x180 Señor El Once: Intro: Participant Overreaction to Outlawed Topics
2015-01-14
Most of what follows is one-side of the discussion: my side. However, I have endeavored to provide adequate quotations from my discussion partners so that some understanding of context is achieved.
The topics related to 9/11 advanced technologies. And by golly, the eifer with which people and participants do ~not~ give this reasoned or lengthy consideration is astounding.
My comments admittedly walked a fine lines between outlawed nuclear discussions and the actual topics under discussion. My diagonal comments could have been left alone as one-hit-wonders. [The only reason nuclear discussions are outlawed is because it seems to inspire the purposeful bad behavior of individuals that escalates while imploding the thread for others.] From a disinformation perspective, it is amazing how quickly certain participants were to shoot themselves in the foot in the nature of their attacks.
For the most part, my responses were to comments made in a public forum (T&S) that permitted a back-and-forth. Clever readers who are also gluttons for punishment may follow my links back to where the discussion transpired, and from there (or through other means) possibly follow other links to Mr. Rogue's blog. There, readers will discover everything that my main discussion parnter wrote during this time period pertaining to the subject or to me. There, readers will note the many "features" of the literary effort that makes it less than worthy, from the choice of language, to the tone, to flaws in the reasoning and logic, to issues with objectivity, to outright mistakes, etc. Certainly, hardly worth my time to take seriously and respond to, let alone re-publish here.
x18 Craig McKee : Gage's response to the DEW question
Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth requested that I post this response to the DEW question on this post (which has received a bit of a revival of interest in recent days). I invite readers to check this out although comments on the thread remain closed.
He writes: "The reason that AE911Truth finds that the DEW theory by Judy Wood is disinformation is summed up in our FAQ #3:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/597-faq-2-what-about-the-planes-that-slammed-into-the-twin-towers-wouldnt-they-have-disturbed-the-demolition-devices.html
x19 Señor El Once : Gage's response is a farce
2014-09-15
{email}
Dear Mr. McKee,
Your FAQ #3 link is wrong. It should be:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html
Secondly, that piece is a farce in terms of addressing Dr. Judy Wood's disinformation. I mean, they don't actually put on the DEW shoes to walk around in them to see what could be possible. They don't speculate into viable configurations of DEW that could account for things (and assuming this fails, proving it couldn't possibly have been DEW.) Instead, they spent the majority of the FAQ #3 promoting nano-thermite. This alone makes the efforts to hoist up FAQ #3 as the definitive DEW debunking pretty disingenuous on Mr. Gage's part.
You can tell Mr. Gage that I'll be happy to tear apart that FAQ #3 paragraph-by-paragraph, line-by-line... and it isn't even as if I am 100% in Dr. Wood's camp, what with my nookie-doo and 4th generation nukes spin-off.
Come to think of it, to a certain degree the FAQ's were address already in June of 2011.
On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/
Obviously, my views have shifted since writing that. It has only 14 comments, but other than the first two or so (from HR and me), I think the others should be ~DELETED~ due to the HR-SEO war dragged back from COTO. You'll probably want to do this clean-up before advertising it to Mr. Gage that he's been addressed and all.
A fresh tear-apart of FAQ #3 on T&S might give the needed corner of your blog for nuclear-DEW topics to be discussed rationally. You give the go-ahead, Mr. McKee, and I'll rouse myself from my 9/11 stupor.
//
x20 Señor El Once : Ten Things
[Disclaimer: Quotations from Mr. McKee which provide context do ~not~ count towards my 500 words... which came out at <650 words.]
Dear Mr. McKee,
Your best article ever! To conserve my precious word count, if I don't address a specific point in your well thought out and well written article, then register my agreement, thereby making my disagreement in certain areas below just a hair-split out of the whole. The following quotes from you are not in sequence:
As a result, it has become essential that we discuss and come to understand how disinformation works, how it is being used against us, and how best to react to it (and when not to react at all).
Indeed. In order for disinformation to have traction, it must have a believable foundation consisting of valid nuggets of truth. If the effort to debunk disinformation limits its scope to only the flaws, it remains incomplete and possibly even played: right into the hands of a multi-faceted disinformation agenda. Acknowledgment of nuggets of truth and their applicable re-purposing are the requisite steps for completion.
I see no value in arguing about Judy Woods and her non-theory about directed energy weapons and dustified steel. Yes, she has raised some questions. ... To Woods’ opponents, stop obsessing about her.
The obsession -- those for and against -- has been a sign of a disinformation game, particularly when the objective review is missing that end-to-end would acknowledge nuggets of both truth and error. On top of this, yet another game is to extrapolate evidence from one aspect of the operation to other aspects.
For example, discussion of WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 are often ignored in favor of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. Yet the former three are inexplicable and strange, sufficiently so that decades of known space-based weaponry research -- framed properly -- isn't so far-fetched as being applicable.
I believe we need to continue to hack away at the official story until we find a vulnerable point that will begin unravelling the public's trust in that story.
I believe that the vulnerable point is 3rd/4th generation nuclear involvement.
Public realization of the literal message of 9/11 nuclear involvement should have figurative massive nuclear fall-out all over, which is why it becomes the line that cannot be crossed, and organizations will be co-opted to park it: "thus far and no further."
The nuclear position has been getting a lot of attention lately with the efforts of Jim Fetzer, Don Fox, Gordon Duff, and others to raise the profile of the issue and to take on established figures in the movement like Richard Gage of AE911Truth, Steven Jones, and Niels Harrit over their position that thermite (or nano-thermite) played an important, although not exclusive, role in destroying the three WTC towers. (It is important to note that AE does not claim that thermite destroyed the towers on its own; their position is that it was combined with explosives of some kind.)
Although AE does not claim that thermite destroyed the WTC on its own, combining nano-thermite with other (chemical-based) explosives only addresses a portion of the observed effects and makes it worse for addressing other portions (e.g., vehicle damage, under-rubble hot-spot duration, implementation logistics), which is why thermite can be viewed as a limited-hangout. I fault AE for years of unobjective and uncomprehensive assessments relating to the evidence (nuggets of truth) of nuclear involvment strung through many different disinformation endeavors, such as Dr. Wood's work.
We've seen recently how local police forces have been equipped with military equipment that they could not – under any reasonable conditions – ever need. But they are using it against the population. People are no longer to be served and protected, they are the enemy to be controlled.
This is key. Brief diversion, a YouTube video that was brought to my attention a few weeks ago highlights the dangers that this planet faces and gives me insight why some (political / false-flag) events unfolded the way they did.
9/11 was about securing energy sources in the Middle East, almost like a last-hurrah party of gluttony and consumerism -- to get the very last beer -- to tip the climate change into crisis. Our daily creation of warming green-house gases through our unsubstainable lifestyles only ratchets things so far. The huge danger is that global warming will thaw and release deposits of methane and other gases presently frozen at the bottom of the ocean. That is the tipping point that gives us a steep acceleration in green-house gases that changes climate to unrecognizable and even unhabitable levels.
In other words, rising sea levels and unprecedented violent storms are going to create refugees out of those who aren't outright culled,... err... killed. Turning local police forces into armies is seen as necessary to control the perceived migrating masses of "have-not's" to the high elevation areas with the "have's and have more's".
One goal of chemtrails are a cosmetic effort to stop symptoms of global warming by reflecting sunlight back, but don't address root causes of fossil-fuel consumption, clear-cutting, pollution, etc. Another goal of chemtrails will be to cull populations to reduce need, because obviously the introduction of plastics into our consumerism (about the same time pick-up's and SUV's were first hyped) and into the "great garbage patch" isn't killing us fast enough.
And a major part of this, of course, is looking at who was and is responsible for all of these events.
//
x21 Señor El Once : follow the money
Dr. Zarembka wrote to Mr. McKee:
I think you have missed the topic of "follow the money": insider trading and much more.
I agree.
Here's the most comprehensive report I've seen yet to justify 9/11 as an inside job, and thankfully ties in the criminality of former CIA Director G. H. W. Bush as both Vice President (to clueless Reagan) and President.
- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)
"[N]ot only were the buildings targets, but ... specific offices within each building were the designated targets. ... [T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.
~ E. P. Heidner
- Collateral Damage of 9/11 Part II(PDF)
"The U.S. Subprime and global financial crises of 2008 was the direct result of a covert monetary policy implemented by the U.S. financial institutional caretakers of the World War II Black Eagle Gold Fund."
~ E. P. Heidner
//
x22 Señor El Once : Facebook for discussions?
Dear Mr. Syed,
Facebook long ago could have had the features in place that make it a great and addictive venue for debate, like URLs, labels, and logical navigation into discussion topics. Could have been (or still could be) an overlay to what they have.
Instead, they let their sole navigation be established by algorithm that is unique for each and changes based on latest comment and by whom. Unless a person is astute enough to note the URLs in the notifications and store those in an off-list copy of one's comment, it can be very difficult to get to old discussions, let alone refer others to them (like, if you wanted to avoid looping through terrain already covered).
If those others don't have a facebook account, they can't get to the URL. Sometimes you can't get to it if you aren't a member; other times you can, but you can't comment until you join; and other times if you get bounced from a group, no comments and to spite you, no free views either. I won't go into the details of groups, owners, blocking, bouncing, etc.
Its commentary auto-scroll-up showing only 3 or 4 of the last comments in the default news feed view easily gets juked merely by someone posting several comments (of often meaningless filler by the spooks) in a row. I'm convinced that not all Facebook users are equal in terms of access to admin functionality. When someone pays (like a favorite record label), they are entitled to features that include placement in their fans' news feeds. Some of the 9/11 groups must pay to get some of these features. Another distinction in user functionality depends on the amount of personal information that you cough up: the more you're willing -- for security purposes, of course -- to associate your telephone number, home town, high school, college, places of employment, likes & tastes, etc., the more you can do.
And competing against your rational debate on a weighty topic is the algorithmic news feed unique for you based on friends, their shares, their comments, and anything you have ever "liked" that can become, not just a distracting, but an addicting obsession that morphs into an embarrassing time suck.
Yeah, I've got my Facebook account(s), but I've resorted to placing a yellow sticky with "NO FB" on my work's computer to remind me not to be tempted.
I guess someone has to venture into Facebook's 9/11 forums to voice truth, but unless you are taking steps for preservation elsewhere, you are just throwing away your efforts at convincing the masses [albeit they'll be thrown right into the files of the Homeland Security to be used against you at your trial.]
//
x23 Señor El Once : marginalizing DEWers
Dear Mr. Syed,
With regards to the Pentagon plane (or lack thereof) you wrote on October 8, 2014 at 6:48 pm:
This is the damage that people like Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Jon Cole, and Frank Legge are doing.
You continued on October 8, 2014 at 6:56 pm with:
People like her and Ken Doc have no problem howling down and marginalizing DEWers (since that's actual disinfo), as well as blitzing them with facts that will fill the holes in their knowledge, but when we do it to them re the Pentagon, we’re perceived as somehow not being respectful to a mere difference of opinion.
I agree that most "DEWers" peddle some disinformation purposely and with no openness to modifications and tweaks to their opinions when faced with new information. They try to compartmentalize DEW in a manner that excludes nuclear devices as DEW's most likely and easy-to-come-by power source. "DEWers" have an additional problem of framing -- or allowing it to be framed by opponents as -- "space-based weapons" and getting it misapplied to instances of the whole where it doesn't apply.
Likewise, most "Nukers" peddle some disinformation and with no openness to modifications and tweaks to their opinions when faced with new information. They malframe the nature of the 9/11 device such that its energy output and side-effects won't match the evidence. They often exclude the collected evidence of the DEW camp, when in fact most modern nuclear weapons all fall into the category of DEW.
Major disinformation is in an unwillingness to have a trial marriage between the two.
Whether we're talking DEW, nukes, or chemical explosives & incendiaries, the proponents of each have been too obtuse (and other adjectives) to acknowledge that the 9/11 event was ~not~ mutually exclusive in any of the forms of destruction. The proponents add a layer of disinformation by saying "X was found here at A, therefore X must apply to A, B, and C as well. And by extension of this faulty assumption, Y & Z were not involved." No! The destruction of each of the seven or so buildings at the WTC needs to be studied individually to see what unique collection of methods might have been involved with each.
I have different issues with Mr. David Chandler and Mr. Jonathon Cole, which are data points fitting your trend line.
Mr. Cole did those wonderful thermite experiments. While fascinating to watch, they leave major gaps in getting super-duper nano-thermite to explain the observed destruction as well as the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. They purposely omitted the calculations and analysis to prove that NT could reasonably go the distance in the pulverization and hot-spot duration without completely whacked and obscene quantities.
Moreover, the only dust samples that show NT were handed to Dr. Jones. The USGS did not report anything about NT; the RJ Lee Group reported nothing; the Paul Lioy report didn't have it either. Although we have basis to believe that such information might have been purposely edited and suppressed from those untrustworthy reports, many other damning things from those reports weren't suppressed from being measured and reported in tables, albeit the plain text explanations ignored them (like the presence of Uranium and other trace elements of nuclear involvement).
Back to the DEW front, Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cole (among others) have spoken up loadly regarding (misframed) DEW being disinformation. Yet they don't offer specifics. It should have been deja vu for some T&S participants when they were challenged like Mr. Chandler was to review Dr. Wood's book for the good, bad, and ugly, something still sorely needed by the Truth Movement. The issue would not have been finding bad and ugly. The issue would have been acknowledging any of the good, because it'd have to get married in some way to other things they were propping up without getting those things shot full of holes.
Mr. McKee on 2014-09-15 updated the comments to a closed thread on behalf of Mr. Gage that tried to point to FAQ #3 on the AE911Truth site to supposedly debunk DEWish topics. The correct link to FAQ #3 should have been:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html
Of the FAQ #3's terse ~2,600 words, only a mere ~1,500 words (57%) were devoted to the topic of DEW itself and have zero references to anything specific in Dr. Wood's work. [Another case of a book report without having the book.] The remaining 43% went off topic and into the weeds with a distraction into NT.
To give readers an idea of how few words that is, this comment alone is already about half of what their "final authority" FAQ #3 devoted to DEW.
Thus, DEW and nuclear discussions becomes a textbook cases of Mr. McKee's #5: The workings of disinformation.
//
x26 Señor El Once : textbook case of disinformation
Mr. Rogue wrote that my last comment was "a textbook case of disinformation."
If I am wrong, then it is "misinformation", not "disinformation." I'm not deliberately disseminating false information. I back up how I get to my conclusions, and I am amiable to correcting my views when validated new information or analysis suggests such.
The two problems that Mr. Rogue has reside in (1) proving where I've gotten it wrong and (2) acknowledging where he has gotten wrong, something his emotions and ego won't ever admit to.
Mr. Rogue's prompt, knee-jerk [agenda-toting(?)] response within 48 minutes of my last comment lacks substance (or links) to prove his contention. Boils down to a personal attack that could easily be interpretted as more than just a disgruntled debate opponent, particularly in light of Mr. Rogue commanding 40% of the overall comments [153 total so far.] How quickly he forgets the October 2, 2014 at 11:58 pm reprimand:
[I]t is not your job to answer everything you think is bullshit.
Is Mr. Rogue borrowing from certain chapters of that disinformation textbook?
//
x27 Señor El Once : posting where it don't belong
What exactly is Mr. Rogue objecting to when he quotes from Mr. McKee in response to my comment to Mr. Syed?
Mr. Syed posted several images of off-topic conversations that he has been having in Facebook. Mr. Rogue made several comments in response to Mr. Syed relating to Facebook and the exchange. Facebook is already proven on topic.
My comment to Mr. Syed about Facebook and some of the reasons why I hate it for 9/11 discussions came in at 452 words. My six (6) total comments to this discussion [including this one] are only 3.8% of the total [155]. Mr. Rogue has over ten times my contribution to this thread. He doesn't need to add to his tally by spillage directed at me, about me, or about anything I post.
Mr. Rogue, please make better use of your blog and refrain from engaging me here, because your blatant and stupid antics put the "sin" in "disinformation".
//
x28 Señor El Once : Mr. Rogue doesn't keep his promises
{mcb: Mr. Mckee removed the link and quote to the promise on Mr. Rogue's blog.}
Mr. Rogue wrote:
I do not agree that these postings by Mr Syed are in anyway "off topic" as is asserted by a certain anonymous poster here.
Technically, Mr. Syed's comments were "off topic" in his newly found "paradox" et al on Facebook, but they were permitted and responsed to, so became on-topic.
My comments have been on-topic with multiple tie-in's to the overall thread and the specific topic of this area. They can be ignored. In Mr. Rogue's case, I highly encourage that he ignore me.
Mr. Rogue promises on his blog:
I am not going to argue with [SEO] about this shit. It is your blog Craig! … FUCK!!!
Given that my comments are only 3.8% of the total while Mr. Rogue's are ten times that, he can well afford to let my words pass on by.
But Mr. Rogue doesn't:
I do see a "poisoning of the well" beginning to take place on this thread, yes indeed. But neither Mr Syed, Mr Ruff, myself, and certainly not Mr MCkee have any hand in that.
Thus, we must express our wonder at Mr. Rogue's inability to see how his engagement of me -- hardly 13 minutes after his blog's promise -- becomes the very "poisoning of the well" that he supposedly fears. An instigator, in its purest form, eh?
I have hope that Mr. Rogue doesn't repeat the slip-up and will regain hold of his resolve to stick with his own promise.
I've said my piece(s). If Mr. Rogue doesn't engage with his faux hysteria and rabble-rousing, I'll have no further opportunity to express my views. If others engage (which I doubt), different story. I'll need 60 or more comments, though, before I match Mr. Rogue's output.
Given that Mr. Rogue can't be bothered to lend Mr. Syed and Mr. McKee a hand on Facebook (where he belongs), Mr. Rogue should put up some more meaningless comments and filler to his blog.
//
x29 Señor El Once : missile involvement at the Pentagon
Awhile back, Mr. OneSliceShort and I were on the same page about the Pentagon, missile involvement, and plane fly-over. The cattiwompus & torched construction trailer aligned with the destruction path would have been an excellent covered launching pad for a missile launched into the Pentagon.
I don't see a missile per se poisoning the well. Framing it as a missile that flew a lengthly flight path somewhat parallel to the observed plane yet remaining unobserved itself, that is poisoning the well.
//
x30 Señor El Once : 9/11 demonstrates the existence of some conspiracy against humanity
Dear Mr. Noel,
I regret that I was unable to reply promptly when you made your excellent comment from October 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm.
At this late date, I'd like to express kudos.
... a still more valuable goal would be to investigate the possibility that the study of 9/11 would demonstrate the existence of some conspiracy against humanity that would be larger than a pattern of false flags or that would be easier to clear than 9/11. ... The 9/11 censorship is by far the most alarming 9/11 subconspiracy...
Thank you,
//
x31 Señor El Once : clouding Mr. Rogue's brain
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Stop your lying:
You are reading the comment after Craig edited it. SEO reposted the whole thing again farther down the thread – PLUS more BS.
Nothing has been edited or deleted (yet). It probably won't be either, because it is on-topic and short & concise (for me) within allowable tolerances. Everything is as it was originally posted, typos and all.
Because nothing was edited or deleted, there hasn't been any need to re-post anything.
Your anger is clouding your brain and forcing you to make stupid mistakes with your promises, your stupid lies, and your hyperventilating tattle-tailing.
For the record, you purposely posted your rabble-rousing comment in the wrong place to obscure your nefarious hand and got your ass handed to you.
PLUS, it isn't your duty to call out the "BS".
It isn't your job to put out fodder to engage me.
You've got a big enough buffer in your comment count, you can afford to ignore me. Please take advantage of that lead by STFU. Your lying and disinfo antics are unbecoming to this forum.
//
x32 hybridrogue1 : nothing but verbosity of rhetoric, ie; BULLSHIT
2014-10-11
hybridrogue1
October 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm
The comments by SEO of OCTOBER 10, 2014 AT 11:46 AM & OCTOBER 10, 2014 AT 11:48 AM, both addressed to Adam Syed are so similar to one another that I thought the one left up at 11:46 AM was the top half of what is left at 11:48 AM …
I am not lying, at most I am mistaken, but I am not sure that I am mistaken yet either. I could have sworn there was an original post that had what shows at 11:46 AM as a first part and what now shows at 11:48 AM as a second part.
At any rate, now the first part is certainly on topic, but the second part is not and has been called out of bounds by the quote I made of Mr McKee from the original essay above. If anyone here is a liar it is Señor El Once.
\\][//
x33 Craig McKee : You are mistaken
2014-10-11
Craig McKee
October 11, 2014 at 10:57 am
You are mistaken. I did not edit anything yesterday.
//
x34 hybridrogue1 : I agree with this assessment totally
2014-10-11
hybridrogue1
2014-10-11
{mcb: Original comment before Mr. McKee edited it.}
"Mr. Gage that tried to point to FAQ #3 on the AE911Truth site to supposedly debunk DEWish topics. The correct link to FAQ #3 should have been:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html"~Señor //
– – – – — – – – — – —
FAQ #3: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?
Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
Sunday, 18 May 2014 00:00
————————————————————————————————————————————
Señor claims this is an insufficient argument against DEW, when actually it utterly destroys the DEW proposition, and mortally wounds the nuclear aspect as well.
Señor wants 'explosive events" for the nuke aspect, and wants nukes driving DEW for other aspects. And all is based in pure speculation. There is not a single indicator for a nuclear/radiological event to have occurred at WTC. Everything is explained specifically and exactly as an explosive demolition.
Señor has nothing but verbosity of rhetoric, ie; BULLSHIT.
. . . . . . . . . .
* Hypothesis in Search of Facts
"One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens – 600 feet.
Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spurious interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just as in the official explanation.
[...]
"Hundreds of eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions
The many qualified witnesses to the sights and sounds of explosions are easily explained with the controlled demolition by explosive hypothesis – but not with the DEW hypothesis. Wood questions the credibility of the witnesses of explosions (amounting to hundreds) throughout the Twin Towers.
Conclusion
We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. In addition, we believe the DEW theory raises far more questions than it answers, such as the energy requirements and other issues outlined in the suggested references listed below.
Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures."~A&E FAQ#3
_____________________________________________________
And I agree with this assessment totally.
Read the piece for yourself, don't take either of our word for it.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 11, 2014 at 7:55 am
{mcb: Craig McKee edited this.}
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED…
…for breaking the rules set out at the beginning of this discussion. While Senor El Once's original comment from yesterday was a delicate balancing act on the line (of staying on the topic), this comment went way over. Hybridrogue, you have simply ignored my requirement that we not argue the merits or lack thereof of DEW, nukes, etc. The fact that you think SEO did the same isn't an excuse.
2014-10-11
Craig McKee
October 11, 2014 at 10:41 am
Señor El Once, your comment comes in at 788 words. If you would like to send a 500-word version by email I will substitute it. Or I could chop it if you like. And just for simplicity's sake let's assume I mean 500 words in total (including any quotes from elsewhere). So that means when the entire comment is pasted into a Word doc, the total word count should not exceed 500 words. I just think it makes the thread much more readable this way. And rather than having long essays on many aspects of a topic, it encourages everyone to make more specific and focused comments.
//
Craig McKee
October 11, 2014 at 10:47 am
Señor,
I have removed your link to hybridrogue1's blog. And I made clear before, I do not want Truth and Shadows to be a venue for continuing or rehashing fights that have taken place there or on your own blog. Also, I have admonished hybridrogue1 for challenging me on whether rules are going to be enforced or not, so I must also ask you to stop referring to the number of comments made by him and others. If you have a complaint or suggestion to make about this, write me an email. Thank you.
Craig McKee
October 11, 2014 at 10:55 am
Hybridrogue1,
I'm not sure if I have expressed this before (I'm kidding; I've said it several times), but I really hate it when people become all indignant and wonder if there are any "rules here." As you have been told, I now have a work schedule that may delay my reactions to comments. That is where the good will of the contributors comes in. If I think someone is breaking the rules when they think it won't be dealt with for a few hours, then that person will be dealt with.
So if you think rules have been broken, then send me an email and I will look into it. But do not ask if this is going to be a free-for-all because you think someone has broken the rules when you know I have not had the chance to look into the situation. It's a direct shot at me, and I don't appreciate it. Thank you.
x40 hybridrogue1 : still XXX stalled
2014-10-13
hybridrogue1
2014-10-14
Maybe these images will keep Maxitwerp's prissy eyes off of my blog! .. ???
\\][//
{mcb: The October 12, 2014 at 2:53 am and October 12, 2014 at 11:02 am comments, when viewed from the blog, each had a GIF animation of female-on-male fallatio.}
hybridrogue1
2014-10-15
This is obviously a recurring theme at T&S. Craig makes rules about no nukes in the commentary – Señor blatantly ignores the rules – then it is my fault because I confront Señor for it… WTF?
Just happened again on the current thread:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-10-16
Señor,
WARNING: Do not visit "your page" on my blog anymore. It is now rated XXX.
Anyone else who would be offended should be aware of this as well.
\\][//
x42 KP, hybridrogue1, & hadmatter : WTC-6 giant crater
2014-10-16
KP
Very good point about WTC6 – a while ago I posted on a forum the series of photos that shows that the huge hole appeared after WTC7 was destroyed and before the overhead photo was taken the next day. Can did that up if anyone is interested.
hybridrogue1
KP,
I have heard this reported and seen photo’s purporting to show this, and found those photos unconvincing. As far as what I have seen the hole in the top of # 6 was caused during the tower explosions.
Can you show me where to go to see the pics you are referring to here?
Thanks, \\][//
HR
"Some reports suggested that explosions were responsible for the holes in WTC 6 and WTC 5. 1 The depths of the holes have been cited as evidence of this, as have their clean profiles.
However, it does seem plausible that falling pieces from the breakup of the North Tower could have created the holes. The steel in just the upper half of the Tower’s northeast wall weighed several thousand tons. It can be imagined, given the degree of mushrooming in the Tower collapse, that Building 6 received most of the weight of the Tower’s northeast wall. Thousands of tons falling from a thousand feet could have crushed all eight stories of such a building. Moreover, the rectangular shape of the hole, and the fact that it runs the length of the Tower’s northeast wall (whose remnants can be seen in the left side of the photo), suggests that it corresponds to the region of heaviest steel fallout from that wall. If the Tower continued to disintegrate in the uniform manner seen before dust clouds obscured the region of breakup, it is easy to imagine that the column-and-spandrel panels of the perimeter wall would be blown off fairly consistently in the direction perpendicular to the wall. That would result in a roughly rectangular distribution of fallout."- article at URL below:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html
\\][//
hadmatter
I don’t mean to steal KP’s thunder, but I believe these are the pics he was referring to:
http://letsrollforums.com/wtc6-damage-analysis-originally-t20520.html
which he embedded in a thread on the Let’s Roll Forum in 2010. (5th posting down in the thread)
And yes, it is a mystery; one for which I’ve not seen a definitive explanation.
In the first several pictures of WTC6 you can clearly see it has been damaged from the falling debris from WTC1 & 2, but the penthouse on the roof is intact. Building 7 is still up, but damaged with the smoke wall swirling on the south side. 1 & 2 are definitely on the ground at this point.
Scroll down to the last pic, taken after 7 is on the ground, and the WTC6 penthouse has been obliterated. It’s gone. There’s nothing but a big hole where it was earlier in the other pics.
Did 7 do this? The penthouse looked like it was more behind the Verizon building than 7.
The plot thickens.
hybridrogue1
On #6 WTC,
These photo’s on Let’s Roll forum are from 3 different angles. It would be my assessment that this is what gives the ‘appearance’ of ‘more damage’ on the last shot of it on the page.
Check out how the building is sat catercorner on a foundation in these shots. It is easy therefore to conclude this diversity of POVs:
>130 jpg — the base is on R. side of frame.
>131 jpg — the base is on bottom of frame.
>179 jpg — the base is on the L. side of frame.
It would be my opinion that it is an optical illusion caused by these differing POVs that give the appearance of different damage levels. I think all the damage was caused by the tons of steel falling on #6.
\\][//
x43 Señor El Once : WTC-6 crater appearing
2014-10-16
Dear Mr. KP,
I'd be interested in the series of photos showing the WTC-6 crater appearing after WTC-7 was destroyed.
WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 both individually and collectively are also topics for Mr. McKee to add to his list of 9/11 things about 9/11 deserving more attention.
Mr. Rogue quoted from a http://911reserarch.wtc7.net posting. Key words and phrases are: "plausible," "it can be imagined," "could have crushed," "suggests," and "it is easy to imagine." Its speculative nature does not make the analysis fact or real-world cause-and-effect.
http://cryptome.org/0001/wtc-nist-gjs/wtc-nist-gjs.zip
gjs-wtc109.jpg
gjs-wtc110.jpg
gjs-wtc112.jpg
gjs-wtc129.jpg
gjs-wtc130.jpg
gjs-wtc131.jpg
gjs-wtc135.jpg
Shows that WTC-7 did not impact WTC-5 or WTC-6.
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/37524ba917253f99e.jpg
Guns encased in concrete.
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/37524baae38ecdbfa.jpg
//
x45 Señor El Once : Guns enclosed in melted aggregates to the concrete
I wrote in error:
Guns encased in concrete from the WTC-6 armory hint at a different story and energy forces regarding WTC-6 not being "collateral" but part of the plan.
What makes my statement in error is that the guns aren't enclosed in concrete per se; they are enclosed in the melted aggregates to the concrete.
Mr. Rogue was not very careful in sourcing the quotations from his comment, giving a false impression about the extent of his actual words / knowledge versus those written by others.
Here's the situation with WTC-6 and these guns.
First story line is that flaming aircraft debris started the office fires. The heat from the office fires [~not~ in open air] likely would have been insufficient to melt the differing components of concrete. For points of reference, office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air have temperatures between ~216°C to 815°C; iron or structural steel melt at ~1,482°C. What happens to concrete at various temperatures: 300°C normal thermal expansion; 450-550°C cement hydrate decomposes; 500°C carbonation and coarsening of pores; 573°C rapid expansion of quartz; 600°C calcium carbonate decomposes...
In other words, this first story (e.g., the government's) about office fires causing this piece of anomalous evidence is incomplete.
The second, third, and fourth story lines are respectively that (2) incendiaries -- in particular super-duper nano-thermite [NT] --, (3) explosives, and (4) combinations of the two created the works of patriot PR art of metal guns fused with aggregrates of concrete. However, logistics and implementation foil such; they are incomplete as well. For example, while NT incendiaries can get very hot locally to the point of being able to cut steel columns, the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere, least of all on the concrete around a weapons store supporting nothing. Likewise, while explosives also can get very hot, their true destructive energy is rapid and violent changes in air pressure to "blow things to smithereens." It isn't as if explosives even in combination with incendiaries would leave large, lingering patches of sizzling, unspent material to be the heat source for fusing the concrete aggregates to the weapons and creating other "meteorites".
Moreover, logic combined with natural human laziness of the planners inform us that the WTC 9/11 operation might exhibit overkill in the estimated energy required, but that overkill would not have been implemented in a boots-to-the-ground sense of the planners deciding to use many orders of magnitude greater quantities of conventional, chemical based incendiaries and explosives, that in turn must be installed, controlled, and coordinated. No. The overkill would have been more of an accidental bonus of the mechanisms chosen... From the arsenals of the world and the MIC, money being no object.
Thus, a story line and energy source that completes the picture must be sought.
It is remarkable the twister-style gymnastics that has the 9/11 truth movement avoiding these inevitable conclusions.
// ~490 words
x46 hybridrogue1 : conjecture and supposition
2014-10-24
hybridrogue1
October 24, 2014 at 12:05 pm
The only conclusions that are "inevitable" are ones based on real data and facts – not conjecture and supposition.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm
\\][// ~18 words (grin)
hybridrogue1
2014-10-24
"For example, while NT incendiaries can get very hot locally to the point of being able to cut steel columns, the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere, least of all on the concrete around a weapons store supporting nothing. Likewise, while explosives also can get very hot, their true destructive energy is rapid and violent changes in air pressure to "blow things to smithereens." It isn't as if explosives even in combination with incendiaries would leave large, lingering patches of sizzling, unspent material to be the heat source for fusing the concrete aggregates to the weapons and creating other "meteorites".
~Señor El Once – OCTOBER 24, 2014 AT 11:27 AM
. .. . .
Maxitrwerp contends that "the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere.."
And yet as we can extrapolate from the Jones-Harrit paper on the explosive materials discovered in the WTC dust – NT was indeed spread "everywhere". The most logical supposition to be drawn from this is not to leap into fantasyland and nookiedoodoo nonsense, but rather to suppose that there was a good reason to salt the whole thing with nanothermetics: to eat the remains! The perps obviously wanted the crime scene destroyed as utterly as possible. It would therefore by logical that the plan was to, not only blow up the WTC, but to have the remains dissolve themselves – very like a murderer dissolving a victim in a vat of acid.
\\][//
x47 Señor El Once : Mr. Rogue is careless
In my last posting, I didn't make a major issue of Mr. Rogue's careless quotations bordering on plagiarism. In this posting, I will suppress my complaint that careless Mr. Rogue likes to insert his comments where they don't belong, messing up readability and context for those reading on the web.
But I won't suppress pointing out the errors in what he propagates from his faulty understanding, when he wrote:
And yet as we can extrapolate from the Jones-Harrit paper on the explosive materials discovered in the WTC dust – NT was indeed spread "everywhere".
Extrapolation is not evidence! Least of all extrapolation based on purposely faulty assumptions!
NT was ~not~ "everywhere". No, no, no!
NT was only found in the dust samples given to Dr. Jones, samples whose chain of custody and integrity can leave thinkers with questions. NT was not found in the dust analyzed by the USGS, by the RJ Lee Group (relating to the Banker's Trust building), or even by Lioy et al.
On the one hand, we certainly have reason to distrust the veracity of these reports. On the other hand, all of these reports had data tables that were fairly consistent in the sense that they exposed elements and compounds (heavy metals, etc.) that maybe they shouldn't have if they were trying to control the message. To cover themselves, though, they do not discuss these anomalous elements or why they were there; the tables were it. If the data tables were exposing elements important to nuclear mechanisms [that they were going to ignore in the plain text], no reason why the data tables wouldn't also validate NT. Except if the dust didn't really have NT or other such things.
What the Jones-Harrit paper [that Mr. Rogue didn't link] said was that they found in the dust "everywhere" a significant percentage of iron spheres. They make a huge-ass ASSUMPTION that these iron spheres were the direct resultant of NT reacting with steel in the various buildings (primarily WTC-1 and WTC-2). Even Dr. Harrit calculated that, depending on oxygen content of the steel, the implication is for massive quantities to have been present... if going with the NT hypothesis.
The kicker is that those iron spheres could be generated by other mechanisms.
Most interesting that Mr. Rogue would write:
The only conclusions that are "inevitable" are ones based on real data and facts – not conjecture and supposition.
Most interesting that Mr. Rogue would write:
The most logical supposition to be drawn from this is not to leap into fantasyland with exotic mourning-dew nonsense, but rather to suppose that there was a good reason to salt the whole thing with nanothermetics: to eat the remains! The perps obviously wanted the crime scene destroyed as utterly as possible.
When and how did the master chef behind 9/11 step in "to salt the whole thing with nanothermetics"? Does this conjecture and supposition have any real data and facts?
The perps obviously wanted the crime scene destroyed as utterly as possible. It would therefore by logical that the plan was to, not only blow up the WTC, but to have the remains dissolve themselves – very like a murderer dissolving a victim in a vat of acid.
The very nuclear mechanisms that Mr. Rogue regularly -- like a Pavlov's dog -- drools over and poo-poo's inside 1/2 hour as "leaps into fantasyland" fulfill his logical plan of "not only blowing up the WTC, but to have the remains dissolve themselves". The disintegration is evident in the fountaining plooms of pulverized debris from the earliest phases of each tower's demise and represents a massive energy sink that logistics say would be hard to implement with conventional chemical-based mechanisms, but most easy with special things from the depths of MIC arsenals.
// ~640 total words include 140 Words from Mr. Rogue to give context
x48 hybridrogue1 : circular as he posits
2014-10-24
hybridrogue1
October 24, 2014 at 2:01 pm
First of all, my placement of my last comment was simply due to my not being sure where it would land here…. and I don’t like my comments turning into the narrow columns that often results in using the reply button as I have done here.
Secondly, I admit straight up that my proposition of the perps adding nano-thermites that would survive the initial destruction is conjecture and supposition. But it is based on actual data and evidence. This is opposed to the tack that the anonymous entity takes, wherein there is absolutely no evidence for his fantasy weapon – NONE.
It all turns circular as he posits that this evidence "proves" the existence of such exotic weapons.
Again, this is all gone through exhaustively on my blog at this URL:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm
140 Words from Mr. Rogue in context, the other 500 words being rhetorical jabberwacky.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-10-24
140 Words from Mr. Rogue in context, the other 500 words being rhetorical jabberwacky.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-10-24
Ah yes, the covert entity, Lol
Keeping serious about "debating" with the loonball is hard to do!
You see how his is a circular argument? Positing that these details from #6 are "further proofs" of something he hasn't even begun to prove!!
When the "debate" has a history as ours has, I see this clearly as an extension of his whole schlep. But some who haven't kept up with this boinking blither might have no idea that Max is speaking in hot air from the seat of his trousers.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-10-24
I would hazard a guess that the great majority of the readers at T&S have no idea of the history of the scrap between the entity and myself. I would imagine that overall many don't care one way or the other. Those who have an opinion one way or the other will agree with which ever one of us supports that opinion.
Yes for the most part this side-issue has become a non-issue by this late date. So what is written here on my blog is addressed to those who have followed this 'argument' between the covert entity and myself.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
October 30, 2014 at 7:29 pm
"Moreover, nothing in the "10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition" excludes nuclear mechanisms. …"~Mr. Señor
This statement is absolutely false. Both the entity and I have offered URLs where our opposing arguments are made. So flogging his rocking horse here all over again is a waste of everyone's time.
\\][//
x49 Señor El Once : passive-aggressive comment placement
Tsk, tsk. Mr. Rogue's response to a complaint about a posting being made where it didn't belong gets posted... again, where it doesn't belong. Kind of a passive-aggressive way to purposely make a discussion difficult to follow.
Mr. Rogue wrote:
It all turns circular as [SEO] posits that this evidence "proves" the existence of such exotic weapons.
Such a wonderful, erroneous turn of a phrase regarding "this evidence 'proves' the existence of such exotic weapons." In error because such exotic weapons do not need 9/11 to prove their existence. We can admire the extent with which information about them is classified and hidden. Yet still, important nuggets come to light in the published, researched, overview works of scientists that sneak out and validate the premise.
Therefore, the evidence isn't proof of their existence, but of their use.
Mr. Rogue is correct about things turning circular, though.
Again, this is all gone through exhaustively on my blog...:
Again, this is all responded to exhaustively...:
[1] On my blog, for instance with an entry from 2014-07-15 called how to gather, how to sow {Extended}, starting about 1/2 way in.
For sport, I will address Mr. Rogue's points 6 – 9 of "Controlled Demolition" "rationally, clearly and in order."
[2] On Truth & Shadows, for instance from 2014-06-06, starting about 1/3 of the way.
Moreover, nothing in the "10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition" excludes nuclear mechanisms. ... Worse, Mr. Rogue has re-purposed his works from another forum, minus all dissenting and opposing comments except for what little he quotes for ridicule. Arguments strong enough to withstand reasoned challenges, Mr. Rogue does not make.
//
x50 hybridrogue1 : an insufferable asshole
2014-10-30
hybridrogue1
2014-10-30
Bridges, you are such an insufferable asshole. T&S isn't interested in your stupid nookiedoodoo trip.
No one has shown the slightest interest in the scrap between us. At least there on those pages. However there has been a notable uptick in visitors here – quite a few visiting my Controlled Demolition thread, and they link here from two directions, one is T&S and the other the Gumshoe article [Australia].
40 visits here today, and a substantial portion to Controlled Demolition.
And surprisingly to this page as well.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-11-01
Maxwell Bridges is a covert operation, it is a fact. His appeal to the use of nom de plumes by the Federalists is utterly irrelevant to today's situation. The corporate state already knows who this character is, the only ones who do not know who he is are we, those who have to deal with his spurious bullshit. And a blatant part of his spurious bullshit is the reference to the Federalists as an excuse for his autonomy. The argument is out of context in this panoptic police state, which already knows every single detail about this entity.
His MO screams "agent provocateur"! How anyone who studies the national security state can miss this baffles me to no end…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-11-01
A continuing misperception is clearly seen in the counter commentary to what I have been saying here; and that is that is that ALL of the metallic spherules in the dust are the nanothermite. The vast majority are not, they are the RESULT of the explosion: vaporized steel. So the assumption that the mass of these are equivalent to the mass of superthermite planted in the towers is false. ~\\][//
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/#comment-28
Señor contends that "the desired destruction wouldn't require NT to be placed everywhere.."
And yet as we can extrapolate from the Jones-Harrit paper on the explosive materials discovered in the WTC dust – NT was indeed spread "everywhere".~\\][//
. . . . . . . . .
Señor contenues to answer that with:
What the Jones-Harrit paper [that Mr. Rogue didn't link] said was that they found in the dust "everywhere" a significant percentage of iron spheres. They make a huge-ass ASSUMPTION that these iron spheres were the direct resultant of NT reacting with steel in the various buildings (primarily WTC-1 and WTC-2).
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/here-are-10-things-about-911-that-deserve-more-attention-and-5-that-deserve-less/#comment-28109
. . . . . . . . .
And But it is hardly a "huge-ass ASSUMPTION" by Jones-Harrit, and anyone who knows the paper knows the solid proofs they show for the existence of nanothermite in the dust. There samples were from varied places, there is little reason to speculate that it was different or special in any way. And as I above in a post from 2012, I am well aware that there is a majority proportion of simple metalic spherules. Señor is the one who leaps to the conclusion that I meant all of the spherules were the solgel product. What I do mean is that it is reasonable to conclude from the Jones-Harrit samples that they were typical of the WTC dust, which they also show is in the same unique signature of the Paul Lioy et al standard for WTC dust. Therefore it is very likely that the dust is of the same general composition throughout the debris field. The constituent molecules of the nanothermate are listed in the graphs used by Paul Lioy et al.
As I have gone over a rebuttal to the entirety of Bridges assertions over and again, I will not repeat that again. I only wanted to address his current erroneous contentions.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-11-01
What all of this scrabble that Bridges threw onto T&S is meant to do is to distract from my assertion that it is reasonable to conclude that the perpetrators would have used whatever means available to destroy the physical evidence as part of the planning of the event. Thermitic material salted throughout the catacombs of the wreckage would have been a brilliantly devious plan.
And as this would be a rational explanation for the lingering heat in the pile, the covert entity attempts to interrupt the train of thought by leading off into the weeds of his spinning yada. He asserts that "nuclear fizzle" is what heated up the pile for so long. But what is "fizzle"? It is fissile nuclear activity and it produces heat through radioactivity. There is NO RADIOACTIVITY found in the evidence. None! There are four blog pages addressing this bullshit Max is trying to sell; this one of course, 'DISINFORMATION: DEW-Nuke', and 'The Demise of WTC', and "Maxifuckanus" … all four lay out arguments against the nookiedoo nonsense.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-11-01
"Mr. Rogue wrote:
It all turns circular as [this] posits that this evidence "proves" the existence of such exotic weapons.
Such a wonderful, erroneous turn of a phrase regarding "this evidence 'proves' the existence of such exotic weapons." In error because such exotic weapons do not need 9/11 to prove their existence. We can admire the extent with which information about them is classified and hidden. Yet still, important nuggets come to light in the published, researched, overview works of scientists that sneak out and validate the premise.
Therefore, the evidence isn't proof of their existence, but of their use."~Señor El Once – October 30, 2014 @ 12:20 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Señor maintains this same line of rhetorical nonsense despite the fact that I have revealed his sources who have brought "to light the published, researched, overview works of scientists that sneak out and validate the premise": And that is nothing more than a premise based purely on conjecture:
This is Señor's prize source;
'The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons'
Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni Independent Scientific Research Institute Box 30, CH-1211 Geneva-12, Switzerland January 20, 2009
One would note that is says right there in the title "the quest for", and in the body of the work it is made even more clear that this quest is looking some 20 years into the future for such developments to perhaps come about.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-11-01
And goddammit! It is the fact that I have made these points time and again for the past years, and they have yet to be addressed by this covert operator. All of it handwaved without any comment, as if I have never addressed these subjects, that go to show what a spurious and insincere actor this Señor Bridges is.
Oh yes, he claims to address them, and then you go to his blog and you find the same fucking arguments repeated over again, without addressing the critiques I have already made of those same fucking arguments. Then when I speak to what a carousel the Maxitwat makes, he turns around and accuses me of the one driving the carousel! And by god this is all in the record for anyone who wishes to sort this mess out!
And this is why I say this guy Bridges is a cunt.
\\][//
No comments:
Post a Comment