there is such an obvious blunder in the very set up of the problem.
Let me give a simple example. In the potash mining industry you can use drills, crushers and conveyors to retrieve the potash and salt from deep underground and then smash it up in little uneven bits for sale to people who produce food. That takes quite a bit of energy. Every good engineer would know how to calculate how much energy would be needed to run all of those hoists, conveyors, crushers, drills, etc. That would be an important number for someone designing the electrical system or paying the hydro bill. But no one else would really care.
However, you can also use a solution mining tech which dissolves the potash in a brine. The energy requirements are vastly different. Further, one is victorian era tech and other is much more modern system that takes advantage of a natural process which is dissolution of potash into an ionic solution. I can tell, the solution approach uses a fraction of the energy to achieve the same or better results. Jenkins approached the problem like a victorian era engineer. He missed the point entirely. I can't be bothered to look at his stuff beyond explaining how he got wrong. I won't be drawn into this kind of discussion. If you don't know, you don't know and I am not responsible for explain that point to people.
I have question for you. Is your response designed to waste my time or do you have an actual concern that this is a real issue? If the later is true, could you explain why knowing the energy requirements of an private/military domain technology matters in any way to the empirical evidence and engineering analysis Dr. Wood presents. Do you know how much fuel a jet uses crossing the Atlantic Ocean? And do you know how much fuel a fighter jet would use crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Or how much fuel a hot air balloon would use crossing the Atlantic?
I don't think you are being serious. I have looked at some of your posts (not all fortunately). I wonder what your agenda is and I have to ask what is the web site administrator doing using this kind of framework for this sort of study. It clearly opens up the discussion to nut-job bloggers who don't have any idea of what they are talking about and how they waste countless hours in spurious discussion.
If you are serious, then prove it by using reasonable methods to discuss evidence and information that would advance everyone's understanding of an extremely important event.
Best…
x5
Señor El Once : Not the place
2014-08-06
Dear Mr. Jeff,
This Dr. Wood / nuclear discussion does not belong under a thread called "About Me [Craig McKee]".
Chances are high that Mr. McKee hasn't even seen your comment yet. He's had other priorities and isn't monitoring the threads as carefully as before.
Moreover, you should know that the themes of Dr. Wood and nuclear devices have been discussed. I won't argue that they have been discussed thoroughly in an A-Z manner. They resulted in many comments, but also brought about some bad behavior in the participants. In my opinion much of that bad behavior was calculated to force the moderator's hand in having to shut down such discussions.
To date, no new forum on Truth & Shadows has been created for these themes, because Mr. McKee has other priorities, and these themes can be so derisive that they turn readers away.
To that end, I am doing something that I don't normally do. I'm promoting a new place on my blog where you and I (and potentially others) can explore these themes objectively and rationally: "Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices".
I have taken the liberty of re-purposing your words to get the discussion going. My response to your lengthy comment from yesterday is the last part of the posting.
If you want to continue this discussion, you can make a comment there.
Further discussion of these Dr. Wood or nuclear themes here on Truth & Shadows will result in them getting purged [... until Mr. McKee sees fit to open a new home for the discussion to bloom.] I harbor no ill-will towards Mr. McKee, even though I am the resident champion of those themes and impacted by the consequences of the bad behavior. If you persist in your promotion here [until such a new venue is open], ~~I~~ will be the one calling it to Mr. McKee's attention.
With the links to my blog, I'm doing (a) Mr. McKee, (b) Truth & Shadows, and (c)_ these Dr. Wood & nuclear themes a valued service. They take this off-list in the hopes of avoiding the purposeful bad behavior while allowing for the arguments to get honed and improved, before a new venue is created on T&S.
Full disclosure: Yes, my blog does give me home-court advantage, and I do moderate the comments before allowing them to be posted. But I'll be objective and fair. Because of this home-court advantage and because it will never be my duty to preserve the entirety of your words, it might benefit you to maintain in parallel your own blog with your version of the discussion.
At any rate, the response to your T&S comment is the last one in the top-level posting. Neither of us should make any more comments in this thread on these themes.
Sincerely,
//
x6
Señor El Once : power a DEW is a central
2014-08-06
Mr. Jeff wrote on August 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm
I am not sure that discussing how someone might power a DEW of some kind is a central part of the forensic analysis Dr. Wood undertook.
Forensic analysis undertook by Dr. Wood? I won't belabor the many gaps, omissions, and dangling innuendo in Dr. Wood's so-called "forensic analysis" for it even to be deemed as such. Ample nuggets of truth remain that are good and necessitate objective thinkers' attention. Thus for the sake of discussion, I'll focus on powering DEW.
If the theory can't be reasonably powered in a real world sense, the theory does not progress into the realm of higher probability as being actual. From the physics aspect of it, the pulverizing nature of the destruction combined with free-fall acceleration that were observed indicate a massive energy sink that requires an equivalent energy source in order for the energy equations to be balanced.
Dr. Wood exposes many clues as to potential energy sources, yet stops vastly short of connecting those glaring dots. Her web-pages about the dirt are a prime example: radiation haz-mat procedures. She does an admirable job of pointing out other clues in the crime, such as Hurricane Erin, yet allows her readers' imaginations to be hijacked into associating this as the definitive power source for the destruction. Don't get me wrong; energy from weather is certainly possible. Whether it could be made operational and on the scale required for 9/11 on-demand, is a bit far-fetched particularly when nuclear energy sources that have been developed and tested since WWII would have much easier to come by and align with the unfinished dirt work. The importance of her Hurricane Erin evidence is that the culprits could control the weather by making sure it did not hit NYC. [If they had no control over Hurricane Erin, then FEMA and other emergency responder type groups would not have set up their bases on piers prior to 9/11 but when Erin was still very much a danger.
If you have read it, you would note that it contains a proper engineering analysis using established forensic methods.
I've read her book, cover-to-cover. You overstate your case and don't provide examples.
There is no need to speculate.
No need to speculate, you say? Obviously there was a need to drop dangling innuendo all over the place. Same difference.
What does that have to with the seismic data NIST published in their report as an example?
The seismic data does not rule out late-3rd-generation / early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices. Brief detour, chemical based explosives derive their destructive capacity by rapidly displacing air and generating massive air pressure differentials. The DEW weapons channel their energy at specific output wavelengths, and thus subtract from what energy would be available for, say, a nuclear blast and heat wave. Reduced blast waves -- air pressure differentials -- mean much smaller seismic signals. Still, detonation signatures were part of the seismic record.
The book and the evidence, which is what I am happy to discuss, take the reader to the point where they can hopefully understand that the tech used on that day does not have a signature that matches any conventional weapon/explosive/mechanical equipment we are familiar with.
For revision 1, I agree.
It needn't go any further, although I do agree that Dr. Wood has searched out some examples that look sort of similar including Hutchison's work. I can say, as a responsible and prudent engineer, and after personally reviewing Hutchison's work, that he has indeed produced some highly unusual results. That is another discussion however. Also, I happen to know how much energy he used so I am quite prepared to discuss that, only with the understanding that it has nothing to do with Dr. Wood's work however.
We're on the same page.
Dr. Jenkins couldn't grasp that unfortunately. Whether that was a case of him being deliberately obtuse or merely a mental block only he can answer. But, I can assure you, his calculations start out from the wrong place with wrong understanding of the problem. From that point on, his work appears sound. My question is, who would want to read it, when there is such an obvious blunder in the very set up of the problem.
Yet again, I agree. Dr. Jenkins work was stilted and incomplete. It doesn't debunk Dr. Wood's work entirely, but it does hint where her efforts could be refined. It was a pity that her 2010 book didn't address some of Dr. Jenkins' 2007 criticisms.
Let me give a simple example. In the potash mining industry you can use drills, crushers and conveyors to retrieve the potash and salt from deep underground and then smash it up in little uneven bits for sale to people who produce food. That takes quite a bit of energy. Every good engineer would know how to calculate how much energy would be needed to run all of those hoists, conveyors, crushers, drills, etc. That would be an important number for someone designing the electrical system or paying the hydro bill. But no one else would really care.
That would be an important number to determine whether the endeavor is even cost effective and could achieve any ROI. I disagree that no one else would really care, because too much energy expended in the operation translates into money and affects the bottom-line for venture capitalists whether or not it even gets funded.
However, you can also use a solution mining tech which dissolves the potash in a brine. The energy requirements are vastly different. Further, one is victorian era tech and other is much more modern system that takes advantage of a natural process which is dissolution of potash into an ionic solution. I can tell, the solution approach uses a fraction of the energy to achieve the same or better results. Jenkins approached the problem like a victorian era engineer. He missed the point entirely. I can't be bothered to look at his stuff beyond explaining how he got wrong. I won't be drawn into this kind of discussion. If you don't know, you don't know and I am not responsible for explain that point to people.
Ack.
I have question for you. Is your response designed to waste my time or do you have an actual concern that this is a real issue?
Not a waste of your time. Ample evidence exist that the DEW devices were nuclear powered. The ramifications of this become huge and not so easy for the government to weasel out of. The figurative nuclear fallout from this revelation could, would, should cause a public panic to the point of ripping out by the roots the corrupt systems that enable this: executive leadership, military, MIC, banking, media...
If the later is true, could you explain why knowing the energy requirements of an private/military domain technology matters in any way to the empirical evidence and engineering analysis Dr. Wood presents.
A stabbing happens in your kitchen. It matters if the murder weapon were a Cutco kitchen knife wielded in defense, or if the murder weapon were forged in the garage, honed for weeks into a precision edge, and then deployed like an Indy 500 sewing machine on the victim.
The energy is but one clue that has to be followed to determined HOW it was done, that then clearly limits WHO could have done it (as if we didn't already know).
I don't think you are being serious. I have looked at some of your posts (not all fortunately). I wonder what your agenda is and I have to ask what is the web site administrator doing using this kind of framework for this sort of study. It clearly opens up the discussion to nut-job bloggers who don't have any idea of what they are talking about and how they waste countless hours in spurious discussion.
My agenda is Truth with an upper-case "T". If I'm wrong and can be convinced of such with rational and substantiated arguments, I'll apologize and sing a new tune.
If you are serious, then prove it by using reasonable methods to discuss evidence and information that would advance everyone's understanding of an extremely important event.
Sure thing.
With kind regards
//
x7
jeff : My criticism therefore remains in place
2014-08-06 at 10:56 pm
Great. Thanks. My comments stand. If the moderator chooses to remove this text that is fine. it is his site.
At a meta level, having a discussion about Dr. Wood where the emphasis is on her and not her work is kind of what triggered me to write something. Also, without some kind of formal structure, there is just too much nonsense for people to follow it.
For example, in your notes, you haven’t responded to anything I wrote. This kind of tactic, while effective in dissuading readings from taking the discussion seriously, is a complete waste of time.
My criticism therefore remains in place. The person maintaining this site is obviously a sophisticated individual. He undoubtedly has the ability to structure the discussion in a way to limit this kind of thing. It is volition to have or to allow the wild bunch untrammeled opportunities to take pot shots at Dr. Wood’s work.
Your comments are a case in point. On first glance, it sounds like you have a legitimate question about Dr. Wood’s work. But on review, we can see that that isn’t true. The next move is an immediate change of course to a new topic. Ok. But, I would be naive to think that you are not smart enough to be fully cognizant of what is taking place. Hence my response.
If this site is what is purports to be then there should be a legitimate effort to vet Dr. Wood’s work and in light of that effort explore the implications for other so-called truthers. In this regard, this site is an unmitigated failure. That can’t be an accident.
This is the difference between what I am doing and what you are doing. My comments have remained consistent with my initial post. I have stayed on topic.
Let’s take another simple example. Often people state that Dr. Wood used fake photos. Really? This kind of statement should have brought an immediate response from the moderator because it delegitimizes Dr. Wood and her work quite viciously. Yet, those comments are allowed to stand.
If this were true, then there would be proof. Also, as you have undoubtedly noticed, the book uses photos as evidence but is also uses several other sources of information to corroborate that evidence. It is a thorough forensic review.
Making those kind of statements without proof actually looks slanderous to me (I am not a lawyer). What did the moderator do when this occurred?
So in response for your request to move our interaction to another location, I do not accept. There is a reason I put this information in this location. It is a comment on this site! The exchanges we have had are merely examples for clever readers to see what I was concerned about.
The tactics used here a commonplace unfortunately. I can’t and I won’t try to correct this wherever it occurs.
Thanks for taking the time to prove my point!
Best…
x8
ruffadam : banned from a 9/11 Truth Facebook forum
2015-01-27
{mcb: improved the formatting.}
January 27, 2015 at 5:09 am
Well here is my conversation with Ken Doc which I am publishing because he banned me from his forum for no reason whatsoever and I don’t particularly like being gagged.
Conversation started Monday
1/26, 12:33pm
Adam Ruff
So now I am banned from the 911 truth group?
1/26, 12:39pm
Adam Ruff
Hard for me to see what you said or respond don’t you think? Oh well good luck to you Ken I guess a conversation is not possible after all. Too bad because Dany and I were actually starting to make some headway towards resolving this “fiasco”.
1/26, 12:51pm
Ken Dockery
The Pentagon issue has nearly destroyed this movement while wasting soooo much time. Not to mention dealing with all the other disinfo. Ive had enough of it Adam. Sorry.
other disinfo, I mean Judy Wood and Holograms
Monday
1/26, 6:40pm
Adam Ruff
We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments. Censorship doesn’t work Ken it just makes you look weak. I did not break any of your rules yet I am censored so whatever man I don’t need to be part of something like that. P.S. You guys who do not know the pentagon evidence are the ones making the issue divisive by the way not us and it is you guys who make it seem complicated too which its not. Anyway have a good life.
1/26, 8:31pm
Ken Dockery
Have a good one to, Please don;t compare T&S to the “largest 9/11 fb forum”. You guys have like 5 active posters, whereas we have 100’s that post and 1000’s that look on.
For you to say that I haven’t debunked Judy Wood or Holograms, means you know nothing about me.
Anyways, peace out.
1:15am
Adam Ruff
Ken did it ever occur to you that if you are so willing to ban me even though I broke none of your rules that your rules are meaningless? Think about it because it is true. If you are willing to silence me for no cause other than I disagree with you on a few issues then aren’t you a dictator imposing a kind of tyranny? In this case a tyranny where only your ideas and those who agree with you get to be heard. Another consideration is that if you silence all those who disagree with you have you really won the argument? I do not think so but perhaps you consider it some kind of victory I don’t know.
BTW: I never said you have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.
As to the relative size of the two forums I can say with pride that T+S is far better than your forum because it isn’t a tyranny and we can and do talk about anything we want. It is the very definition of freedom of speech while obviously your forum is the definition of well… you get the picture.
Gandhi: An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
1:56am
Adam Ruff
As to the pentagon issue “nearly destroying the truth movement” the answer is no Ken. What the pentagon issue has done is expose the fake truthers and separate them from the real truthers. Fake truthers refuse to inform themselves about the pentagon choosing instead to follow cults of personality such as Kevin Ryan or David Chandler. You simply trust that those “leader hero’s” have done the research and come to the right conclusion because you are too lazy to do the research yourself. Well Chandler and Ryan both are dead wrong about the pentagon and have been thoroughly debunked as far as the pentagon is concerned. So you are following the pide piper literally. This is why neither of them will debate the issue in public because they will lose that debate BIG! Real truthers look at the evidence (as much as they can get their hands on) and draw their own conclusions. This is why I can win a debate about the pentagon with anyone who thinks it is too complicated or too divisive. It isn’t complicated at all the problem is you, for whatever reason, simply do not want to face the truth that the plane observed flew North of the Citgo gas station thereby proving the light poles and other damage was staged. It also proves the plane flew over the pentagon and away. It is quite simple really you just don’t want to face the truth for your own reasons. To you it is “divisive” because you do not understand the evidence very well and perhaps you do not want your hero’s (Chandler and Ryan) to be proved wrong (too late because they have been). You are stuck in cognitive dissonance and hero worship. I am not stuck and I can therefore explain rationally and calmly what the evidence is, what it proves, why it is simple, and how devastating it really is to the official narrative of 9/11. I can say with confidence that the pentagon evidence is just as important, perhaps even more so, as the controlled demolitions evidence. Simply put, who else but insiders could plant evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon? That is why it is important Ken, very important! That is also why we cannot just drop the issue because some uninformed or misinformed truthers such as yourself don’t understand it and don’t want to do the research. By your logic we should drop the CD evidence as well because some so-called truthers out there do not understand physics. We don’t want to be divisive right? They think other evidence should be focused on instead of CD. Don’t believe me Ken? Look up Jon Gold then and see for yourself. Anyway I have the very strong suspicion that I am wasting my time talking to you. I hope to be proved wrong.
x10
Craig McKee : infighting at 9/11 Truth Movement
2015-01-27
January 27, 2015 at 8:46 am
I cannot believe what has happened since my article came out. Dockery has completely lost it. He “read the riot act” to participants at 9/11 Truth Movement about infighting. He is blaming me for causing infighting even though the whole reason for my objections over there was to stop people like Mike Collins from causing dissension by verbally assaulting people and twisting the Pentagon topic. Now, he has also banned Adam Syed for no reason (that I can see) other than his association with me and with the Pentagon evidence. It really does make one think about the 911blogger experience, even more than when I wrote this article. Unfortunately I’m off to work and can’t provide more detail about what is going on over there until this evening. Un-freaking-believable.
x11
hybridrogue1 : thousands of tin horn tyrants holding positions of power in trivial situations
2015-01-27
January 27, 2015 at 10:55 am
Dockery is no different than the thousands of tin horn tyrants holding positions of power in trivial situations. Control freaks like this little shit are always small minded, that is the core of the authoritarian personality. Just give him a bullwhip and the position of the straw-boss on a southern plantation in the 1850’s and you’ve got your template for this goon.
\\][//
x12
Señor El Once : request for reasoned analysis
2015-01-27
Mr. Adam Ruff re-posted what he wrote on a Facebook thread or message about his banishment from a Facebook 9/11 Truth forum:
We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus. Chief among those discredited theories is space beams and hologram planes. We simply wipe the floor with them using better arguments.
If this is the case, I await post-haste the reasoned analysis about why a certain [name known to participants] hobby-horse pony is a discredited theory and bogus. To avoid derailing this thread, Mr. Ruff should publish it or re-publish it -- if we are to believe his prior stellar efforts in this regard exist -- on his blog or Facebook page, and then friend us and publish here on T&S advertising links.
Readers should note that discussion on that [name known to participants] hobby-horse was ~not~ stopped because the opponents offered reasoned analysis as to why it was bogus. No, it was stopped due to the Mike Collins-ish deja vu bad behavior of various participants here.
Mr. Ruff's boasting of his personal exploits continued:
I never said you [Ken Dockery] have not debunked Wood or hologram planes I said we do not ban discussion of those topics we simply show them to be bogus with better arguments and info. We also only do the debunking one time and just refer those who bring it up again to the original debunking. By doing it this way we have developed the very best debunks there are because we have faced every challenge imaginable. I have some Judy Wood debunks that you have never even thought of my friend because I had to find the truth because I refused to silence my opponents.
I have no intention of cranking a new Dr. Wood discussion. But as the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I'm not saying that I'm convinced of space beams on these other towers. What I am saying is that a trick in steering the 9/11TM is to show where X doesn't apply to A, and then to falsely imply or extrapolate without proof that X also doesn't apply to B or C either. The exposed agenda is that any discussion of X in any valid context isn't permissible.]
Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to "some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."
To my recollection -- unless Mr. Ruff is some other participant's sockpuppet here on T&S -- Mr. Ruff has not participated in any Dr. Wood discussion to a convincing degree where he hasn't turned tail and run, bragging how he "doesn't read my [SEO] comments, skipping right over them". Makes him very deserving of the ridicule that I impose upon him.
Also to my recollection, Mr. Ruff has never personally debunked holograms.
I did, though (starting around 2012-02-24). I followed Dr. Fetzer's rabbit hole and found it lacking in supportive scientific documentation to prove holograms could real-world achieve what was observed. [And the 9/11 hologram argument involved grossly misrepresenting and misinterpreting two sets of radar data.]
I do not expect Mr. Ruff to read -- much less step up to dutifully answer -- my rhetorical challenges for him to cough up his work in debunking all nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's work [and that support my hobby-horse].
I suppose it is one thing for Mr. Ruff to make boastful and dubious claims in other forums, but quite another for him to drag them back here and have us, who lived it, believe them true as if we were just like his rare-earth customers.
The whole point of the above exercise in pushing Mr. Ruff's buttons was to chide Mr. Ruff into being not quite such a hypocrite and to champion truth at all times. Otherwise, his less than truthful endeavors will bite him back.
//
x13
ruffadam : choose another venue
2015-01-27
January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm
SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all. Keep this crap out of this thread and do not try and derail it again.
x14
Craig McKee : no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion
2015-01-27
x15
hybridrogue1 : COMMENT REMOVED: some huge amount of verbose bullshit
2015-01-27
hybridrogue1
January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm
{mcb: The original comment was modified by the T&S moderator as follows.}
COMMENT REMOVED
hybridrogue1
January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm
{mcb: Retrieved from email, here's the content of the COMMENT REMOVED.}
Let’s see Craig,
You have “no intention of allowing a Judy Wood discussion on this thread.”
And yet we are treated to some huge amount of verbose bullshit on the matter by Señor El Once, who is again simply attacking Mr Ruff, using the Wood issue and the handle to his club.
And on this same thread you asked for no more mention of Fetzer, and yet we have this massive tome of turgid trash from Dwil at: dwil -January 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm.
I am not going to bother answering either of these assholes here. But again I am confused if your “requests” not to have certain issues continue here, are simply that, “requests” or are they the actual rules of the game here?
\\][//
x16
hybridrogue1 : the agitprop bullshit laid on me
2015-01-28
January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Well now that the stew has already boiled over I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.
As you will note, again this anonymous nutjob has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion. We, that is Mr Ruff and I, are his targets. I don’t think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit. What he gets off on is defaming those who have shown him for what he is, an agent of disruption.
As is such I hope Mr McKee will stand to his “requests” that this crap come to an end.
\\][//
x17
Craig McKee : I am enforcing my own rules
2015-01-28
January 28, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Let’s see, HR. To make something clear once again. I work during the daytime and can’t deal with comment moderation until I get home. As it is I am blowing my lunch break to deal with this. I really don’t appreciate the implication that I am not enforcing my own rules, particularly when comments, as you know, go up in real time and unmoderated (unless the person posting has never posted here). Are you recommending that I return to having all comments sit until I can approve them? Please let me handle my job, okay?
{mcb: edited.}
x18
Señor El Once : COMMENT REMOVED: surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges
2015-01-28
{mcb: The original comment was modified by the T&S moderator as follows.}
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS ABOUT A CHALLENGE REGARDING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD.
{mcb: Original Comment follows.}
I am surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges, when he wrote:
SEO I refuse to derail this thread so choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked.
Stay tuned to this message for information on the off-T&S venue chosen.
Because I am a fair and generous fellow in search of understanding, I offer Mr. Ruff choices [A] and [B] as amendments to the original challenges and his anxiously-awaited participation. These modifications come about entirely due to my present state of understanding, whereby neither of us needs to waste time on debunking what we are already more or less agree on.
Specifically, I've debunked holograms myself, as stated and linked in one of my last comments. I don't need more convincing of the same. I would only be interested in such links if it takes me to Mr. Ruff's authored words that make a unique and substantiated argument why holograms were not involved. Otherwise, he shouldn't waste his time. Choice [A] is a modification of Mr. Ruff's proposal, minus hologram planes.
++++ Choice A ++++
Choice [A]: Direct me to where Dr. Wood's work has been debunked. Great if it is page-by-page, but section-by-section (applicable also to sections on web-pages) is a more likely granularity.
He'll get bonus points if some on the list of links to "Dr. Wood debunking" analysis are Mr. Ruff's authored words that make unique and substantiated arguments.
Should Mr. Ruff set up the frame of space beams, he should remember that I'm mostly interested in analysis that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. [I've already ruled out space beams for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.] If Mr. Ruff's debunking of Dr. Wood starts and stops at space beams and/or doesn't go to those odd-ball towers, however, he fails.
The only reason I'm entertaining Choice [A] is that no one has comprehensively analyzed Dr. Wood's work [nor rescued those pesky nuggets of truth]... other than my piddly and humble efforts, I guess. If Mr. Ruff actually found such and can provide a comprehensive set of the links, excellent news for the 9/11 Truth Movement! Mr. Ruff does us a great service! Woo-hoo!
Because I only champion the nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work and re-purpose them in my 4th generation arguments, this suggests a way for Mr. Ruff's efforts to be focused in a reasonable and logical manner. He knows where I'm headed. Otherwise, if he doesn't heed this directional detail, he could find himself going off on a complete derailment (or straw-man) over areas of Dr. Wood's work that have no or little bearing to the deviant nuclear considerations, which is my overt agenda.
Further, debunk the nuggets, or acknowledge them as nuggets of truth. Be aware that each acknowledged nugget of truth could necessitate re-evaluation of prior beliefs, if Mr. Ruff is exhibiting true objectivity and integrity.
If Mr. Ruff comes up with zero nuggets, he fails, because nuggets of truth are the foundation of all disinformation. A result of zero nuggets will shoot Mr. Ruff's objectivity all to hell in the eyes of the latter-day lurker readers / judges. Such a lashing is avoidable, but requires learning from the mistakes of Mr. Ruff's rogue companions.
++++ OR ++++
++++ Choice B ++++
Choice [B]: Mr. Ruff should slap a saddle on my old hobby-horse, Neu Nookiedoo, and take 'er for a spin or two around the coral before headin' up to the high country. The saddle bags can store the nuggets of truth collected from all sorts of disinformation sources along the way.
Mr. Ruff, you and the readers should know that 4th generation nuclear devices is my present state of understanding about some of the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction, my hobby-horse, my holy grail, the mindset that needs to be corrected if I'm to sheepishly return to the fold of mainstream 9/11 Truth.
I choose [B] and will probably bring my discussion around to [B] even if you attempt the [A] Dr. Wood distraction. [B] is what Dr. Wood left out of her book, what Dr. Jones left out of his analysis, what fits the evidence, what fits the song & dance and dog & pony show up and down the media circus, and what merits the much bigger disinfo campaigns in forums at suppression and at sidelining via ridicule as opposed to reasoned argument. Hell, we already have one proven-objectivity-challenged participant trying to put the skids on such discussions happening even off-list [which is my objective], by calling foul to the moderator:
[T]his anonymous nutjob [SEO] has made an attack on Mr Ruff in his usual ultra verbose fashion... I don't think he cares about his nookiedoodoo bullshit... I hope Mr McKee will stand to [SEO's] "requests" that this crap come to an end.
Neu Nookiedoo is a hobby-horse. Therefore, the
"nookiedoodoo bullshit" is ridicule coming from another bullshitting source, like the very one who gets credit for helping coin the hobby-horse's namesake.
I care about Neu Nookiedoo very much, and contest any such disingenuous comments that suggest I don't. Of course, if Mr. Ruff et al is successful in those off-list endeavors at convincingly debunking the premise with substantiation, I won't be flogging that dead horse no mo'. I'll change my belief, apologize to the public, and move on.
Choice [B] says to not waste such unstructured time on Dr. Wood's work, because to do so would be to create an unnecessary, time-sucking,
distraction that could run your objectivity through the wringer if integrity is lacking. Plus, if you don't find the requisite, comprehensive debunking section-by-section (that also has the moxie to acknowledge nuggets of truth) -- like a hybrid failed to achieve before you --, then this exercise will deflate significantly your boastful claims and reflect poorly on your character.
Mr. Ruff wrote:
choose another venue
With one caveat, I choose my blog (some links below). I promise to be a fair and impartial moderator, publishing your remarks as long as they remain reasonable. In the next few days or week, I'll create an entry with re-purposing of comments here to serve as an introduction and starting point. The discussion can go then forth in the comments there under.
The caveat from above about my choice in venues? Mr. McKee is welcome to host an article on T&S where the discussion can happen. [It would be a most interesting experiment to see who shows up and what arguments they make.]
Because I am fair, I want my debate opponents to be as knowledgeable as possible in what my beliefs are and what evidence substantiates them, so they will know "what" to attack [and not "who"]. In that spirit, I call Mr. Ruff's attention to these.
A 2014-04-13 comment with the title "sick of SEO claiming we have not done so" is a direct response to some burrs that Mr. Ruff tried to insert under Nookiedoo's saddle. It was not published on T&S. Curious readers and serious debate opponents should follow some of the rabbit hole links contained therein.
I haven't had a chance to write the revision and extension of an article intended for VT but never published there, "Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)", but it is on my list of things to do. However, I linked the 2014-01 article because it lays down a foundation of truth nuggets mined from lots of (disinfo) sources that remain valid as my beliefs shifted into 4th generation nuclear mechanisms.
Thus, if Mr. Ruff finds issue with something on my blog relating to these themes, he can make a comment directly there.
++++ More Fair Advice ++++
Write your response off-list in an editor. Save it locally, so that you'll have it to re-purpose other places. [You don't want my blog to be the sole repository of your excellent words. CYA.] Record a list of links on where you posted it, otherwise you'll defeat your stated purposes of dispatching future discussions of this sort with a mere go-to URL.
Take your time. Complete your thoughts and make a big case. Be logical and thoroughly. Starting with a copy of my works could be the structure and framework needed to debunk it, point-by-point.
Because the size of each comment on my blog is restricted by Blogger, be prepared to divide up your big response off-list with "Part x/N" reader affordances so that that readers will know to look for all parts of a multi-part response.
Minor HTML mark-up goes a long way to making a polished presentation that is easier to read.
++++ Summary ++++
Mr. Ruff can start to put together his all-star comments and links to the same. If Mr. Ruff takes a week or more to craft a more perfect debunking production, that would really help me out time-wise. I could be nudged to completing that aforementioned revision and extension of my previous belief into 4th generation nukes as a new blog entry, and that could be where our rational discussion continues.
P.S. To Mr. Rogue. You claim that I attack Mr. Ruff!
No, I am holding Mr. Ruff accountable for his boastful statements that I don't think were honest particularly with respect to the extent of his personal efforts. I want him to have some integrity and not be such a hypocrite. I'll hold his feet to the fire, because, -- GOD DAMN IT -- the effort will strengthen the truthful arguments, be they his or mine or both. [If they're his, I've got the integrity to admit and acknowledge such.]
In case you didn't notice, Mr. Ruff promises to finally set the record straight on [A] but hopefully [B], something you were spectacularly incapable of in the most agitprop sort of ways. For the 9/11 Truth Movement's sake, let's hope that Mr. Ruff isn't stepping into some of his own blow-hard bullshit.
Off-list, Mr. Rogue, on my home court. You can come play, too. I'll be fairer to your words than you are to mine.
By the way, Mr. Rogue, your "January 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm" comment -- quick on the heels of your "January 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm" REMOVED COMMENT -- was purposely made where it doesn't belong. And... *boo-hoo*... It wasn't very kind to me! *sob*
It all is like Albert Einstein's theory of relatively. From your perspective:
I will make mention of the agitprop bullshit laid on me for those months and years. As you likely already surmised I was speaking to the defamation agenda of our resident stalker, Señor.
Relative to my perspective and underscored by your ridiculing efforts in this very thread (and the larger picture of how your antics have long resembled those of Mr. Mike Collins), the source of the agitprop bullshit was the other way around.
Proof of this was your inability to avoid the spot-on, discrediting dings to your objectivity and integrity ... by having some. On stupid shit, no less. Don't believe me? Check out the lack of cyber-qualifiers on the expression "our resident stalker, Señor". Without such, you make a serious charge with far-reaching criminal implications that has no bearing in reality or truth. Careless in the small things; careless in the big as well.
++++ TO BE CONTINUED OFF-LIST ++++
... unless otherwise sanctioned by Mr. McKee.
//
x9
Señor El Once : This is the venue
2015-01-30
Dear Mr. McKee,
Your lunch hour was well spent moderating the comments to this thread, which included one of mine. Kudos, and no hard feelings.
However, Mr. Adam Ruff was clearly begging for a venue where he could go to town:
[C]hoose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. ... So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all.
Your editing left out possible URLs for that, so that my earnest desires -- and those of Mr. Adam Ruff -- to not derail T&S could be fulfilled. As luck would have it, I still had a thread created from 2014-08-06 intended for die-hard Dr. Wood supporter, Mr. Jeff.
- Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices
Alas, after Mr. Jeff's few comments on T&S to stir the pot, he was a no-show on my thread.
The thread remains an excellent place for Mr. Adam Ruff to "school me correctly." I encourage him to use it.
Let's hope that Mr. Adam Ruff does better than Mr. Jeff and at least shows up to carry out that which he has been boasting. I'll give him a reasonable amount of time (until March 2015) to compose his glorious work.
//
x20
Señor El Once : saving face and the pickle you're in
2015-02-06
Dear Mr. Ruff,
You know me as Señor El Once, or SEO, on Truth & Shadows. You gave Mr. McKee permission to pass your contact information to me.
I make no excuses for my delay in contacting you directly, on top of Mr. McKee's delay in performing his match-making services. I'm busier than ever with other priorities, thereby demonstrating the priority I give to cranking the "rhetorical challenge."
It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in. Pickle? Yes, many-fold so.
For starters, you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme "boastful lying hypocrite" etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse.
Secondly and maybe more importantly, Dr. Wood's (Dr. Jones) efforts didn't go the distance required and to all the proper corners. The abrupt stops that several of their research venues make is a clue, because rational logic thought-momentum in those directions naturally would have the inquisitive and curious mind step precisely into Neu Nookiedoo, 3rd and 4th generation.
Thirdly, Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. "Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..." It can be a risk to your character if mishandled.
Therefore, I hope that you will consider my proposed modifications to the parameters of our discussion, as given at this link:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html#x18
The above blog entry re-creates the T&S discussion as an introduction. It includes comments that you might have missed, owing to Mr. McKee's moderation efforts. You should give those removed comments a read. The x18 comment "Señor El Once : COMMENT REMOVED: surprised to see Mr. Ruff rising to my rhetorical challenges" offers to scope limit your efforts and not have you do busy work.
Be that as it may, the comments that we make below the introduction would then be our discussion realm.
I would rather have you choose option [B] and attempt to debunk 4th generation nukes. Were we to tango through Dr. Wood's tulips, this is the topic that stops her short. Also stops Dr. Jones short.
A few addendum to that x18 comment.
- I've got many things in my life in flux at the moment. I'm not eager to get involved in a time-sucking discussion, particularly if I start detecting disingenuous arguments, lack of acknowledgment of truth nuggets, and overall lack of objectivity.
- I'll applaud and cheer every substantiated nugget of disinformation that you or your research brings up. But that research and analysis is expected to go the distance A-to-Z.
- I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with "liar, cheat, and weasel," because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. But as was substantiated, he earned those valid assessments of his character that made him an untrustworthy participant.
- I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. Learn from Mr. Rogue's mistakes by doing the opposite of what he done. Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
- The test of your objectivity -- and that of your sources -- is measured in nuggets of truth acknowledged and re-purposed from disinformation vehicles.
I assigned a deadline of March 1 for your results. If you need more time, make notification of such. Endeavor to be above board and honest regardless of what you attempt.
This being said, I repeat: "It would be nice if we could come up with a face-saving way for you to get out of this pickle you're in."
I'm open to suggestions.
If your heart isn't into it? Even though I'm burned out on 9/11, don't under-estimate the religious fanatic in me. Fanatical about Truth. If you're not into it, back out now.
All the best, Mr. Ruff.
//
x21
Adam Ruff : who has who beaten
2015-02-06
{Email from Mr. Adam Ruff.}
Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?
Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory?
First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers. So I would like you to define for us all:
1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities? Was it a particle beam? A laser? A rail gun? An x-ray beam? A sonic weapon? A super mondo cool (Hutcheson) beam made up of future tech stuff us mortals cannot understand? What type of weapon was it?
2. Was it space based or ground based when it was supposedly used on the towers?
3. What are the power requirements for this weapon and from where did the power come?
4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?
Once you can provide some answers to these basic questions I can provide the promised debunks of her theory (whatever it actually is).
Sincerely,
Adam Ruff
PS. I have BCC'ed a few people who will be kept informed of this "debate" but who do not want to engage in it.
x22
Señor El Once : post to the venue
2015-02-06
{Email to Mr. Adam Ruff sent from smartphone.}
Please post that as a comment to the blog whose URL was given.
Also, you need to specify the amendment to the challenge that you're taking on. So we will know what is in and out of bounds.
Dr. Wood is easy to frame. I suggest we go right to nookiedoo, and when appropriate, I'll insert evidence collected (or put on display) by Dr. Wood. I'm not going to waste my time defending all her rabbit side tunnels.
//
x23
Señor El Once : according to Wood?
2015-02-08
{Response to Mr. Adam Ruff's email.}
Dear Mr. Ruff,
I do declare, but you should pay heed to the biblical edict to be faithful in the small things first, before big things are entrusted to you. What are latter-day lurkers going to think of you in our discussion when (1) after you asked for a public venue, you are a no-show in making comments there?
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/08/dr-wood-and-late-3rd-generation-nuclear.html
(2) You response shows little indication that you've read my words. Specifically, my x18 entry above asks for some reasonable scope-limits to your efforts via options on which I've gotten no outright selection or objection: [A] Dr. Wood + Holograms; [B] Dr. Wood alone; [C] Neu Nookiedoo.
You wrote:
Wow you really think you have "got me" on this huh? OK Maxwell we will see who has who beaten on this one eh?
I know I do, and this is evident by the way you frame the strawman.
Shall we start with Judy Wood and her DEW theory? First problem with her theory is: She has no defined theory other than some unknown type of DEW weapon somehow caused the destruction of the towers.
Indeed. This was a major criticism of Dr. Wood's work that I have already written about many times. Her book does not connect together in any cohesive fashion any of the varied concepts brought up. Neither her book nor website definitively tells us the nature of the device.
You go on to write:
So I would like you to define for us all:
1. What type of weapon was used (according to Wood) and what are it's capabilities?
I need not go any farther than this in torching your Dr. Wood strawman, well before you get a chance to knock it down and parade around as faux-hero. The phrase "according to Dr. Wood" flags your disingenuous intent right from the get-go, because owing to your first identified problem of Dr. Wood having no defined theory, it becomes a fool's errand to defend Dr. Wood in her non-statements about specific types of weapons used.
Removing the phrase "according to Dr. Wood" and slapping a saddle on Neu Nookiedoo, I can proceed in answering your inquiries about the primary mechanism of WTC destruction. In the process, Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Harrit among others will get skewered, because they demonstrate such a lack of an engineer's curiousity in researching and exploring nuclear solutions to the observed WTC events.
- Dr. Wood has a whole web page devoted to the fresh dirt observed being trucked in, spread out, then a few days later scooped up and trucked out. Classic radiation mitigation techniques. Yet she doesn't go there. She doesn't address tritium. Doesn't address in any real-world what could power her devices, and gives nuclear means the bum's rush.
- Dr. Jones in his article that attempts to debunk nukes DOES NOT EVEN MENTION neutron devices or any 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices. This is on top of relying on flawed and scope-limited reports as the final authority on tritium and radiation. Garbage in, garbage out.
- Dr. Harrit even in his recent interview with Mr. McKee talks about the results of the RJ Lee study of the dust from the lobby of Banker's Trust and how it contained a high percentage of iron spheres. He tries on the shoes of nano-thermite and says these could have been the result of a thermitic reaction, but neither he nor Dr. Jones walks in them far enough to estimate the initial quantities in question, which would be massive. Dr. Harrit does not ever put on the shoes of 3rd/4th generation [DEW] devices and walk around in them to see if they can account for the evidence.
You parrot some of the same questions as Dr. Harrit in his McKee interview: "Was it a particle beam? A laser? An x-ray beam?" Good questions. Why didn't Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, or Dr. Wood attempt to answer them?
You asked:
Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality?
Why, yes there is. From a Google search, eventually these items came up:
- http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
The second link is to "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects." Although written in 2005, the author Andre Gsponer co-authored in 1999 a book called "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons." Do the math with regards to 9/11/2001.
- http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/700503.Fourth_Generation_Nuclear_Weapon
Public and university libraries do not have their databases in Google. A person on site at just about any university's engineering, math, and physics library will be able to dig up mountains of more references -- books, technical journals, etc. -- that specify at the time of writing where various nuclear technologies were at and where research was heading. [These would be the public records, and not anything hidden behind national security labels.]
Yet seemingly none of the professors listed above could be bothered to perform such research in their universities' libraries. Even a failed venture to find plausibility of neu nookiedoo in the (public) nuclear research is a result worthy of publication and promotion, kind of like a hypothesis that testing disproved. However, this wasn't done, because the venture wouldn't have been a failure; it would have netted Andre Gsponer's work and that of many others.
You might find this re-purposed Facebook discussion of interest:
- http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html
++++ quote from 0510071v5.pdf
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
...
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —
...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
++++ end quote
According to me (and not Dr. Wood), each tower had 6 or so devices of the 3rd and 4th generation nature. Each was fusion based, leaving little lingering radiation. Each probably had elements related to neutron devices, because aiming various amounts neutrons out of the way would help scale down side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP) and prevent the pre-mature killing of neighboring tandem devices.
Further, these devices would direct energy at specific wavelengths, that further takes away energy from side-effects and neutron output. What wavelengths? Weapons that used X-ray wavelengths are known to exist and were speculated in the Reagan presidency. Here's where the fun comes in for diligent researchers. They can pick representative sample wavelengths across the spectrum of energy to (mentally) test what would happen to materials. Of interest is when wavelengths are on the order of, say, molecular distances or when multiple wavelengths are output whose interference pattern could be destructive (which then puts it into the realm of Hutchison.)
Even wavelengths in the microwave realm could produce with sufficient amplitude interesting outcomes. For instance, concrete, drywall, and porcellan have residual amounts of water buried in their structure. Sufficiently large microwaves could turn such water instantly into steam with a very strong outward force to the point of blowing apart the structure that contained it. Concrete has aggregates as well that act like a fork in a microwave oven.
Dr. Harrit has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Although not a physicists, he should have sufficient knowledge of atomic structures to speculate knowledgeably about what sudden influxes of energy at various wavelengths would do. Molecular disassociation and dustification might be applicable in the description.
I find it very disingenuous of Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones (and many leaders of the 9/11TM with science or engineering backgrounds) to not attempt the research and to not attempt strapping on nuclear shoes and go for a stroll.
You wrote:
4. Is there any documentation at all that such a weapon actually exists in reality? In other words is there any proof at all that this weapon is actually operational and not mearly theoretical at this point?
I ask the same questions about nano-thermite devices. Sure, thermite has a long history. (So do nuclear devices, although most of it is classified.) But ramping up thermite to achieve the brissance required for pulverization, where's the real-world example of that? And when you cough up such a device, ask yourself if it could then go the distance with regards to the duration of hot-spots attributed to it? And if so, how much of that ramped up super thermite would be required?
Other than the above being a glaring flaw in the limited hang-out known as "nano-thermite", your inability to produce real-world, operational NT devices does not prevent you from speculating into its 9/11 involvement. I expect the same leeway for 4th generation nukes. Your #4 questions are not gating.
//
Hide All / Expand All
21 comments:
Well Maxwell I have not responded yet for two reasons.
1. I have very little time lately.
2. You moved the goal posts. Originally I said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and you are clearly shifting the topic to mini nukes.
I accept your admission that Wood has no cohesive theory. So as far as I am concerned Judy Wood has been debunked. Since Wood is the only topic I have addressed so far all we can say at this point is that you have failed to defend her from my very basic questions so I do not even need to proceed with a complete debunk of her non theory. Now as to the mini nuke argument you are now trying to shift the discussion to I will have to get back to you on that when I have time and I do contend that the mini nuke argument is bunk. I will address it later though as I get time to do it properly.
I assume that because you are shifting the discussion away from hologram planes that you are not going to be defending that bogus crappola either, is that right?
Dear Mr. Ruff,
It is not that I'm "trying to shift the discussion." Without a shift in the discussion, all you'd be doing is flailing at a straw-man, and doing a poor job of it, too. Without a shift in the discussion, truth cannot be found and there is no discussion.
I take minor offense with your insinuation that my 2015-02-08 comment is where the shifting happened, as if in response to your 2015-02-06 email and a complete weasel move. No! My desire for you to reconsider the scope of the debate dates back to 2015-01-28 [if not years prior]. You obviously are not subscribed to articles on T&S or you are not reading my comments, because otherwise you would have a record of my comment before Mr. McKee removed it and know my desires.
Certainly the tedium of reading my blog leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what my hobby-horse is.
Only a technicality allows any hollow victory claim today in debunking Dr. Wood: she doesn't give explicit theories, has problems powering what does leak out, and stops dead short of analyzing nuclear evidence as such. Had you been reading what I've been consistently writing, you'd know this.
However, once you properly address the neutron nuclear DEW argument and 4th generation devices (and ~not~ "mini nuke", as you wrote), you will discover not only their validity, but vindication for Dr. Wood's efforts in bringing more awareness to DEW. You'll see where she was closer to being right with DEW than anyone else leading the 9/11 Truth Movement ever was with nano-thermite.
Based on the above, you could risk damage to perceptions about your integrity and objectivity. The quick way that you'd like to dispatch Dr. Wood's work -- without page-by-page analysis and rescue of nuggets of truth -- on a technicality, no less, that'll do the negative number on your reputation. It was for your own good (and my sanity) that I graciously presented other discussion options for you to consider to "shift the debate" from Dr. Wood. It would be a complete bummer and massive deja vu if your ass was fragged in the same manner as Mr. Rogue's was: with a spectacularly failing of a simple objectivity test that involved taking down Dr. Wood's premises legitimately, and not on technicalities.
Be that as it may, using the 4th generation goal posts: Don't be tempted to try similiar tricks with neutron nuclear DEW, ala previous simplistic statements from you "no radiation = no nukes". You can't prove the "no radiation" premise, because no measurements of samples were taken in the narrow 24-48 hours window of time when radiation from fusion-based (and neutron-based) devices would have been present and measureable. Prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements for radiation even after that narrow window don't exist, or if they do, they weren't published. These are major failings to your "no radiation" premise that are only compounded as being wrong when tritium is brought up.
I posted the links regarding my debunking of hologram planes. I have no desire to go there.
Take your time in responding, and be sure to review the reference material before responding. In particular:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
//
I quote from my very first remark which spurred on this so called debate which you ARE attempting to shift to mini nukes or low yield nukes or 3rd or 4th generation nukes or low radiation nukes or fusion instead of fission nukes or whatever you want to call them. My quote was:
"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy."
So it is clear that I had intended to debate Wood and hologram plane theories. You have moved the goal posts as I said.
Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so.
In the mean time please provide links to the source material for your 3rd and 4th generation nukes so that I can evaluate those materials. If it is all theoretical at this point and you have no verifiable proof that these weapons actually exist then please indicate that. Thank you.
Dear Mr. Ruff,
It gives me no pleasure to point out you being disingenuous, in the simple things no less. But I do so as a gentle warning of what you can expect if you are found being dishonest going forth.
Your very first remark in this latest Wood genre was not 2014-01-27 at 11:36 pm (or x13 comment above):
"I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy."
No. First of all, there is no "again" about it, because if you had done it before elsewhere, you instinctively would have preserved the link and had it readily available to plunk down. Secondly, what I consider your first remark to the genre was a blow-hard re-purposing of comments from Facebook on 2014-01-27 at 5:09 am (or the x8 comment above).
"We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus."
My response to your blovocating was January 27, 2015 at 1:46 pm (or the x12 comment above). It leads off with requesting your "reasoned analysis" into my hobby-horse topic, something you've been avoiding for literally years and even had you try to assemble an A-Team to debunk in late 2012 (that obviously got no-where).
My x12 response continued into the realm of Dr. Wood:
+++ begin quote
[A]s the resident left-handed defender of nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's work, I must ask Mr. Adam Ruff to come forth with the links to all T&S articles/discussions that discredit space beams in a proper manner. In particular to substantiate his personal efforts, he should retrieve his exact comments on the subject [with links].
In addition, Mr. Ruff should supply the exact link to any comments that he (or others) authored that prove space beams could not have been involved individually or collectively with the destruction of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6. {...}
Further, blow-hard Mr. Ruff should give us the text to "some Judy Wood debunks that you [Mr. Ken Dockery] have never even thought of my friend."
+++ end quote
So, Mr. Ruff.
- If you're not going to avail yourself of the opportunity to shift the discussion into more worthwhile, fruitful, and meaningful topics: namely 4th generation nukes...
- If you're going to hold to the straw-man premise of directing me to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked on T&S (which was the tenor of your comment but I'll be gracious by permitting other sources) , ...
Then chop-chop, Mr. Ruff. You're making your bed, so now lie in it...
End Part 1/3
Part 2/3
You be sure that your Wood debunking links go the full A-Z distance. Keep in mind these items:
(1) Viability of a concept is different from applicability to specifics of an event. If reasoned analysis proves a concept wasn't applicable to ~all~ particulars of an event, participants/sources will fail their objectivity test if concept viability isn't acknowledged, should it not be debunked.
(2) The event needs to be analyzed in your links by WTC building. Unacceptable are the red-herrings "destruction of X didn't happen from the tippy-top, so space-beams don't apply to X... so therefore by no logical reason, applies to neither Y nor Z... so therefore by further faulty reasoning to advance a disinfo agenda, DEW in all shapes and forms didn't happen." *BEEP* *BEEP* ... That dog don't hunt.
(3) Failure in your collection of Wood debunking links to acknowledge any good in Wood efforts is an indication that they didn't go the full A-Z, that they may not be completely objective, and that they could even be individually promoting a disinfo agenda of their own.
(4) If your collection of links and/or your reasoned analysis do not go into 4th generation nuclear devices (or equivalent), your blow-hard ambitions fail. Why? Because most of these fall into the category of directed energy weapons (DEW), the very same category to which Dr. Wood alludes but doesn't give specifics.
Mr. Ruff, if you continue with your present course as indicated by the re-posting of your words from 2014-01-27 at 11:36 pm -- "I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked" -- then my role is to help you avoid being perceived as a hypocrite and other negative nouns by hounding your ass with the above until this wonderful and glorious task of legitimately debunking Dr. Wood for the entire 9/11TM and world to greatly benefit is achieved.
++++ OPTION B
I am a reasonable fellow. Proof thereof, I'm allowing another opportunity for you to save face and lots of busy-work that could possibly damage your reputation if not handled honestly and properly.
Start with #4. If you can debunk 4th generation nuclear devices, then much attributed to Dr. Wood's is by extension debunked and you won't even have to go there (to convince me). Why? Because these are the DEW to which she alluded but gave no specifics; these are the nuclear weapons that Dr. Jones never mentioned is his greatly flawed "no nukes on 9/11" work. This is the holy grail.
If you can't debunk #4, then it must be acknowledged as a new standard. [And from there, if one desires, one can work backwards into Dr. Wood's efforts to flag the disinfo and rescue appropriate nuggets of truth.]
Either way, if you start with #4, Mr. Ruff, you probably won't have to perform the integrity-testing busy-fucking-work in finding further debunking analysis of Dr. Wood's work.
As a further token of my reasonableness, if you start with #4 ~and~ do a reasonable, objective, logical analysis thereof, not only will I ~not~ hold you to #1 through #3 with regards to Dr. Wood, but I will also throw out hologram planes, meaning you won't have to go there at all.
This is the choice I earnestly hope you will accept.
If you stick with your present choice and not avail yourself of my gracious options, then I have already exposed my game plan, and you should prepare accordingly. I am going to hold you to Wood's A-to-Z ~AND~ to holograms A-to-Z, otherwise I do you no services in helping you avoid being labeled a hypocrite in not following through with ~all~ of your boastful claims.
End Part 2/3
Part 3/3
Point of clarification, Mr. Ruff. Many of my comments above show good-faith attempts to negotiate the boundaries for the discussion before either of us invests any significant amount of time of the little time available to either of us. The charge of "moving goal posts" can only be applied after the game has started, should such dastardly play occur.
Reasonable fellow that I am, I consider everything that has transpired so far just warm-up while we come to agreement on the game boundaries, and while you experience some taste of what will happen to you if you are less than honest and objective.
You wrote:
"Regardless of all that I will get back to you about the mini nuke (or whatever you want to call it) issue when I have time to do so. In the mean time please provide links to the source material for your 3rd and 4th generation nukes so that I can evaluate those materials."
*Sigh*
Mr. Ruff, I earnestly want you to review the 4th generation nuclear materials, which is why I dutifully perform the busy-work that you request by posting more repeated links to it here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
Because I earnestly want you to read it, I'm not going to ride your ass too hard about why you didn't see this at the end of my last comment as well as in many other comments from me, thereby giving your request a disingenuous hue of time-consuming busy-work.
In "The Art of War," we are told to "Know Your Enemies." Extrapolated to debate, you need to know your opponent's argument, which can't be done if you so blatantly demonstrate that you aren't reading my words and following substantiating links.
Let's remove this failing from your future debating tactics, shall we?
You wrote:
"If [4th generation devices are] all theoretical at this point and you have no verifiable proof that these weapons actually exist then please indicate that. Thank you."
Be careful about the standards for measurement that you wish to set forth.
Are you foreshadowing one of your moves in the game? Are you going to play the card that say: "Because no verifiable proof that such weapons actually exist, therefore no need to discuss"? I know that I'm never going to show up at your doorstep with DEW device to convince you by taking out a mini-van, house, building, or bridge. But I will have three decades of research into Star Wars, Strategic Defense Initiative, and newer names that you'll have to prove was just a work-creation program for the overly educated PhD's having to expectation ~ever~ of producing anything operational.
Further, if you hold to those standards for measurement and attempt that tactic against 4th generation nukes, in a "good for the goose/gander" turnabout you will inadvertently destroy your base position, namely that of nano-thermite. You aren't going to show up on my doorstep with a NT device (in any combination with other chemical-based weapons) that can pulverize content while at the same time burning hot for months in the resulting debris pile. Mr. Rogue will tell you that high school chemistry puts at conflicting odds brissance and duration [massively unreasonable quantities excepted]. Design for one -- brissance or duration --, sacrifice the other.
Dr. Steven Jones let slip in September 2012: "Something maintained those hot-spots, (not just NT.)"
Let that be a clue.
//
End Part 3/3
Dear Mr. Ruff,
Your negative feelings for me are of no consequence, except that they cloud your judgement.
Moreover, if your honest opinion was that I am -- ho-hum --, "quite literally insane with some kind of serious obsessive compulsive disorder", then WTF are you doing discoursing with me? Why am I always getting the better of you?
As for your contact details, that was your doing. Not mine. I posted the links TWICE to where you should go, the exact venue you were begging for. Ok, maybe your ass was too slow to read them on Mr. McKee's blog before -- after a long day's work -- he comes home to the task of replacing the contents of those comments to avoid others acting the Mike Collins on his blog in response.
Still, you would have got two email notification with the unadulterated version, no? (And if not, why not? How do you even know if someone responded to you?)
Still, the T&S blog shows placeholders for my removed comments as direct responses to you; surely you would have been curious. Surely Mr. Rogue could have updated you.
Still, I told Mr. McKee off-line to pass along to you a link to the venue (did he do so?) before he got around to passing your email address to me.
The point is, had you been paying attention at multiple junctures to learn where to post your comments to me and had you done so early, by golly I would not be in possession of your email address. I haven't abused the privilege.
But I'll hand this to you. You might have something going on with your "obsessive compulsive disorder" charge against me. Just look at my effing blog!!! I can't say that it was everything I ever wrote in my quest for 9/11 Truth, but so far, it is the best-of; and woe unto those who venture to read it all, such a repetitive bore it has become, even for me!
You wrote:
"That having been said you can just stop right now with the bullshit that I march to your orders. I will get to this bullshit argument when I have time to do it properly."
You're the one who marched right into it, with ample opportunity to take a hike early. I didn't order you. You volunteered. All I'm establishing are the ground rules. FTR, it was always understood and strongly encouraged, Mr. Ruff, for "{Mr. Ruff to} get to {SEO's} argument when {Mr. Ruff has} time to do it properly." But if you want frame that as an order, so be it. Just see that it gets done eventually.
Mr. Ruff, look what happens when I quote you back to you:
"You can stuff your snide remarks up your asshole as well pal because you are not as fucking smart as your arrogant attitude would suggest."
Neither a pretty sight nor your best work.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Maybe I should hand this one to you, too: "{SEO is} not as fucking smart as {SEO's} arrogant attitude would suggest." But sure as shit, I'm better organized with better tactics and more truth. And you're on my home court. If you're not nice to me, my game plan is to mock you mercilessly with your own words by embracing the insult and giving it center stage. In other words, Mr. Ruff, I plan on picking up your figurative ammo and firing it back at you. With this foreknowledge, maybe you should adjust your tactics accordingly going forward.
You wrote an attempt at assigning me busy-work:
"In your remarks above you indicate that the nano-thermite evidence either doesn't prove anything or is somehow false. Prove it big mouth. You haven't offered jack shit that shows the nano-thermite evidence is bogus other than your opinion which is worthless to me."
Au contraire! And ho-hum.
Read what I wrote at the section Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite. Do the high school math for yourself. Be sure to venture into other sections of this work for enlightenment, although know that my beliefs have shifted to 4th generation nukes since authoring that article.
See? I told you I was better organized with better tactics and more truth. You've completely under-estimated the value of "quite literally insanely seriously obsessively compulsively disorder", or how much of a religous fanatic I am: I'm fanatical about Truth.
In moments of defeat like this, I bet you wish you were nearly as well organized so that you would have at you handy acess links to where you debated such topics and won -- if they really exist -- so that you could serve them up here, and be like *ho-hum*, too.
Want to know the irony of that blog article? You helped me hone it! Yes, indeed, there are sections of that article that I can attribute to coming directly from discussions I've had with you. If memory serves me, "No Radiation"? Really? and "The dirt on that" are two examples.
So, thank you, Mr. Ruff. I owe you a debt of gratitude in the creation of this "quite literally insanely seriously obsessively compulsive" blog!
Let the revelations contained in this short response and associated links be a token of the continuance of me being a fair fellow towards you! What supports my contentions are readily available.
You wrote:
"So I will respond later on the mini nuke bullshit and as I said if you don't like that tuff shit."
If you would but read my words and understand them, there's no immediate pressure from me on you to respond quickly. Just don't run out the clock like Mr. Rogue did. Beginning of March is soon enough. If you need more time, communicate that request.
// Part 2/2
Upon reviewing Andre Gsponer's work from 2005 Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects and his pre-9/11 work, Mr. Adam Ruff has my sincere hopes to publicly change his mind -- or at least hop onto the fence -- with regards to 9/11 nuclear DEW devices playing significant roles at the WTC. He could say words like:
"I was shocked to discover through my research -- seeded by Mr. SEO -- that time delays in sampling, small numbers of samples, and scope-limited reports indeed provide sufficient wiggle room in the evidence analysis to make plausible the involvement of 4th generation nuclear devices on 9/11 at the WTC. I was personally disappointed to learn how lacking were the good faith estimates into chemical based destruction methods by various PhD's, how absurd the implied quantities, and how pitiful the nuclear considerations."
The above could be how Mr. Ruff saves face and demonstrates some integrity.
But this doesn't appear to be how Mr. Ruff is presently playing his cards.
Walt Disney wrote: "Everyone needs deadlines. Even the beavers. They loaf around all summer, but when they are faced with the winter deadline, they work like fury. If we didn’t have deadlines, we’d stagnate."
Hence, over a month ago, Mr. Ruff was given multiple times a deadline of March 1 for his DEW debunking master piece. With that date now already blown by and the clock run out, no where do we have Mr. Ruff's analysis nor any courteous request along the lines:
"I'm reviewing your links but am not finished with my analysis and write-up. Might you be so kind as to grant me a humble extension of ____ days?"
Nope.
Mr. Ruff is on the fast-track to failing his objectivity test administered above and thereby may legitimately earn the descriptive labels: "blow-hard, liar, hypocrite." And to think that it all started with these ironic bloviating comments?
2014-01-27 at 5:09 am
"We do not ban discussion of anything at Truth and Shadows we simply stop discredited theories from flourishing by offering reasoned analysis as to why they are bogus."
January 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm
"SEO {...} choose another venue and I will direct you (from there) again to where Wood and hologram planes have been debunked. I will never do it again after that because your agenda is simply to soak up my time and sapp my energy. So name the venue and I am going to shut your mouth on this once and for all."
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
One month ago, I wrote as a well intentioned warning in Saving face and the pickle you're in:
+++ begin
{Mr. Ruff,} you boasted the claim of intent to post the definitive set of links (and/or author the definitive verbiage?) that debunks whole genres (Dr. Wood & Holograms); and I'm having you pony-up. Otherwise if you default or fail, I will gain considerable leverage over your integrity under the meme "boastful lying hypocrite" etc., something I am loathe to use and is just another distracting detour from my hobby-horse...
Dr. Wood's work can't be debunked without acknowledging nuggets of truth, which ends up serving as an effective objectivity test. "Faithful in the small, faithful in the large..." It can be a risk to your character if mishandled. ...
I did not relish shalacking Mr. Rogue with "liar, cheat, and weasel," because my earnest desire was an objective discussion. ... I do not wish a similar fate for you, Mr. Ruff. ... Take this somewhat seriously and apply some earnest effort. [Or back out now.]
+++ end
Nope. Instead, Mr. Ruff makes more ironic statements on Truth & Shadows.
March 5, 2015 at 5:23 am
"So it has naturally degenerated into a cess pit of Stalinist selective censorship {...} huh? Sad to see another potentially good place for 9/11 truth go down the crapper the same way 911Blahhhger did. It is embarrassing for those who run the place although some of them are just willfully blind about why they should be embarrassed."
February 28, 2015 at 6:54 am
"I have to say though that the group is of no use if people cannot even discuss the evidence and disagree with {...} without getting booted with no warning?"
March 5, 2015 at 5:38 am
"I think 9/11 trolls do what they do not only to waste our time but also and perhaps more importantly to make us feel hopeless and defeated and to wear us out."
How many total times was a link to Andre Gsponer's work into Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons run under Mr. Ruff's nose that he ignored yet boasted about wanting to review and debunk? What about his trollish attempt to waste time that I shut down with Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite?
So far, I am mighty disappointed. Zip was presented by Mr. Ruff, thus literally nothing that could change anyone's mind. Except in their trust and esteem in Mr. Ruff himself.
I still hold out hopes for Mr. Ruff to save some face and his integrity.
// Part 2/2
Part 1/7
Backstory:
Mr. Ruff boasted of his debunking prowess.
Mr. Ruff is among the some who would say that my nuclear DEW hobby-horse needs to be debunked.
Mr. Ruff's bluff was called.
Mr. Ruff boasted to choose a venue, although he had opportunities and was encouraged to establish the venue himself, such as through his Facebook page.
Mr. Ruff was given links to my blog from T&S [since removed] and then emails [once permission granted for sharing contact info.]
Mr. Ruff took more than one email before he availed himself of his ability to make comments under the designated blog posting.
Mr. Ruff required a considerable amount of reasoning before Mr. Ruff conceded to a shift in topic to my hobby-horse [e.g., his reputation would get punked if he mishandled the Wood debunking.]
Mr. Ruff was provided a March deadline multiple times starting in January, either for the initial delivery of the "debunking product" or for a request for an extension.
Mr. Ruff over ran his deadline without as much as a courteous request for an extension.
Mr. Ruff was notified through a blog comment (2015-03-06) that such discourteous behavior to an earnest attempt at a rational discussion would not weigh favorably on his character [and standing in the debate] in the judging minds of the morbidly-curious, latter-day, lurker-readers.
Mr. Ruff allegedly responded within twelve hours.
- Not as a replying comment on my blog.
- Not as an email to me.
- Not as a comment initiated by Mr. Ruff to Mr. Rogue's blog.
- But as [an email notification of] a comment made by Mr. Rogue to his blog (2015-03-07) under Mr. Rogue's wonderful thread dedicated to me as being an alleged "agitprop disinformant". This blog comment made by Mr. Rogue contained a passage supposedly authored by Mr. Ruff and addressed to me!
If one looks at the communication path a bit squinty-eyed, it has almost the appearance of a "sockpuppet fail," but let's not.
These Mickey Mouse games of avoiding a direct, on point, on time, on blog discussion are becoming telling of Mr. Ruff's character that readers can deduce for themselves. But let's set this aside, too.
Due to the communication path, some doubt could exist in the accuracy or authorship of the passages attributed to Mr. Ruff in Mr. Rogue's comment. Therefore, the following assumes the validity of Mr. Ruff's words and takes them at face value. If this assumption proves invalid, an apology, retraction, and modification to the following will be made.
// Part 1/7
Part 2/7
I will now decompose relevant statements from Mr. Ruff's reply. Mr. Ruff began with [A]:
"I find it amusing that you think your opinion of me is somehow important."
Mr. Ruff doesn't get it. It doesn't matter what I think. What matters are our actions and how others will judge them. Mr. Ruff is game playing, and puts himself on the fast track to not just losing the debate before it even can get started, but of impugning his own character and reputation that will flag him an unreliable if untrustworthy participant in all further discussions.
Mr. Ruff writes [B]:
"I don’t consider [SEO's opinion of Mr. Ruff] important at all... "
This cavelier attitude is apparent. And it is also contradicted by his later words.
Mr. Ruff [C]:
"... and I really do not think there are many people out there who do consider your rantings and ravings important either."
I commend Mr. Ruff for this hynotic suggestion. Today, perhaps his statement is true. Mr. Ruff underestimates legacy and what distant tomorrows might bring when this discussion gets linked in.
Mr. Ruff [D]:
"So as far as I am concerned you can proceed with whatever contrived BS statements you want to make about me to whoever you want to make them to. You slander me though and all bets are off."
Were it not for the fact that "slander" is verbal and "libel" is written -- a mistake that Mr. Rogue always makes, too, despite correction --, these [D] statements are contridicted by Mr. Ruff's [B] statements.
Mr. Ruff need not worry about defamation of his character through libel (much less slander) from me. Why? Because defamation implies an element of unsubstantiation.
What Mr. Ruff needs to worry about are the substantiated instances of Mr. Ruff's integrity not measuring up [to standards that Mr. Ruff in cases laid forth himself], which then would make negative statements about Mr. Ruff "valid character assessments" and not defamation or libel at all.
Mr. Ruff [E]:
"I doubt there is anyone out there who will give a shit what you say about me."
Mr. Ruff is entitled to his doubts about the readership numbers, but he should not play his cards as if it were a done deal for all time.
// Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Mr. Ruff [F]:
"I originally said I would debunk Judy Wood and hologram planes and that is what I agreed to "debate" you about. You quickly and very deceitfully attempted to change the debate to nukes. I pointed out you moved the goal posts, which you did, ..."
(1) Mr. Ruff was going to fumble the ball spectacularly in debunking Dr. Judy Wood -- like Mr. Rogue before him -- and suffer massive casualties to his reputation for his shoddy efforts. The stoic manner in which Mr. Ruff refused to read Dr. Wood's book already pegged his objectivity at an unbecoming level and practically guarantees a poor personal outcome. Even though I would have been the ride operator, out of kindness to us both, I sought harmonious ways to prevent the need for cranking that carousel.
(2) Mr. Ruff's attempts to cement the discussion goal posts at Dr. Wood and hologram planes is a straw-man ploy and red-herring. Dr. Wood did not take her published research far enough and was never considered the end-station, so it is deceitful to limit rational discussion to its bounds.
(3) Mr. Ruff misses the destinction that "the DEW issue" does not have to constrain itself to power sources suggested or hand-waved by Dr. Wood. "The DEW issue" encompasses nuclear power sources as well. Most of the devices considered Fourth Generation Nuclear devices fall into the category of DEW.
It wasn't out of "deceit" but out of "mercy and kindness" that I strongly encouraged modifying the boundaries of the debate to the more productive realm of nuclear DEW, to which Mr. Ruff already had agreed to discuss twice.
In this discussion, let that be the last time that Mr. Ruff cranks the "moving goal posts" carousel [as a weak attempt to smear my character and to get out of discussion my hobby-horse.] Nuclear DEW should have been always on the table in considering "the DEW issue".
(4) Moreover, it isn't as if the nuclear DEW goal post hasn't been in the playing field and inteferring with Mr. Ruff's game for quite some time. November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am, Mr. Ruff boasted:
+++ begin quote
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... 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. ... I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project?
+++ end quote
Mr. Ruff did not ask me to participate. Pity, because I could have provided them point-by-point all of the things that they needed to address in order to be able to claim a complete and thorough debunking.
Mr. Ruff obviously has had no follow-through, nor meat, nor substance to his blovicating from late 2012. Otherwise in theory by now, Mr. Ruff could have boasted about having the definitive Wood debunk with actual substantiating URLs right in the comment.
But let us set that all aside, too, and not let Mr. Ruff's personal failings from 2012 (until now) taint this fresh opportunity for Mr. Ruff to deliver on his debunking promises within a reasonable time frame.
// Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Back to the present, Mr. Ruff wrote [G]:
"... and then I said I would get around to debunking the nukes meme when I had time to do so. I have not had time to do so properly yet,... "
Mr. Ruff is given the benefit of the doubt regarding his available time to do a proper analysis. Given that even Walt Disney wrote "everyone needs deadlines," then Mr. Ruff should have respectfully communicated his status, the new delivery dates, and a request for an extension ON THE BLOG where it was relevant in order to avoid being accused of playing Mickey Mouse games.
Mr. Ruff [H]:
"and to be frank with you, you are very low on my priority list and I am involved with other things that are far more important to me. I will eventually get to it but it will be on my time frame not yours ..."
Meanwhile, though, if Mr. Ruff is going to "eventually get to it" on "his time frame," Mr. Ruff is expected at the least to document that time frame with actual calendar dates. When does Mr. Ruff expect to "eventually get to it"?
Without a concrete commitment to new deadlines [yet to be provided by Mr. Ruff himself], then all Mr. Ruff is doing above is running out the clock in his blovicating, Micky Mouse games.
Mr. Ruff [I]:
"... and your attempt to badger me is useless..."
If Mr. Ruff had good intentions, my words would be called simply a "friendly reminder". Bad-faith intentions on not doing squat would find it necessary to label the reminder as "badgering".
"... because I do not value your opinion AT ALL nor do I care what you say to others about me."
Contradicted by the existence of the alleged message to me.
Maybe Mr. Ruff should value my opinion and what is truthfully written about him and substantiated, in the hopes that it might improve Mr. Ruff's reasoning, debating, and following-through skills.
Mr. Ruff [J]:
"I will tell you this right now though: The nuke theory is stupid and unprovable disinformation because there is literally no physical evidence at all that you can point to which shows conclusively that nukes were used at the WTC."
What is "the nuke theory" to which Mr. Ruff alludes? There are many -- as many nuclear DEW devices as are given the 4th generation nuclear device document. Were Mr. Ruff to wade into the specifics, he would have a hard time proving any of them "stupid," although he might find himself stupid in understanding them and some of them not applicable to 9/11 at the WTC.
Unprovable? Mr. Ruff has obviously not been reading anything I've written, a re-occurring theme and an early indication that Mr. Ruff is not debating in good-faith.
"No physical evidence" is a two-edge sword that does more damage against nano-thermite than it does against nuclear DEW.
- Show me where the RJ Lee Group, the USGS analysis on the dust, and Paul Lioy reports prove the existence of NT in the dust. They don't have it; only Dr. Jones' dust samples do. Yet NT is supposed to be the source of the pulverization as well as the hot-spot duration!
- Show me where Dr. Jones and AE9/11 Truth analyze Dr. Jones's dust samples for other explosive elements that Dr. Jones speculated was used with NT to make pulveration possible. Dr. Jones admits in September 2012 that something else maintained the hot-spots, not just NT. Where's the analysis into that?
The delays and data gaps in the various reports were sufficiently large to allow whole classes of 4th generation nuclear (DEW) devices to stretch out and have a party, supposedly undetected.
The report on Tritium and Dr. Cahill's air sampling stand in direct opposition to Mr. Ruff's boastful "no physical evidence" hypnotic suggestion.
// Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Mr. Ruff [K]:
"On the other hand there is all sorts of physical and eye witness evidence that explosives and incendiaries such as thermite/nano thermite were used."
The above is a glaring misrepresentation.
(1) The eye witness evidence only alludes to hearing and seeing explosions. Nuclear DEW might not be immune from having an audio signature that sounded and look like explosions.
(2) The use of thermite/nano-thermite isn't questioned in these discussions. What is questioned if it could be considered the primary mechanisms of destruction, or if the 9/11 Truth Movement should continue looking for the true primary mechanisms? As Dr. Jones is considered a God to the 9/11 Truth Movement, he repeatedly declared "something was mixed with NT" and "something else maintained the hot-spots (not just NT)." Yet these words haven't been heeded by most.
Mr. Ruff [L]:
"You also have no actual verifiable evidence that these 4th generation nuke devices are anything more than theoretical at this point in time let alone in 2001. Yes there are scientists talking about them but do they actually exist in physical reality? You have no proof they do."
Ho-hum, this is a repeat of previous statements from Mr. Ruff in this discussion, so here was my response.
Mr. Ruff [M]:
"Furthermore you have no eye witnesses to such devices nor any video evidence which shows anything other than that which can be easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries."
Involvement of conventional explosives and incendiaries isn't the issue, and maybe some of the observed squibs can be attributed to this.
Exact opposite to what Mr. Ruff wrote: the issue is that the evidence in total is ~not~ "easily explained by conventional explosives and incendiaries." They don't go the distance in accounting for the duration of hot-spots, in addition to having literally massive logistics hurdles. They do ~not~ have representation in the reports, yet evidence of nuclear hijinx slips out even when the reports are scope-limited and skewed in their data collection.
Mr. Ruff [N]:
"In other words you haven’t got shit to back up your speculations with."
Another glaring example of Mr. Ruff spouting his mouth off without having read anything written by me or referenced by others.
Mr. Ruff [O]:
"Finally there is no physical need to use nukes in the first place to bring down the WTC buildings since conventional explosives and incendiaries could do the job just fine."
Mr. Ruff should publish the calculations from Dr. Jones (and Dr. Harrit) regarding their estimations on the amount of said materials needed to account for (a) the observed overkill pulverization and (b) the duration of hot-spots. (Assuming something is found) These amounts are massive and explain very clearly to the math oriented that they represent an unreasonable logistics hurdle that is made even more difficult by the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holiday prior to 9/11.
// Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Mr. Ruff [P]:
"There was therefore no logical reason to leave behind a radiological signature from a nuclear device that could be traced back to a source reactor and possibly expose the responsible parties."
Mr. Ruff gets dinged again for proving that he did not read my material, because radiological signatures are discussed. They vary depending upon the actual nuclear device, and can certainly slip into the delays in sample taking, shoddy sampling, and other skew introduced to reports as well as security clamp-down at the WTC that prevented even the investigations and analysis by professional Fire Investigators from the fire departments.
Mr. Ruff gets dinged for not having any imagination when writing his "no logical reason" statement. The logical reasons were:
(a) A half dozen 4th gen nuclear DEW per tower would be logistically easier to implement in a short time frame than the needed massive amounts of conventional explosives and incendiaries [required to achieve the observed overkill].
(b) Generals and Majors with itchy trigger-fingers were literally just dying to use devices from their arsenals and prove the concept of "low radiation nuclear weapons."
(c) They controlled the WTC, the media, the committees, the reports. They can and did tell the public whatever they want the public to believe.
Mr. Ruff [Q]:
"It would have been moronic to use nukes for that exact reason because it could be traced back to a specific reactor."
Mr. Ruff spreads misinformation with his misunderstanding and munging together of nuclear topics. Mr. Ruff's statement applies to some nuclear devices, but not all.
Mr. Ruff [R]:
"So your disinformation was DOA in the first place for all these reasons and a few others ..."
Oh the wonders of modern truth! What once was considered DOA has been revived, point-by-point, and the signs of death were clearly, purposely, and disceitfully interpretted... by someone playing cowardly and repetitive games.
Mr. Ruff's [S] concluding remarks:
"... but since you are literally OCD to an extreme level you will never be capable of admitting your mistake or stopping your OCD behavior of pushing this crappola. At this point you are like an insane priest spouting biblical revelations as though it is all literally coming true right now. You will NEVER stop because you can’t stop. At any rate this is all the time I have for you now."
// Part 6/7
Part 7/7
Because Mr. Ruff's comments to me weren't sent to me or made to my blog, but instead were inside a comment from Mr. Rogue on Mr. Rogue's blog, Mr. Rogue comments get to be studied as well. Mr. Rogue wrote [T]:
"The never ending bullshit carousel of the Maxifuckanus... what a bore. Mr Ruff should just shine on this lunatic and let him bounce around his rubber-room at his blog."
Mr. Rogue continued with [T]:
+++ begin quote
Adam, The key to this whole argument is in the title of Maxitwat’s prize source for his info on the topic of fourth generation nuclear weapons.
The term “Quest” is the operative word here. The military is hoping to someday achieve such weaponry. It is speculative at the current level of research.
I have notified the twat about this countless times, that the whole thing is conjecture and speculation. Just like his whole “theory” it is speculative fiction at this point. “Speculative Fiction” is popularly known as “Science Fiction”, and that is what Maxhole is trying to sell with his Nookiedoodool nonsense.
+++ end quote
The above is a classic cheat from Mr. Rogue. How many different 4th generation weapons were discussed in Andre Gsponer's work? Mr. Rogue doesn't say. He hasn't analyzed a single one of them. No indication is given that Mr. Rogue even read the work beyond its title, where the word "quest" seems to trip him up, as if the debate can be won on a technicality.
Having only a high school education, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue are both crippled by ~not~ knowing the wonders contained within any decent university's engineering, math, and science library. Much of it won't be found on Google (although this changes every day). But even before a researcher smacks against barriers of "national security," "need-to-know," "with approval" in researching nuclear themes, the scope and abilities of nuclear devices in what is "public" makes clearer what is and isn't "Speculative Fiction" on the "quest continuum" for low-radiation nuclear devices. The good PhD's of the 9/11 Truth Movement are expected to have better research skills (if not minions to do the legwork) at the very university libraries they walked passed daily, yet very little research was provided into the existing literature in the shoddy reports offered to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
// Part 7/7
hybridrogue1
August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm
"In the [Dr. Wood's] Book pages 188 and 189 reveal there are no beams under the main floor of those buildings. You are therefore not telling the truth."~Roger Gloux
In fact pages 188 and 189 show scenes from under buildings 4 and 5, not under either tower. You are therefore quite confused and making scurrilous allegations against me.
\\][//
2015-08-31
Patience is a virtue. Lying is not.
How is it that Mr. Rogue knows what pages 188 and 189 show in Dr. Wood's book? Such a stellar memory, he does not have. If his memory were really that good, he wouldn't have been caught in so many "misstatements" in our discussions in the past.
Therefore, the memory aid in use must be the book itself, the very one that Mr. Rogue repeatedly claimed that he physically destroyed with his own two hand in order to line his bird cage. Why? To avoid the assignment of reading the book with an expressed purpose of identifying the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I should get major-league kudos for my restraint in the discussions with Mr. Gloux. I could certainly set him straight on his Woodsian beliefs that don't quite hit the mark.
I'll be damned if Mr. Gloux didn't make an interesting point aimed at Mr. Rogue:
"You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth."
Instead of links to Mr. Rogue's lame blog entries whose commentary cannot make up its mind on what it wants to be, use this link.
Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices
Its whole purpose was for off-list discussions relating specifically to Dr. Wood and other fringe topics. Mr. Ruff is familiar with it, and Mr. Rogue was invited (but has been a no-show.)
Win-win-win for all the things that it spares T&S of. Yep, send Mr. Gloux my way.
Yep, I knew if I was patient enough, Mr. Rogue would pwn himself with Dr. Wood's book. El-Oh-El.
//
Adam Ruff wrote 2015-08-31 10:01 PM
+++begin
Take me off your mailing list, nut case. Wood is full of shit and so are you.
+++end
Dear Mr. Ruff,
You seem a little touchy. You wrote:
"Wood is full of shit and so are you."
I honestly do not know how you could come up with such an assessment, because you have never provided any substantiation for either, despite your blow-hard bragging. Seems to be a re-occurring theme with you [1] [2]. Not that I won't ultimately agree with certain points, it just that you appear to be a no-show and fumbler.
After much weaseling, I finally got you to agree to the playing field of fourth generation nuclear devices. How is your assessment of that document going? And how does its detailed analysis then by extrapolation related back to Dr. Wood? This is important, because it illuminates where she was wrong and right.
Here is a great link from March 7, 2013 addressed to you. You should read the whole comment, but particularly the P.S. which has major significance today in light of Mr. Rogue's recent detailed knowledge of various pages in Dr. Wood's book.
+++ begin
P.S. I’m so confident that Mr. Rogue was “lying about the small things” when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood’s book to line his bird’s cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to “get the monkey off of his back” that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective good, bad, and ugly review. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.
+++ end
With regards to your assessment of me being a nut case, I plead guilty. The very definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. For literally years, I've been trying to have a reasoned, rational, researched discussion with you (and Mr. Rogue) about my hobby-horse (fourth generation nuclear devices). You can imagine my disappointment to learn that you both are incapable of such.
//
Dear Mr. Ruff and Mr. Whitten,
I am a sincere seeker of Truth. Recently I was taken aback by this quotation:
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." ~Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931)
Certainly dovetails with:
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ~Mark Twain
Inspiration to present conditions -- even on the themes of 9/11 -- can often be found in biblical passages. For instance:
I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Revelations 1:3: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."
Are Mr. Ruff or Mr. Whitten blessed for having read 4th generation nuclear weapons? In "proving" or "testing" it, did they find any good on which to hold fast?
Why am I communicating with them? Why am I bringing this up? Because Mr. Ruff wrote on October 5, 2015 at 8:32 pm:
+++
To me the fact that the "team" refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part. A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one.
+++ end quote
Then on October 29, 2015 at 8:32 am, Mr. Ruff repeats:
+++
A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do.
+++ end quote
Using Mr. Ruff's own definitions:
- Mr. Ruff is not a truther (a real one). (a) He doesn't have any permanent work: articles, blogs, etc. to support his no-nukes on 9/11 premise. (b) If we graciously include statements that he made on T&S and my blog as his work, Mr. Ruff has totally shied away from addressing challenges to it. No show for quite some time. (c)_ "Blessed is he that readeth", therefore blessed is ~not~ Mr. Ruff who boasted of not reading my postings or reference materials.
- Mr. Whitten is not a truther (a real one). (a) He won't make comments on my blog. (b) He won't allow my comments on his blog. [(c1) He won't participate on Facebook, despite it being perfect for him, his belligerent style, and his penchance for cycling through repetitive arguments.] (c2) "Blessed is he that readeth", therefore blessed is ~not~ Mr. Whitten who admitted not finishing Dr. Wood's book and then perpetuated for two years a lie about having destroyed the book in order to avoid discussions. Why? "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [I Thessalonians 5:21]
hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
In the past, I "relished the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove my hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one." Thus, I was the real truther.
Not so much any more, owing to 14 years since 9/11 and the crushing reality of the difficulty in convincing others how they've been fooled.
//
Post a Comment