Conventional explosives don’t explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars.
This piece, written by Maxwell C. Bridges, addresses the issue of what destructive force could have been employed to bring down the World Trade Center towers. The predominant belief within the 9/11 Truth movement appears to be that conventional explosives, including some form of thermite, were used. But here, Mr. Bridges looks at some of the key aspects of the destruction that can’t be explained (molten metal, melted cars, etc.) without the involvement of some other force. Mr. Bridges is a frequent contributor to this blog under the name Señor El Once. He writes this piece as an open letter to Truth activists Jonathan Cole and Richard Gage.
By Maxwell C. Bridges
The recent article “AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?“ by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:
“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.”
Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?
In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.
Case in point – nano-thermite reaches extremely high temperatures quickly, but:
(A) Nano-thermite’s very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; massive overkill amounts would be required.
(B) The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink. Again the math suggests massive overkill amounts.
(C) Is nano-thermite an incendiary useful for cutting, or an explosive that employs massive changes in air pressure to achieve destruction? As an incendiary, nano-thermite would be less than ideal to coordinate and generate the observed explosive energy of dustification. As an explosive, nano-thermite does not explain the steady and long burn of the under-rubble fires. Moreover, wouldn’t such explosives leave audible signatures and decibel levels that NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder confidently states weren’t present?
(D) Massive overkill amounts of nano-thermite (or conventional chemical incendiaries/explosives) under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(E) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain the anomalous damage to vehicles. How does nano-thermite explain unique burn patterns that seemingly “cooked off” things like plastic door handles and gas caps yet didn’t affect surrounding paper and other more easily combustible materials? In some cases, the fires appear to have originated inside the vehicle.
So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.
Let’s talk directed energy weapons (DEW). Here we have a Catch-22 situation whereby most of us can only speculate beyond our level of expertise and knowledge. Those with the credentials to talk knowingly would most likely reveal classified information and thereby violate top-secret or national security protocols and be held liable.
Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative that began in the early 1980s was not some glorified public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of producing something useful for the Department of Defence (DoD). What secret technology and exotic weapons resulted? On September 10, 2001 the DoD could not account for $2.3 trillion; where did it go and what did it pay for?
You dismiss directed energy weapons (DEW) too easily and what anomalous side-effects might be created by its energy source (e.g., nuclear devices, cold fusion, HAARP, hurricane Erin & Tesla Coils?) A key word in its description is ”directed.” They pointed it where they wanted the “energy” focused, like a microwave “weapon” that instantly heats the residual moisture or water molecules within content into steam whose rapid expansion builds pressure that blows apart the “container” of that water (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). “Dustification.” Pulverization. Recall that fragments of human remains were found in the dusty debris on rooftops of neighboring WTC buildings.
You do not do justice to the topic of DEW; or to Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook (“Where Did the Towers Go?”). I’m not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.
This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood’s efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.
A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the ’60s. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so this is not out of the range of possibilities.)
Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri’s thesis of “deep underground nukes,” because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.
Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren’t just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.
Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation (under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs) and aftermath. Tactical nuclear weapons and DEW exist; cold-fusion research is further than we’re told; they would not be withheld from the selection of tools, and were probably promoted heavily by generals to the planners and decision makers; the side-effects of such exotic weapons on, say, vehicles and metal are key and signature.
Here is how I would re-write your conclusion:
“We support the DEW hypothesis because it is supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction does not address all of the evidence and requirements.”
I encourage you to make another(?) thorough reading of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook and mine it for nuggets of truth.
Maxwell Bridges claims under the photo above:
>”Conventional explosives don’t explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars”
. . . . . . . . . .
This is not true, this is very certainly eutectic corrosion that we see.
These cars were towed to where they are seen in this photo as well.
Arguments have been made addressing every one of Mr Bridges suppositions. His rejection of these critiques have all been based on spurious rationalizations.
I would love to read Gage and Cole’s response to this open letter, but I doubt if they would bother, as most all of us are familiar with Wood’s pseudo-scientific shenanigans at this point.
\\][//
On this very day, Mr. Rogue gets his “A.Wright” sock-puppet exposed. Now he’s back to his steering agenda to distract from that revelation, maybe because he fears he needs to get in his “no-nookie” whacks before he gets banned.
Let’s start with the caption to the photo:
First of all, I didn’t provide any photos, so I didn’t write any captions.
Secondly, my views have changed since penning this piece based on new evidence and analysis. Dr. Wood’s book is interesting and relevant, but also has among its nuggets of truth its own cache of disinformation. Of course, Mr. Rogue has pin-pointed nuggets of neither disinfo nor truth in Dr. Wood’s work. His only contribution has been bloody noses from (figuratively) smashing her book into his own face in lieu of reading it.
I now advocate neu nookiedoo, where part of the credit for this coinage goes to Mr. Rogue. It stands for “neutron nuclear directed energy weapon” to me, but looking up “neutron bomb” and “enhanced radiation weapon (ERW)” will take a sincere truth-seeker far in understanding it.
Mr. Rogue is correct in stating:
However, in trying to wave-off the notion that “conventional explosives don’t explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars”, Mr. Rogue tries another of his PR hynotic suggestions:
Too bad that your unexplained and ill-understood word “eutectic” comes up short for explaining all of the damaged vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, torched before WTC-7 came down.
In Mr. Rogue’s dreams, maybe. In Mr. Rogue’s PR hynotic suggestion, maybe. In actual fact? No. And without links, Mr. Rogue is talking through his wallet still in his pants pocket.
No, my rejection have been based on the critiques not existing to the depth and detail required. They don’t go corner-to-corner on all the evidence.
Worse, the alternatives that Mr. Rogue always comes back around to proposing — some combination of conventional and exotic explosives and incendiaries — have insurmountable problems in explaining both ends: [A] the brissant pulverization and [B] the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
Mr. Rogue should point out specific examples of pseudo-science [other than the Hutchison Effects]. Chapters 1-3, where’s the pseudo-science? the errors?
Mr. Cole, through Mr. Chandler, said essentially: “don’t even bother responding to [me].” Because as you have experienced, responding to me gives me lots of opportunities for rejoiners that raise uncomfortable questions and hammer my points home.
Mr. Gage? He has been too involved with concensus matters. He — like Chander — prove that the observed manner of the destruction proves that it could not have been plane impacts, jet fuel fires, and gravity. Red flakes of nano-thermite Dr. Jones found in the dust. Both are sufficient to prove the govt’s story a lie and to press for a new investigation. No need to speculation beyond that until the new investigation is underway, is essentially their position. Alas, this “thus far and no farther” halting approach to supposing what could meet the energy requirements of the destruction and aftermath tends to play into the hands of those “steering the 9/11TM away from any form of nuclear considerations.”
//
THE GRAND STALL
“Most of this technology is classified information. It can also be assumed that such technology exists in multiple countries.”
~ Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan, from introduction to:
The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW) by Reynolds (originally posted: October 17, 2006)
“Most of this technology is classified information,”
__’Therefore we can assume it has advanced to ANY degree that is suitable for our purposes’.
Just like the term “national security” is used for an excuse to NOT answer questions by politicians and military industrialists, the use of PRESUMPTION is given free reign on the other end of the scale.
It is therefore incumbent upon rational investigation to hold some modicum of empirical standards when unraveling such events as 9/11.
. . . . . . . . . .
But of course the real strategy of “military-industrial strength conspiracy theory” is like the strategy of full spectrum dominance – ‘endless war’.
The strategy behind the New Wave 9/11 assault is, ‘endless argument’, ‘the forever yada’__or “yotta” — the septillion word debate.
And that is PSYOP; the ‘NPT’, ‘V-fakery’, ‘Holograms’, ‘DEW’, ‘Nukes’, all incumbent on the attrition of the the endless argument…the GRAND STALL.
\\][//
“So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.”~Maxwell Bridges
“IF” is the key word in the above assertion. There are several aspects of this, to which Mr Bridges has glazed his remarks in a most rhetorically clever manner.
There are mis-framed items all throughout this essay that have been addressed time and again on the Truth and Shadows threads. But Mr Bridges will not accept any of it, but insists that his critics do not understand his arguments, they are “yeomen” in his arrogant assessment.
It makes no difference to Bridges that it is posited that there were other sol-gel nano-explosives used along side of the particular product of the Jones, Harrit paper.
Bridges mis-frames the hot spots in the aftermath as ‘constant’ when they are in fact intermittent. He rejects the perfectly rational explanation of a wandering burn, wherein the generally salted grains of thermite throughout the pile will occasionally meet areas where it is found in concentrated amounts and a sudden flare up would occur.
He cites NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder’s confidence in making statements that have been to proven be totally wrong, considering the sounds of explosives during the destruction of the World Trade Center.
All of this predicated on the speculation of “classified weapons”. Yes tantalizing but assumption nevertheless – when in fact the military grade energetic nano products are known and described in the open literature.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is in having gone round’n’round with Maximoto for close to ten months in an endless gyre of assertion counter assertion, that the aggravation of dealing with his odd combination of hubris and ignorance leads to ridiculing the ridiculous, which is then framed as “ad hominem” by Bridges.
And THAT turns into another layer of endless bullshit, another tactic in the strategy of the Grand Stall.
\\][//
“On this very day, Mr. Rogue gets his “A.Wright” sock-puppet exposed. Now he’s back to his steering agenda to distract from that revelation, maybe because he fears he needs to get in his “no-nookie” whacks before he gets banned.”~Maxwell Bridges
On this very day Mr Bridges makes empty assertions as to sock-puppets being exposed.
More presumption based on the flimsiest bits of information.
So is Bridges now in the position to ban a commentator on Truth and Shadows? He has made such empty threats before.
This is an old thread I came upon by happenstance. If there is to be a full on debate concerning these issues it will be on a more contemporary thread. Bridges will then have his opportunity to update his ever shifting stance.
\\][//
Mr Maxwell Bridges, or whoever the hell you actually are…perhaps even the infamous Albury Smith himself under a clever aka…???
I would have never imagined you would stoop so low as the vile lies you just posted on the “Ventura, Asner” thread.
How does one respond to a maniac such as yourself who will do and say absolutely ANYTHING to “win”?
I know that you were deeply insulted at the reception you received when posting on COTO, you are obviously not welcome there. You claim you have ‘cleared your craw’…
..no no Señor, you are choking on it. Your hysteria has reached a climax now, one I am certain you will not recover from.
I don’t have to do anything but watch now, you have sealed your own fate.
\\][//
{Sixth attempt…}
This June 7, 2011 reflects my understanding of 9/11 at that point in time. Being now October 27, 2012, my understanding has evolved. The questions I raised into the energy levels required for pulverization as well as into reasonable sources for the hot-spots remain valid.
I still champion Dr. Wood’s textbook for the evidence that she presents and many nuggets of truth. Alas, I now believe that it has disinformation as well — and in fact, it probably never would have gotten published or its author survived if it didn’t have such. Our task is to locate and preserve those nuggets of truth, and to extrapolate into the true causes of the WTC decimation that I believe was (multiple) ERW that used neutron radiation from the nuclear devices to achieve the observed destruction.
Mr. Rogue knows that I deviate from Dr. Wood’s conclusions. So his over-eager responses here have other purposes and another agenda. Actually, his immediate agenda appears to be “damage control” from the revelation that “A.Wright” was his sock-puppet that he used to establish “street-cred” and his 9/11 Truther legend.
I was a bit imprecise in my wording. I believe that “A.Wright” is the sock-puppet and was never genuine. After my encounters in late 2011, I could see little benefit in feeding that troll, and told others to ignore him.
+++ Interruption
This posting and that thought were interrupted by the escalation of “damage control” to a new and very personal level on Mr. Rogue’s home turf. Mr. hybridrogue1 writes:
Because his last sentence could have serious read-between-the-lines implications, I posted his entire words as well as my response below [although formatted improved, errors corrected, and {curly brace} clarifications added.]
++++ BEGIN Nested COTO Posting 2012-10-27
Mr. Rogue writes:
Demonstrate some ethics and morality in the pursuit of the information that you seek. Contact me off-list with your request, and maybe I might just grant you a login to the kingdom or a FaceBook name to avoid the real damage on a real person that you seem intent on inflicting, either at your own hand or your own command, should your co-horts here “misunderstand” and do the dirty deed for you “by accident.”
To the colleagues of Mr. Rogue in this {Coto} forum,
Mr. Rogue plays you, as well, and this can have multiple meanings beyond the exposed A.Wright sock-puppetry. Take Mr. Rogue’s second sentence above. He acts as if he didn’t already know that he was explicitly told by email more than three times (and a web posting) what was a “pen name.” Manufactured drama.
Here’s another example of you being played. He writes:
No, actually, I thought the prime question at this stage would have been:
Mr. Rogue turning the question on me personally — attacking the messenger — ought to re-focus who we think of as “an underhanded slimeball.”
Mr. Veritable writes:
Obviously, you have not read any of my legacy. You have been given sufficient clues to go searching for work, and a fair assessment of my work will be “an honest striving to reveal truth.” Look, neu nookiedoo doesn’t get stuck in the treads of my black shoes because I’m not striving to reveal that truth. And the read-between-the-lines direction that Mr. Rogue’s personal attacks take?
Mr. Rogue writes:
Be careful of that karma thing, Mr. Rogue. I hereby state that I have no suicidal inclinations. So, if something of this “he got suicided” nature actually happens, well…
Should anyone be curious about why I use a pen-name, let the implications of the outing that Mr. Rogue seems to demand sink in. The penalties to me will be real, thanks to google. Karma will make you sick if this Rogue games goes any further and you have a hand in it.
If you all want to conspire behind the scenes and trade URLs, links, and even FaceBook names (that I provided to Mr. Rogue) as well as obscene descriptions of me, you go right ahead. You just be careful not to do anything in a posting “uh-oh” nano-moment that demonstrates your own ethics and morals, or lack thereof.
++++
And now we return to our regularly scheduled posting {on COTO} that was already in progress and almost completed when Mr. Rogue demonstrated a completely new level “doing ANYTHING to win.”
++++
Speaking of “a crazy motherfucker who will do and say ANYTHING to win,” Mr. Rogue did such a hatchet job of re-publishing the very posting THAT HE REQUESTED (see above October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm) that what appears here isn’t comprehensible.
He didn’t pay enough attention to details, such as who was saying what. Given the stark limitations of this forum, the very least he could have done was insert some ==== lines to flag the beginning and ending of extended quotes.
His piss-poor efforts have him deliberately misquoting me and attributing to me words that I did not write (because they came from others). Such “putting words into my mouth” is actually a proven accusation that I leveled repeated against Mr. Rogue in the past.
Gee, and it wasn’t posted “this morning” (October 27, 2012) as he claims; it was posted yesterday (October 26, 2012 – 5:03 pm), the very day and possibly even within the hour [if COTO and T&S are in the same time zone] that he requested it (October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm). Mr. Rogue asked me so nicely:
My apologies that it came up short on the desired 2000 words.
The proper link to it is:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14195
This “not paying enough attention to details” extends into his arguments against neu nookiedoo. Case in point, the article that I wrote called “On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole” reflects my understanding from June 7, 2011, but not from October 27, 2012. Mr. Rogue knows that I now deviate from Dr. Wood, and that the reason he gets bloody noses with his own copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook is for missing the nuggets of truth (e.g., the stark evidence of 9/11 being nuclear.) The responses that Mr. Rogue placed both in that thread and here don’t just miss details, they are over-eager demonstrations of strawman arguments by “a crazy motherfucker who will do and say ANYTHING to win.” In this case, winning is defined by shutting down public contemplation into 9/11 being nuclear — neu nookiedoo.
Ah, yes, but we still have my lingering accusation that “A.Wright” is Mr. Rogue’s sock-puppet, which is re-enforced by the many instances where Mr. Rogue rose up to engage A.Wright and easily defeat his arguments, despite the fact that doing so was often another spin on the carousel.
++++ END Nested COTO Posting 2012-10-27
Mr. Rogue is determined today to insert distance, distortion, and distraction. My posting above is interrupted by yet another three from Mr. Rogue:
– 2012-10-27 11:18 am T&S DEW thread
– 2012-10-27 2:01 pm T&S Ventura thread
– 2012-10-27 5:18 pm COTO
In this very thread, he writes:
On the COTO thread, he writes:
If Mr. Rogue was not the sock-puppet master of A.Wright, it would have sufficed a simple: “You are unfortunately mistaken; I am not A.Wright.”
And then I and all readers would have chalked it up to a rinky-dink coincidence that Mr. Rogue likes to crank the carousel handle of an online entity have an initial and the same last name as a familial person close to him. [Here’s some irony. My pen-name has similar familial re-use. El-Oh-El.]
As John Belushi used to say on SNL, “But, NOO-ooooo!…”
Since the October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm timestamp on COTO of my mentioning of “just a coincidence with no explanation needed,” observe how many non-denial and distracting postings came from Mr. Rogue (so far) on COTO:
– October 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm
– October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm
– October 25, 2012 at 10:05 pm
– October 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm
– October 26, 2012 at 12:09 am
– October 26, 2012 at 9:22 am
– October 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm
– October 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm
– October 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm
– October 26, 2012 at 10:02 pm
– October 27, 2012 at 10:27 am
– October 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
– October 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm
– October 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm (in response to my October 27, 2012
at 3:15 pm)
– October 27, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Within this T&S thread, we have the following non-denial and distracting postings (whereby several overlap the above COTO postings):
– October 26, 2012 – 4:50 pm
– October 26, 2012 – 9:19 pm
– October 26, 2012 – 10:24 pm
– October 26, 2012 – 10:39 pm
– October 27, 2012 – 11:16 am
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
In conclusion, Mr. Rogue-on-the-ropes is doing his best at damage control. Other than an “A.Wright” sock-puppet being another data point in the trend-line of Mr. Rogue’s dishonesty [with many other data points oh so easily served up with URLs upon request], Mr. Rogue is manufacturing way too much drama about it and stoops very low [in alignment with the trend-line] to garrison very personal (and google-lasting) attacks on me.
It ain’t about me. It ain’t about Mr. Rogue or his sock-puppets.
It should be about how America was (or wasn’t) nuked on 9/11. I say it was with nuggets of truth from various (disinfo) sources to prove it. Mr. Rogue stumbles over garden hoses in saying it wasn’t, whether or not A.Wright is “all right” in terms of his very existence.
// @ 1,989 Words
Paranoia strikes deep…
\\][// @ 3 Words
So now Señor, we shall add VANDAL to your MO and modus operendi.
You we given the message in very certain terms that you are not welcome at COTO.
You persistence is a challenge to our prerogative. It matters not how little you might say, or how brief your message, the point is that we do not want your ragmop smearing our pages.
We have no duty whatsoever to amplify your voice.
I do get this straight, we are not asking you to stay out, we are demanding that you stay out.
\\][//
[Try that again]:
So now Señor, we shall add VANDAL to your MO and modus operendi.
We given the message in very certain terms that you are not welcome at COTO.
You persistence is a challenge to our prerogative. It matters not how little you might say, nor how brief your message, the point is that we do not want your ragmop smearing our pages.
We have no duty whatsoever to amplify your voice.
Do get this straight, we are not asking you to stay out, we are demanding that you stay out.
\\][//
jeeeeze #3>
So now Señor, we shall add VANDAL to your MO and modus operendi.
You were given the message in very certain terms that you are not welcome at COTO.
You persistence is a challenge to our prerogative. It matters not how little you might say, nor how brief your message, the point is that we do not want your ragmop smearing our pages.
We have no duty whatsoever to amplify your voice.
Do get this straight, we are not asking you to stay out, we are demanding that you stay out.
\\][//
“Lord, Make my enemies ridiculous.”~Voltaire
– {Grin}
\\][//
I have relatives who attended the University of Idaho, “Go Vandals!”
And we shall add CENSURE and BANISHMENT to your MO and modus operendi.
Were I Voltaire, such a wish would be embodied by Mr. Rogue. Too funny!
Mr. Rogue “chummed the waters” of his beloved CotoCrew to bait me to come there. And when I did, inside of four postings of substance, his whole tiny band of CotoCrewCuts (~6 aliases) is throwing in the towel and censuring posts:
I shall wear your banishment as a badge of honor! Woo-hoo!
El-oh-el! On the fingers of my two hands I can count all of my CotoCrew postings (from 10/21 to 10/28) including those deleted and three test posts, and I will still have a middle finger or two to wag at Mr. Rogue. In the same time frame as my “persistence,” Mr. Rogue had 47 postings not including any that were deleted or the 9 before my activities began.
My 4 posts (of substance) versus 56+ by Mr. Rogue.
I think the real challenge is that CotoCrew has milktoast content and mundane self-congratulatory “me-too” discussions dominated by Mr. Rogue. In other words, their content is hardly worth following. So, in order to spice up the mix, enter the sock-puppet and the challenges that this “exclusive or special right, power, or privilege” generates.
Applies to neu nookiedoo and probably Mr. Rogue’s sock-puppet, as well.
A tiny sliver of doubt exists that “A.Wright” isn’t Mr. Rogue’s sock-puppet, which is why I first wrote about “a coincidence that surprised me.” But the totality of Mr. Rogue’s reaction (some of it inappropriate) flags the coincidence as not being such. Remember, it included a three-front engagement, the censure of a posting [that did not merit such], and now the banishing of a voice. Geesh.
For future reference, Mr. Rogue would have been far more effective in simply writing:
And then he should have… S-T-F-U !!!
Nope, Mr. Rogue busies himself by posting things called “THE GRAND STALL”, things that imply that I’m “A.Wright” or “Albury Smith”, things, things, things on three different fronts. He had so many postings, I couldn’t keep up and kept interrupting my authoring of a single posting to deal with the latest volley of non-denial distractions.
You know what Max, I have come to the conclusion that you are really nuts.
\\][//