This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong. This work demonstrates evolution in the beliefs of the author when presented with new information, although much of this article's content has been published previously.
2016-03-12
2015-04-01
Another one discredits himself
Hide All / Expand All
Toggle - Part 1: Historical Exchanges with Mr. Ruff
Toggle - Part 2: Bloviating Mr. Ruff's Flumuxed 2nd Chance to ~not~ be a Hypocrite
Introduction
Isaiah 42:16 "And I will bring the blind by a way that they know not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and the crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them."
Legacy can be a bitch for disingenuous debaters. Legacy (or lack thereof) cuts them on the back-swing if they haven't been collecting and preserving their genius efforts made in other people's forums, because it can be disappeared and then nothing remains to substantiate them having supposedly made such stellar effort. Legacy (of others) can cut them on the fore-swing when someone else faithfully [OCD: el-oh-el] collects their words and handily proves them hypocrites, liars, weasels, game players, etc.
2015-01-11
Hypnotic Suggestion: Nuclear Case Closed
x18 Señor El Once: Intro: Hypnotic Nuclear Innuendo
2015-01-14
If my discussions with Mr. Rogue were a tennis match with energetic back-and-forth volleys, I'd be saying -- and have for quite some time -- "the ball's in your court, love."
The way I see it, our many exchanges early in our relationship helped hone my case. This was laid down in two similar articles: 1. "Nuclear 2001-09-11", 2. "Nuclear 9/11/2001 (for VT)". Since then, my beliefs have deviated somewhat, but these remain core elements of 4th generation nukes. They have not been debunked point-by-point.
Mr. Rogue has authored some rebuttals over time, like a re-tread about the ten characteristics of controlled demolition. Unfortunately, none of the ten characteristics exclude the 4th generation nuclear devices that I am championing. I went through them point-by-point. In fact, the two articles above were built on substantiated rebuttals to Mr. Rogue's debunking efforts. The ball has been in Mr. Rogue's court for quite some time. *sigh*
2015-01-01
Zapruder and a Special Effects Artist
x5 Señor El Once : Intro: Rising to the Occasion
2015-01-14
This posting has the rare feature of me rising to the occasion of what Mr. Rogue put on his blog by actually posting comments, un-published but read and responded to by Mr. Rogue.
The summary is that ludite Mr. Rogue attributed buggy T&S comment sequencing and valid HTML tricks repeatedly explained to "agent hands": my hands.
Mr. Rogue gets his ass handed to him in more ways than one, starting with proof that the juking comment was ironically his own, a knee-jerk response to Mr. Emmanual Goldstein and his brain-dead Dr. Wood's promotion. [Mr. McKee's administrator actions of sending Mr. Goldstein's comment back to the moderation queue left Mr. Rogue's response as an orphan.]
2014-10-22
October Surprise
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.
2014-08-31
Lite
{mcb: Not all of the reference links back to Truth & Shadows will work, due to moderation efforts by Mr. Craig McKee, to whom no ill will is thought for his justified and rightful actions.}
2014-08-28
Ludite
No claims are being made as to the completeness of what this content captures from other venues to provide some context. Moreover, the true value in this collection for my die-hard fans are the comments of mine that are no longer published on Truth & Shadows (for valid and not-disputed reasons). Unfortunately, the links on those comments back to Truth & Shadows won't work as expected.
2014-08-06
Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices
Truth & Shadows has closed forums that dealt with the themes of Dr. Wood and/or 9/11 nuclear DEW. Most of them had more than run their course with hundreds of comments and been run through the weeds, which other areas of this blog documents. However, due to the bad behavior of the discussion participants, Craig McKee has been hesitant in allowing such discussions in unrelated forums, and has other priorities than creating a forum home for this theme.
But it does come up.
This posting tries an experiment to create an off-list (off Truth & Shadows) place for such a discussion to potentially bloom.
{mcb: This was updated 2015-01-30 to also serve as a venue from Mr. Adam Ruff to go to town with either his original challenge [2015-01-27] or my suggestions for modification.}
2014-07-12
Gathering and Sowing
2014-07-15
Religiously fanatic to Truth that I am, inspiration comes from a partial verse to a hymn:
... How to gather, how to sow, how to feed Thy sheep...
I am so honored to have Mr. Rogue devote two threads to me: Carnival d'Maxifuckanus [started 2013-03-06] and MAXWELL BRIDGES: AGITPROP DISINFORMANT [started 2014-07-08].
Alas, "the gathering and sowing" efforts could use much refinement.
Mr. McKee wrote July 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm:
I’m (not) necessarily hostile to the (nuclear) topic. I’m hostile to how this topic ruins threads on this blog.
The deceitful Mr. Rogue writes July 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
As a participant that had a great number of comments deleted, ... my point always being that the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned. It has been a disruptive matter for quite awhile.
Mr. Rogue did have "a great number of comments deleted." Rough estimate: More than FIFTY (50) between June 26 and July 8.
Me? I had all of FIVE (5) postings deleted, not counting the accidental posting (through email) and not counting a 2014-07-08 comment that did not make it out of the moderation queue.
2014-06-26 couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel
2014-06-26 unable to satisfy the least and slightest request
2014-06-27 Why does Agent A.Wright ignore me so?!!!
2014-07-06 the Kevin Ryan paradox redux
2014-07-07 Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi
2014-07-08 quality of the fine comment [never published]
2014-07-08 email into an accidental comment [shouldn't have been published]
The ratio TEN-to-ONE (or SEVEN-to-ONE) ought to be indication enough about who was purposely trying to ruin threads on T&S. And Mr. Rogue's hostile activities will assure that "the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned".
We can expect Mr. Rogue to try the old mustelid manuever: "It's not about the posting count, but the word count!" One comment, however long, can be easily skipped. But when a participant launches a hostile attack with ten responses to each comment from another, spanning a whole range of sociopathic attacks; when that participant commands 52.9% of the 523 published comments: some other defarious agenda is afoot.
And talk about crank, crank, crank! On top of all of this, as near as I can tell, Mr. Rogue made ~84 comments to his Carnival posting (6/26-7/9), ~50 comments to his Disinformant posting (7/9-7/13), and ~7 postings to his "Controlled Demolition" posting (6/29-7/13)... mostly in dubious preparation for later.
Mr. Rogue writes 2014-07-12:
Justified Ad Hominem: A person’s arguments define that person. When a person’s arguments are found to be constantly disingenuous, it is justified to point such out, to describe such an MO. It becomes a new level in argumentation when this happens. It is not that the issues and points are ignored, it is that they are combined with the history of spurious game playing with such points and illustrating this.
Exactly.
//
2014-06-28
to reject as untrue or of questionable accuracy
x89 Señor El Once : The "challenged" aren't going to come.
{mcb: This is in reference to the x88 comments.}
Meaningful comments on the Pentagon topic have petered out. The "challenged" aren't going to come.
*Sigh.* With Mr. OSS's stellar work off-list and targeted URL bullets, the Pentagon debate was wrapped up four or more times over in as many or more other T&S threads. Somewhat *yawn* to see the two or three A.Wright carousel spins in this very thread necessitating a dizzying dive into "SOC/NOC" witness nuances, before GOTO links are applied to handle the heavy-lifting. *Snore.* But now a new crank to the merry-go-round with a "challenge to cowards." *Snooze.*
Mr. Adam Ruff brags about skipping my comments unread. More power to him! He and a few others should not read any further. Get a head start on ignoring me right now! Certainly don't bother writing a jejune response, because it'll only engage me and allow me to make more nookiedoo-ish comments!
Simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!
2014-06-12
to destroy confidence in the reliability of
x43 Señor El Once : Damn if this doesn't look like a familiar argument
Mr. Rogue wrote:
If you can't "recall correctly" because you have never actually read {--redacted--}, then do not speak to them until you have. I am sick of listening to arguments from ignorance here... Until you are prepared to make an argument here of more substance than the hot gas passing through the seat of your trousers Mr. {--redacted--}, you are going to find it hard going here.
El-oh-el! Damn if this doesn't look like a familiar argument and something that I might have written myself about a different {--redacted--} theme, minus the "trouser gas" of course.
I am most curious as to what Mr. Rogue's response will be if his debate opponent impulsively and violently rips up a printed version of {--redacted--} and uses it for bird cage liner, as opposed to rationally and objectively considering them one-by-one and as a whole. Even if deemed disinformation, nuggets of truth persist.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)