Complaint filed: host Michael Coren goes from ridiculing 9/11 Truth to calling it hate speech

Coren truther trash
By Craig McKee
What a week. First I filed a complaint March 26 against Sun News TV host Michael Coren for his horrifically biased and abusive report on Richard Gage’s Rethink 9/11 visit to Toronto the previous week. Two days later, Coren was calling me a “Jew-hating truther” based on an exchange we had on Twitter about the Gage tour.
During the exchange, I said nothing at all about Jews, negative or otherwise (you can read the full exchange at the bottom of this article or in the comments section of my previous post).
Meanwhile Coren was leading the charge in attacking NDP Member of Parliament Megan Leslie for having the nerve to post Gage’s Halifax appearance on her web page.
The attack on Gage, and truthers in general, came in a segment of Coren’s Canadian cable program The Arena on March 21 (I reported on this in my previous blog post). I filed my complaint with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, which includes most of Canada’s large private broadcasters among its members.
While Gage was being interviewed on camera, the words “conspiracy loony” were flashed on the screen. Later, the banner read: “truther trash.” Coren said that those who question 9/11 are sad, desperate, frightened people trying to be big. He called Gage’s “cultish” followers deniers, failures, losers, and crazy people.
He followed up on Facebook, writing that “almost all truthers are insane.” He also very cleverly compares 9/11 trutherism to believing “Napoleon was a robot and Hitler was made of cheese.” He even mentions “little green men in Uranus.” Or was it your … ? Never mind.
Funny stuff.
It seems that Coren doesn’t need to be able to substantiate claims he makes. Instead, he spews out an assortment of mean-spirited quips, insults, unfunny “jokes,” and arrogant condescension. In fact, on a previous installment of The Arena, he admitted that “I like being attacked. It’s a perverse thing; I don’t know.”
I encourage others to file their own complaints against Coren. Here’s how the process works: First you submit the complaint by accessing the form provided on the CBSC’s web site (you can also fax or mail the complaint). You give the details about the broadcast and what specifically you had a problem with. After it is received, the complaint is sent by the CBSC to the broadcaster, and they have three weeks to respond. If they do not resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the complainant, he or she can ask the CBSC to put the complaint to their Panel for a decision, which can take up to four months.
Several ethics codes can be applied
The Panel looks at whether the broadcast contravened any one of several journalist codes, including the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics. (When I called the CBSC, I was told that it didn’t have to cite which provisions of each code had been violated, that the Panel would apply the appropriate provisions.)
But here are a couple that seems pretty clearly to have been broken:

  • Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics deals with “Full, Fair and Proper Presentation: “It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster.”
  • Clause 1 of the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code deals with Equitable Portrayal itself. It says: “Television and radio programming shall respect the principle of equitable portrayal of all individuals.”
  • Clause 2 on Human Rights says it is essential that programming: “ … contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.”
  • Clause 3 on Negative Portrayal is even clearer: “In an effort to ensure appropriate depictions of all individuals and groups, broadcasters shall refrain from airing unduly negative portrayals of persons with respect to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability. Negative portrayal can take many different forms, including (but not limited to) stereotyping, stigmatization and victimization, derision of myths, traditions or practices, degrading material, and exploitation.” (While Coren clearly thinks truthers are mentally ill, it isn’t clear how strictly the CBSC keeps to the letter of the list of who can be discriminated against. It does, however, say that broadcasters should ensure “appropriate depictions of ALL individuals and ALL groups.”)

So, we’ll see. But if none of the codes are deemed to apply to this situation, then it’s time the codes were rewritten. So there.
If they find against me, then it ends there. If the complaint is upheld, then Coren has to read a statement about the decision (provided by the CBSC) on his program. The network must also read the statement a second time during prime time. If a broadcaster is found to have broken the rules in a similar way three times, it can be tossed out of the Council.
The complaint I filed is not the only one made since the March 21 report. Jordan Combden of Toronto, who on Facebook goes under the name Winged Knight, filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) over Coren’s report. Complaints sent to the CRTC about private broadcasters are passed along to the CBSC.
Coren followed this report on March 28 with round two on The Arena, his demand that Megan Leslie apologize for having the audacity to post Gage’s Halifax appearance on her party web page. Leslie’s posting of the event was actually raised in Parliament by Conservative MP James Bezan, who stated that Gage’s tour is “disrespectful” to the families of 9/11 victims.
Coren addressed Leslie in this report, saying: “Who told you that truthers and 9/11 deniers don’t spread hatred? Really, where do you live? In what world do your function? The anti-Semitism in the truther movement is vile, it’s tangible.”
Get the not-so-subtle association Coren is making? Anti-Semitism and 9/11 DENIER. Get it? Truthers are, or might as well be, Holocaust deniers. In case you didn’t get the implication the first time, Coren tops off his report by liberally quoting the 9/11 views of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who specifically mentions the Holocaust. Coren adds that many truther conferences have been sponsored by Iran. By not being more specific, he implies that this includes conferences held inside North America. I’m familiar with many 9/11 Truth conferences and none of them were staged by Iran.
With the involvement of a federal MP, the mainstream media has started to take notice of the Gage’s Rethink 9/11 tour of Canada just as it winds up (April 1 in St. John’s Newfoundland). Reports of Leslie being criticized have appeared in the Toronto Sun, Calgary Herald, Prince George Citizen, as well as and
This second report continued Coren’s nasty and witless attacks, but the tone was different this time. He introduced his first report by saying he “had a lot of fun” at the Gage event (even though he usually stays home in the evenings and “tucks up in bed”). He called us “silly” and “childish,” and he clearly felt that the best way to dismiss the truthers was to ridicule them.
But when he attacked Leslie one week later, it was a different story. We truthers are no longer those lovable but deluded “loonies,” now we’re racists, raving anti-Semites, and dispensers of hate speech. It seems that Coren felt he needed a bigger bang to go against someone in the position of the NDP deputy leader than he did for Gage who is – after all – just a truther.
My CBSC complaint against Coren
This isn’t the first time that Coren has been the subject of a complaint before the CBSC. In 2011, he commented on the riots that took place in London, England in response to the shooting of a 29-year-old black man. Specifically he was asked about the fact that it was reported that the riots were organized by people using BlackBerrys.
He responded: “Well, it’s not about poverty.  It’s not about BlackBerrys.  It’s about black thugs.” Coren hastened to add that even though he had pointed to “gangs of black young men,” it wasn’t about race but about culture. In 2012, Coren received a complaint over comments he made about pit-bulls and their owners. The CBSC found that Coren had not broken any of the relevant ethics codes in either case.
Here is the text of the complaint I filed on Wednesday:

The March 21st edition of Sun New network’s program The Arena with Michael Coren featured a report on the appearance in Toronto of the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage. The report went far beyond simple bias against Gage and others who question the official story of 9/11.
While Coren was interviewing Gage, the words “Conspiracy Loony” were pasted across the screen. Among the labels Coren gave Gage and those who support him were “deniers” and “crazy people.” (Gage’s entire position, as reflected by his presentation and what he says in interviews, is that the evidence is what’s important – not theories.) Later in the report, Coren labelled truthers as “loonies, losers, and weak-minded people.” He said: “Truthers are frightened and small and desperate to be brave and big. It’s understandable, but ultimately silly and childish. What will they disbelieve next?” Coren also likened truthers’ ideas to thinking Napoleon was a robot and Hitler was made of cheese.
Coren interviewed a number of audience members about who they think “did it,” and he, not surprisingly, got several different answers, which he treated as a big joke (those truthers can’t make up their minds …). He even said he was deliberately presenting “the worst of the worst” in choosing these particular clips. He has followed this up on Facebook (I realize this is outside of what the CBSC can look at) by saying that “almost all truthers are insane.”
The way the interviews were edited was also a major concern. This was done in such a way so as to deliberately make the interviewees look as bad as possible (often cutting them off in mid-sentence). Another individual videotaped the Gage interview while it was taking place, and this made it clear that the significant portions of the evidence being offered by Gage, the very evidence that is the foundation of his presentation, were cut out of the interview.
Instead, Coren kept asking about whether Gage thought it was true that all Jews had been told to stay away from the Twin Towers that day. When Gage said he hadn’t looked at this and didn’t know (and wasn’t prepared to deny something without having looked at the evidence), Coren then asked triumphantly, “So you think it’s possible that all the Jews were told not to go to work that day?” Later in the report we saw the words “Let’s blame the Jews!” across the screen while Coren continued to ridicule the idea that 9/11 was anything other than what we’ve been told.
He maligned all people who question the official story, tarring them with a single brush. This did a tremendous disservice to the viewers and went far beyond simply expressing strong opposition to a position he didn’t agree with (which, of course, he has the right to do). He ridiculed a broad group of people and suggested they are mentally ill. He clearly had no concern for fairness or journalistic integrity.
I thank you for your consideration in this matter. I’d be happy to provide any other information you might need.
Craig McKee

Coren’s shows his colors in Twitter attack
Here’s that Twitter exchange, which begins between Coren and someone named Audrey G. Williams:
Williams: I can’t believe people call you an intellectual when you basically discredit such an amazing man like Mr Richard Gage
Coren: I agree. And his refusal to condemn the lie that Jews were told to stay away from work on 9/11 was brilliant & ethical.
Williams: I will ask Richard Gage for you when I go to his lecture on March 31st.
Coren: I already asked him several times. He’s a nut, as are his cultish followers. Losers, anti-Semites, wankers.
Me : Gage didn’t “refuse to condemn” as you put it. He just stayed away from your clumsy attempt to make him look bad.
Coren: He didn’t need any help from me! Nor did the other dullard racists who went on about evil Zionists.
Me : You realize Zionism isn’t a race, don’t you? It’s a political movement, open to criticism like any other.
Coren: Of course. I also realize that it’s used as a euphemism by cowardly anti-Semites. Such as …
Me : So it’s the only political movement that can’t be criticized without the critic being called an anti-Semite?
Coren: Not at all. But when someone thinks “Zionists” all stayed away from work on 9/11 they are what they are.
Me : Gage didn’t say that! YOU tried to get him to say that! He addresses evidence. You should try it.
Coren: You’re either extremely stupid or extremely anti-Semitic or both. Either way, spread your hatred elsewhere.
Me : Sorry, what did I write that was anti-Semitic? To disagree with you is the same as hatred? Wow.
Coren: Just blocked another Jew-hating truther. I support free speech but on their own dime, not mine. There: another conspiracy for them!
So there you have it. Were my remarks anti-Semitic? No reasonable person would say so. However, if you’re looking for intolerance of identifiable groups or individuals, you need look no further than The Arena from Monday to Friday.


  1. I can only guess but I think that many prominent Jews/Israelis are afraid of 9/11 truth because they know it leads directly to Tel Aviv.

    1. Many prominent Jews and US and British and Saudis and so on would know 9/11 truth leads to them (as in, some from their groups), as with when JF Kennedy was shot, lots of people in Dallas and the Mob and the government structures knew or guessed over time. However, I agree with some of the posters below that Coren is not too far from the general belief in some people; he just shouts it more quickly than most would. He likely believes what he is saying and is getting off on being a prick about it, as he clearly does in general.
      In other words, it would not take his knowingly being a spook, for him to do what he did. He would willingly help Israel as did many ignorant CIA folk about JF Kennedy, believing it an outrage even to suggest involvement of their group.
      Suggesting Israel as partly involved in 9/11 does smack initially of hearing some fanatic who doesn’t necessarily hate Jews but who has a screw loose and blames the world’s problems on Jewry leaders (Zionism redefined from historical modern Zionism) — and they do exist, people who not only link Zionism to most major events but do it without tracing the other groups properly who also had motives and were involved.
      In the case of 9/11 there is evidence for Israel’s deep state to have been involved, and Saudi Arabia’s and the UK’s and the US most of all. Because the US has ties to all of these groups inside it AND it has its own warmonger types, in a deep state (friendship and other networks, collusion partners).

      1. “… it would not take his knowingly being a spook.”~Clarekuehn
        I agree with this assessment. But with a caveat. There is a larger aspect of “Spookville” if you will. That is, when accounting for the media itself as primarily a propaganda organ, it can rightly be defined as an integral part of intelligence.
        Fletcher Prouty had personal experience in setting up the nexus between the CIA and commercial broadcasting as CIA had just been put in place by the 1947 National Security Act. The infiltration, and ‘agreements’ between media moguls and intelligence was formalized into a more integrated operation than even during the wartime propaganda years.
        I keep reminding of these aspects so that others can begin to develop a holistic view of the nature of the beast we deal with. The whole system has been designed as a interlaced and smoothly functioning machine. It is paradigmatic in nature. Thus considering the disparate parts in isolation will give only a partial understanding of the depth of our situation.
        All of this to say that in a certain sense all of the “talking heads” in mainstream broadcasting are “spooks” in the context I just outlined. However whether these “personalities” themselves have that depth of understanding is highly unlikely given the rather dull mental attributes they manifest. So a dullard such as Coren is perfectly honest if he claims he is not an “agent”.

  2. Thank you very much for bothering. Not all persons are calm enough to realize you were saying Gage and everyone should deal with evidence. Cheers.

  3. I wonder if he hasn’t basically outed himself as a shill by being so over the top. His vehemence is what one might expect from a mother whose child has been raped and murdered — someone understandably overcome by rage and grief.
    But who tunes into a news program to witness a grown man having a hissy fit? I’d imagine that the average viewer is wondering why his whole schtick consisted of hurling insults rather than calmly giving some reason why Gage should be dismissed.

    “While Gage was being interviewed on camera, the words “conspiracy loony” were flashed on the screen. Later, the banner read: “truther trash.”

    If I were the average uninformed person seeing this, I’d wonder why Coren goes to such lengths to disparage and humiliate someone. Or maybe I’m overestimating people. I hope not.

    1. You used the right word. It’s part of his schtick to be “controversial.” He thrives on it. Whether he is an out-and-out shill is anybody’s guess. His views seem more extreme – but not THAT MUCH more extreme that what we routinely see in the media and with people in general.

    2. Well, Sheila, there is always a market for people who shout and rant and mock, without debate. Unfortunately, it CAN disrupt people’s willingness to look calmly at the evidence for anything. However, there are other sources available for them, fortunately, for when they calm down, and many will look then.

  4. I am glad you put a formal complaint forward Craig. Where this may lead is anybody’s guess.
    I don’t suppose it needs pointing out that the Public Relations Regime of the western empire has no real interest in fairness and truthful reporting. This has been so even before Edward Bernays coined the term, “public relations” in the early 20th century.
    There is much here that reaches the Orwellian eye; Those who grasp the nature of the manipulation of language for ‘political’ profit and purpose. I have commented previously on the absurdity of the term “antisemitism’ and it’s place in the lexicon of Newspeak. It is both etymologically and rationally, a phrase having no merit whatsoever other than as hyperbole and defamation of the target of such a slur.
    The strategy of the use of such absurd language is clearly to put the fear of being ostracized into the already too timid hearts of a cowering people. A people who too willingly suffer the burdens of despotism. A people grown accustom to the tyranny of their rulers and the spokesmen for those rulers.
    For those of us with the moral courage to speak truth to power to be characterized as “insane” is itself a manifestation of madness, as the pathological nature of this paradigm is now prima facea, naked despotism by warmongers, torturers, murderers and liars.
    I doubt if this stooge Coren has the courage to comment here, but I would intuit that his assholiness is well aware of this post, or will soon be. If he is looking in, I make this personal challenge to debate him on any aspect of what is at issue here.
    \\][// – Willy Whitten

    1. I echo HR1s challenge to debate Coren knowing full well that he is reading this blog and knowing full well he is a coward and will never debate any of us. Coren is simply acting on behalf of the PR regime HR1 described above. The PR regime in modern North America serves the same function as Goebbels did in Nazi Germany. It is the PR regime itself which is racist and evil since it is they who slander and attack anyone who questions the “elites” who are currently running the world. Running the world into the ground by the way. Like Goebbels the PR regime serves to protect an insane tyrant who is literally murdering the world. The PR regime is complicit in all the crimes of the “elites” they protect. The PR regime is complicit in the cover-up of 9/11, complicit up to their necks. They know that they are complicit and therefore they can NEVER do anything but attack and attempt to discredit truthers. They have no choice but to do so simply because the truth once it is widely accepted leads directly to their personal guilt in the crime of the cover-up itself. To attack and attempt to discredit truthers is literally their only choice to remain out of prison cells. The PR regime is responsible for so much death and destruction that they are in many ways more guilty than those who did 9/11. Their whole job is to control the population through lies and propaganda and keep them under the control of the “elites”. So Coren is a whore and a liar working for whores and liars who are in very real terms responsible for atrocities all over the globe. My report below talks about a few of these atrocities:

      1. Yes Mr Ruff,
        There are always ample supply of psychopaths for a system run by psychopaths.
        So yet more proof that these maniacs ENJOY their job – that of needless torture:
        CIA tortured prisoners after intelligence info was surrendered – Senate report 31 Mar 2014
        “A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA lied to the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to torture.”
        And this information, at this late date is certainly in the category of ‘NO SHIT SHERLOCK’….
        Those who haven’t awakened to the reality of this horror are duly sedated by the bullshit from the Public Relations Regime.

        1. It is easy to accuse Coren of being a simple agent who knows 9/11 has evidence of potential Israeli involvement, along with other evidence from other countries’ deep states (fanatics, dupes, corrupted, etc.). However, again, it is also equally possible and even likely, given his clear love of angry bluster, which he admits to, that he was hired DUE TO HIS UNLIKELIHOOD of being subtle about evidence and what people say to him. If that is the case, then whether or not he knowingly is helping Israel or anywhere else keep their image clean of the evidence amassed suggesting involvement, he is likely to be doing so thinking they are actually unjustly accused and their accusers are indeed loonies.
          Let us not be sure, in his case, of what is going on here. We can point to other figures as knowingly lying, such as Anderson Cooper, with CIA training (youth summer camp for young patriots), acting on green screen and with deducibly fake parents reading cards off screen for Sandy Hook Newtown’s purported shooting. Coren can be shilling without knowing he is doing so. Let us keep that straight.

          1. “Let us keep that straight.”~Clarekuehn
            Okay, let me repeat a portion of my comment from, April 1, 2014 – 8:26 PM:
            All of this to say that in a certain sense all of the “talking heads” in mainstream broadcasting are “spooks” in the context I just outlined. However whether these “personalities” themselves have that depth of understanding is highly unlikely given the rather dull mental attributes they manifest. So a dullard such as Coren is perfectly honest if he claims he is not an “agent”.
            . . . . . . . . . . .
            I think I have this pretty “straight” Clare. Does this pass your critical inspection?
            Again, it is my opinion that comprehending the systemic nature of what we deal with here is the critical aspect. Attempting to divine the impetus of each individual shilling for this system must surely be seen as secondary, as all are culpable for their actions in a lawful sense: “Ignorance is no excuse under the law”.

          2. Ah, well it is important to couch our broader sense of the infiltration of media with the fact that infiltration can mean many things, or we sound (and are being) uncareful:
            some infiltration is direct, done by liars, that is, those who are conscious of lying; some is encouraging unthinking dupes (possibly including Coren); some is by letting bad ideas spread among those who do not receive direct encouragement.

    2. “The strategy of the use of such absurd language is clearly to put the fear of being ostracized into the already too timid hearts of a cowering people.”
      This. Yes, Willy, Coren is trying to “make an example” out of both Craig and Gage, broadcasting to the world that they better stay in line or risk being labeled “trash” and “loony.”

      1. I wear insults and slander from lapdog’s like Coren as a badge of honor. In fact I welcome his kind of attack because it signals to me that the PR regime is crumbling and that it is desperate. The PR regime is indeed crumbling in a big big way, the people are not listening to their BS anymore, nor are they buying into the political BS as was demonstrated by our massive rejection of the Syrian war propaganda. The political regime and the PR regime tried their best to convince us all to support an attack on Syria and the people basically said screw you liars.
        Evidence that the PR regime is no longer relevant:
        Gallup Poll: Virtually No One Trusts the Mainstream Media.
        Mainstream Media Decline: Are Fox News, CNN and MSNBC Losing the “Information War”?
        “The Nielsen Media Research data show that the biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third place, with a 13% decline in prime time,”
        MSM Collapsing: NY Times Now “Irrelevant,” According to its Own Writers
        “In another example of how the mainstream media is in a state of collapse, the New York Times’s own writers told a newspaper that NY Times opinion pieces are now seen as “irrelevant” and have no impact on public discourse whatsoever.”
        I am only too happy to show these scumbags the door and I will be sure to slam it behind them so that it hits them hard in the ass on the way out. The PR regime (The controllers at the top) are truly evil and deserve to be severely punished for their crimes. Coren much like Michael Shermer is just an arrogant toady for this evil regime.

      2. “broadcasting to the world that they better stay in line or risk being labeled “trash” and “loony.”~Sheila
        Precisely. It is purposeful intimidation meant for the larger audience.

        1. It is totally possible Michael Coren is a knowing shill, but it’s possible he’s just hired as a type who would tend to think this way; a third possibility is that he is knowingly helping Israel but believes his work, i.e., that Israel wasn’t involved and got a phone call to push him in that direction (as the memo was to the CIA general staff to defend the CIA about JFK).

  5. Good article, thank you. I’ll add that Coren is the prototype of the future media anchors in the probable worldwide pathocratic project the Master 9/11 conspirators are working for. Coren would have made an excellent investigative journalist, mutatis mutandis, in the old USSR. Political activists who understand this project would do themselves and humanity a good favor by finding ways to cope with such individuals under the assumption that they are fully backed by a repressive government. It can be as “simple” as cleverly overemphasizing the points they make so that they look still more ridiculous. It took Russians a couple of generations to start to understand, and they had to endure considerable hardship in the meantime.
    Separately and at the risk of engaging in self-promotion, I hit Coren in a way (,%20Handling/Challenging%20on%20Baby%20Step/_reorganized/coren/thread.htm) that he cannot counter without giving 9/11 Truth some favorable publicity. If he is a 9/11 fanatic–i.e. if he actually believes the mythical attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers–he is likely to argue back, make a fool of himself, and be biologically unable to understand it. If he is a 9/11 censor–i.e. if he understands 9/11 much better than we do and is much closer to the Master 9/11 conspirators than we are–he’ll ignore me and let me publicly pummel him with justified middle school insults.

  6. Attacking Richard Gage was counter-productive, even absurd. Not only is he a very mild-mannered person, he has been everywhere and is a very familiar figure to the public.
    Even worse, A&E911 has not taken a stand on who was responsible or why, which I one of my complaints about them. But it makes them a most implausible target for these attacks.
    Moreover, there is abundant and compelling evidence of Israeli complicity in 9/11. See, for example, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world”, which demonstrates its involvement.
    Of course, the CIA and US Neo-Cons, especially in the Department of Defense, were also involved, but the very idea that he should launch such a misconceived assault is bizarre.
    Years ago, I was called by a little old lady in Brooklyn, who told me that their rabbi had told the members of her synagogue that they should not to go into lower Manhattan that day.
    I published about the “anti-Semitism” charge when it was unleashed during the Chandler, AZ, conference, which provides ammunition to refute allegations like these. References:
    “Is 9/11 Research ‘anti-Semitic’?”
    “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” with Preston James
    “False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State”
    “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, Nick Kollerstrom (with Jim Fetzer)
    “James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW interview/”
    “Anti-anti-Semitism and the search for historical truth”
    This attack suggests that there is a growing sense of desperation that the public might be awakening to the reality of the atrocities of 9/11, which would be very, very bad for Israel.

  7. The cover-up is still in progress and being financed, which this dog-and-pony show proved. Which means that there is still something to be gained or lost by suppressing truth.

  8. It is quite simple to deduce; that is to infer from the general principles of logic and reason, assessing well known facts – that fanatic zealots such as Coren have no rationally defensible position. It is not their job description to ‘debate’ but to merely propagate the official line.
    The official narrative is by necessity defended by distraction, misdirection and bluster, for that narrative is of the whole a lie. A propagandist or ‘apparatchik’ for such a system certainly cannot speak frankly to the victims of such a system, and explain that the interests of these victims are purposely being crushed by the system; for if he were to do so he would be crushed as well – and post-haste.

  9. Thank you for your article, Craig, and your formal complaint. Can others second it? Is there a petition you can set up on Care2 with only a few words and a link to this article, for Canadians and others to sign in general support of you?

    1. I think Clarekuehn has made an excellent suggestion here. I have no idea what “Care2” is, but anything that can bring a larger audience to this issue is a great idea.

  10. We can get a much clearer picture of the context of this particular struggle with seeking accountability for Mr Coren’s despicable burlesque, by understanding of the history of the Public Relations Regime. I capitalize this phrase because of the prime importance of its function as its core position in the system that it not only ‘represents’ but is an integral portion of. As is reminded by media’s critical experts, the media isn’t just a mouthpiece for the corporations, the media is corporations – it is a symbiotic entanglement that cannot exist as an ‘entity’ one without the other.
    With this in mind, I recommend that any who wish to “understand your enemy” take the time to read the founding documents, the best primers being, Edward Bernays’, PROPAGANDA, and Walter Lippmann’s, PUBLIC OPINION. In the interest of grasping the entirety of The System, to gain an understanding of the architecture of modern political power in it’s full panorama, I offer this short bibliography as what I have found to be essential writings on this subject:
    ‘The Controversy of Zion’ by Douglas Reed
    ‘The Federal Reserve Conspiracy’, written by Eustace Mullins. In that book; Mullins tells the entire horrifying story and backs it up with unquestionable documentations.
    The Reese Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations.
    The complete works of Antony C. Sutton – especially ‘Skull and Bones’ and his ‘Wall Street’ books.
    Carroll Quigley: ‘Tragedy and Hope’, and the ‘Anglo American Establishment’.
    Nesta H. Webster: ‘World Revolution Or the Plot Against Civilization’
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  11. Early on Lippmann said the “bewildered herd,” his way of referring to the masses, must be governed by “a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality.”[1] This class is composed of experts, specialists and bureaucrats. The experts, who often are referred to as “elites,” were to be a machinery of knowledge that circumvents the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the “omnicompetent citizen”.
    Philosopher John Dewey (1859–1952) agreed with Lippmann’s assertions that the modern world was becoming too complex for every citizen to grasp all its aspects, but Dewey, unlike Lippmann, believed that the public (a composite of many “publics” within society) could form a “Great Community” that could become educated about issues, come to judgments and arrive at solutions to societal problems.
    1. This proposal of “a specialized class” echoes the same assertion made by Bernays in his book PROPAGANDA.
    Now Dewey made essentially the arguments that were made by Thomas Jefferson back in the 1700’s; that real education – rather than the indoctrination proposed by the PR agenteur – is the only just remedy for a society that wishes to remain free. The misuse of information compounds whatever natural inclinations to a “herd like” mentality in a population. More than anything the medium within which a society operates is the primary force, it is the paradigm that defines whether humans are capable as a whole to see to their own interests or not.
    The present paradigm is synthetic, a construct of indoctrination, intimidation, and temptation – combined with the constabulary force of the state. It is my firm opinion that human beings are fully capable, if they aren’t subjected to the powerful enchantment of the necromancy of modern brainwashing.

  12. Hello all , I’m “williams” that started that thread on twitter with Coren and I was completely shocked by his response. I couldn’t believe he basically called me an anti Smite and a loser! I am very happy to here you are filing a complant Craig McKee, good luck 🙂

    1. Hi Audrey! Glad to see you comment here. And thanks for getting that exchange with Coren started. You helped get him to show his colors even more clearly than he has on TV. I’ll keep you and everyone else up to date on how the complaint is going. I may even file another one about his follow-up report on Megan Leslie posting the Gage event on her web page.

      1. “Coren has converted to Catholicism.”~Craig
        Yes, as his profile on Wiki states, he converted to Catholicism, then at one point became a “Born Again Christian”, and at some point later embraced Catholicism again.
        I think it is always beneficial to speak to Zionism in the terms of “practical politics” and divorce it from the ruse of “religion” that the Zionist leadership attempts to frame the situation as.

    2. Hello Audrey,
      It is so nice to have you aboard the good ship Truth and Shadows; a hearty Welcome.

  13. Coren is the standard vitriolic American-jewish media whore tasked with standing against truth and reasonable reporting. Just another example of how the MSM is irrevocably lost. Abuse and slander drowns out critical thinking. And in the hands of spellbinder narcissists and psychopaths which undoubtedly inhabit our media outlets, it becomes a form of mass mind control.
    Since the evidence is overwhelming that Zio-Conservatives and the Mossad were steering events pre and post 9/11 it’s hardly surprising that such gatekeepers come down hard on 9/11 researchers. It’s a horrible experience to be sure. Keep fighting the good fight Craig – and Gage.

    1. Thanks, M.K. Just to be accurate, Coren has converted to Catholicism. His father was Jewish and he describes himself as being half-Jewish. There are plenty of non-Jewish commentators who push the same agenda and who do everything they can to demonize anyone who questions Zionism or the State of Israel.

      1. Ah, thanks for the heads up.
        And yes, you’re quite right, when it comes to media propaganda for the Zionist Establishment whether you are Jewish or not, fear and the herd instinct makes sure that so many of us toe the line.
        Well, onwards and upwards…

      2. Another point as to the absurdity of this charge of “antisemitism’ being made, is that it is a historically known fact that the Ashkenazim – who now make up the vast majority of so-called “Jews” are not in anyway “Semitic”. They are originally from a kingdom in the Caucasus in the region of the Russian Steeps. These people never ventured to “The Holy Land” in any substantive numbers until very recent history.
        The irony of these people calling such people as the Arabs and Palestinians “antisemitic” is overwhelmingly absurd. If one reads Slomo Sands’ book on this issue, one will see that the whole notion of a Jewish race is a recent invention historically.
        I know that it is almost futile to get people to read the deep history of all of this, but if they truly want to grasp what we are dealing with there is no alternative.

    1. Your comment of yesterday at 6:54 p.m. did go into the spam folder because of the number of links, and because I was away from my computer for a few hours I did not see it. Thanks for pointing it out; it has been approved and appears above as a reply to Sheila’s comment from 10:10 a.m. There is also a comment above from Jim Fetzer that was caught up in moderation, so I hope everyone will scroll up and take note of that one.
      Anytime you want to send something that has multiple links, feel free to shoot me an email to alert me to watch out for it. Otherwise I’ll do my best to keep tabs on the spam folder.

  14. Coren sounds like Canada’s answer to Bill O’Reilly. The anti-Semitism canard rears it’s ugly head all too frequently. On Jan. 16, 2013 the National Post published an opinion column about Gene Rosen entitled “Truthers find a Jew to blame for Newtown school shooting ‘conspiracy’”. Then there’s a You Tube video of former Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff fielding questions on a phone in show. Regarding people who believe the federal government was involved in 9/11, Chertoff puts them in the same category as holocaust deniers. Chertoff should be careful of making these statements, for if and when people figure out the 9/11 official story is false they might just start questioning the holocaust as well. Then there’s Jonathan Kay, who’s book “Among the Truthers” attempts to link conspiracy theories with anti-Semitism.

    1. “The clinching proof of my reasoning is that I will cut anyone who argues further into dogmeat.”
      ~Attributed to Sir Geoffery de Tourneville, ca 1350 A.D.

          1. Yea, different guy altogether. Lol, I doubt if de Tocqueville ever made an argument of intimidation.
            The quote reminded me of the Roman general Pompey who made a comment along those lines, I paraphrase: “But we have swords, no more arguing.”

    By ‘subtext’ in the title above, I mean recognizing the unmentioned assumptions that drive the text. All views are supported by assumptions, whether they are stated or even consciously realized by the speaker or author of the views being expressed.
    It is a necessary part of epistemic self examination to recognize ones own assumptions, and to account for them consciously to built a congruent world view [epistemology].
    Two illustrations from the terms of argumentation:
    The Argument From Incongruity
    “Power-over comes from the consciousness I have termed estrangement….It is the consciousness modelled on the God who stands outside the world, outside nature, who must be appeased, placated, feared and above all, obeyed. p9
    The language of power-over is the language of law, of rules, of abstract, generalised formulations enforced on the concrete realities of particular circumstances….in the worldview of power-over…value must be earned or granted….in the secular world, the worth we acquire is constantly rated against that of others… we internalise a primal insecurity about our own right to be, which drives us to compete for tokens of pseudo-value….Power-over motivates through fear. Its systems instill fear and then offer a hope of relief in return for compliance and obedience. p14″
    Power-over shapes every institution of our society. p9 (Starhawk 1990)
    Argument From Incredulity
    To simply assert that one does not believe a proposal as an argument in opposition to the proposal without basis, is not enough. One must have a rational explanation as to why the proposal is dismissed. In classical argumentum, such hand-waving dismissal is called an ‘Argument From Incredulity’.
    Such arguments from incredulity are most often shown to be derived by subconscious and irrational fear; often referred to as paranoia. It is an emotion unhinged from a rational base. This is how the Argument From Incredulity seems to be a symbiotic relation to The Argument From Incongruity, both are a form of estrangement as defined above.

      1. “I see these all the times: argument from incongruity and from incredulity.” ~Clarekuehn
        Yes, it seems to be a plague of madness. I am glad you realized I wasn’t ‘defining’ either form of false argumentation, but merely use them as illustration. And to suggest a common feature to all such forms of erroneous conceptualization. That described by the author of the notes on the incongruity of an argument being made for the “Profession” of Psychology/Psychiatry. What he has termed “Estrangement” is an interesting subject that can also be found in Zen, which is less a religion than a form of “spiritual psychology”.
        Allan Watts, who was a westerner who came to grasp Zen, did lectures throughout the 70’s and 80’s explaining in western lexicon what the epistemology of Zen teaches.
        He had one lecture that is most memorable concerning “Psychologists” and their technique which he called “One-Upmanship” – it is easy to see that the author I quoted uses a term that has the same effect; “Power-over”.
        But it is the term “Estrangement” that captured my though processes; as it has a bearing on the totality of our present paradigm. This paradigm I would without hesitation characterize as pathological. I think ‘Epistemic Estrangement’ is pandemic in post industrial/high tech society. But history seems to indicate that this problem has deep and ancient roots. Man hasn’t changed in any fundamental way – only his technology has. And that technology has evolved beyond our grasp.
        I would cite Ellul’s THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY, once again.

        1. I don’t think bringing in estrangement as God-at-arms-length is clear here. However, I appreciate that you raised the issue of incongruity (not inside the logic of the argument but a feeling that a position doesn’t match a person’s sense of the world, uncritically assessed) and the issue of incredulity (a related issue, given that it is a feeling of a non-match between someone’s world-view and the world-view they think or which really is implied in the other position, but incredulity names a feeling more than incongruity, which matches names how they are thinking from the feeling).

          1. “..the God who stands outside the world, outside nature, who must be appeased, placated, feared and above all, obeyed.”
            My interpretation of this would first of all to point out that by “God”, the author is using a euphemism, by which he means more directly “authority”. If one reads the essay, one finds the author is speaking to hierarchical structures and how they are internalized by those within such structures [rather like the Panopticon psychology of self-policing]. The whole article is fascinating, and not really that far afield of the topic of this thread.

          2. Perhaps “authority” issues come into play here with Coren’s position, but incongruity and incredulity are the main ones. Thanks for raising them. I run into it all the time in other work I do, particularly on one issue which has a huge degree of misconception about it to start with, as well as distaste — equalling Coren, but more commonly so in this other issue.

        2. I apologize if my lack of the use of PC, or ‘politically correct’ language insults anyone here.
          I use the term “Man” as a generic term as being short for “Humanity”. It is a fact that the history of etymology shows that there were originally three terms in this regard:
          “Human” “Woman” and “Wereman” – Human was generic counting both sexes. Woman, still used today denotes the female human. “Wereman” denoted the male human. A vestige use of the term is found in the word, Werewolf, which means Wolfman.

          1. People know what “Man” as in “human” means, though it would be nice, now that you’ve raised the issue, to use “people” or “person” or “human” or whatever instead, wherever it would not be awkward. In German, from which our basic language came, Mann with two “n”s was person, and “wif” (wife) was woman. Woman comes from “wifman” (wifeperson — and women, the plural, still contains the pronunciation of “wi” in the “wo” part), but man as male named person without marital status of the male. So it would be simply good to use “human” or “person” wherever possible, i.e., consciously, for general concepts, though etymologically you are justified to use man for general human or male. Why do it if we have other acceptable options now? — Thanks from all people. Raise up consciousness by changing ways!
            However, I did not comment on that.

          2. I have seen the he/she, him/her exaggerated approach to the point that it seems an “appeasement” to what at one point became a “Feminazi” movement.
            I do quite often use the more generic language when it is convenient.
            I made my comments about werewolves only after rereading my text and realizing that I had not considered your feelings – you being female.
            Perhaps a clumsy attempt to mollify.
            I will do my best to modify my language when speaking with you henceforth.

          3. No, if you do it “for me” it doesn’t matter: it is not actually doing it with generosity of awareness to do it “for me”. And I wasn’t talking about the singular pronoun, specifically. I use “they/their” by common usage in spite of knowing the grammatical issue with doing that, or I do occasionally use a he/she or an alternation over several paragraphs. — I was speaking of using “man” where “person” or “human” would do.
            I didn’t even raise the issue with you. You did.

          4. Okay, now you are “lady”-ing me. THAT is insulting. As to the rest, humankind IS in pretty shitty shape, aye. — I don’t want you to do something because *I* am female. Do it for all.

          5. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly my dear lady. If the tensions persist perhaps you should seek help.
            “Why so serious?” ~The Joker – THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

          6. Okay, now how about you take a step back and breathe. Your assumptions do not fit the facts here. You raised the issue of maybe changing language. I mentioned it’s a good idea but was not hung up on it. I suggested you do it conscientiously for all people, not specifically for a female person — though the thought as far as it went was nice, and thank you. — When I said don’t “lady” me, that now has made you do it twice. THAT is rude. You seem to use the term “feminazi” and while I do know some people (male and female) who are that, I am not. But don’t “lady” me and turn your consideration of language to the general, not merely to when you speak to a woman, or it is sort of useless.
            Humankind is in trouble. Yes. Agreed. — Mankind is in trouble … both are equivalent but not in consideration anymore of the simple sense of the word “man” as male.
            You tried; keep trying and onward and upward: do it for all people. But DON’T “lady” a person who’s female. It’s insulting. Okay? Thanks. Best wishes and calm on this end.

          7. Well that’s just peachy Clare.
            I have learned something about Clare – not females in general, because that would be a misogynist mode of thinking … and heaven forbid that this would be added to my list of sins along side of antisemitism and tin-hatted conspiracy nut. Lol
            So to Clare the person, I see that you have no appreciation of satirical humor. I was attempting, for the last few comments here to make the conversation lite, and hoped you would realize I am kidding with you. It is in my nature, and I do the same sort of things with males, men and weremen…hell, might even try it on a werewolf in a tight pinch.
            But let me correct the most important blunder of the day; that quote from The Joker is from the film, DARK NIGHT, not the third movie in the series.
            So, that settles it for me. I’m happy, hope your happy too.

          8. OMG. You learned nothing. In replying to you, you think I was humourless? If I insulted you twice (there is no equivalent for “Hey Lady” for a male, though), and then called you humourless, would that not show more about me (you) than you (me)?
            All I said to your thing about “PC” language was apply it in all instances not only if speaking to a female; that is truly correct.
            If you thought you were getting FUNNIER, instead of LESS approachable, maybe you should read your comments again. I don’t mind funny. But using the “Hey Lady” type of thing twice was less kind. Thanks.
            Humankind/ Mankind is in trouble. Yes. And I never said I wouldn’t read “Mankind”.

  16. Ahh, after being chastised so, I will have to sit back with a cigarette and a cup of java and ponder my misfortune of crossing such a serious and stern lecturer of etiquette.
    Oh the slings and arrows…I stand revealed.

    1. Very funny. How is that? You absorb info on 9/11 but can’t assess a request for kindness and no insults without trying to deflect? Eek. How about you drop it; I have been pleasant with you.

      1. Dear Ms. Kuehn,
        Mr. Rogue grew up in a different era that only had to give lip service to women’s liberation, but didn’t have to be serious about it on an individual, male level. [Unlike my era with grannies, aunties, moms, and sister expecting more from their boys.]
        Lauded for his looks and his art, not much effort was required to attract bed-room companions except the buttery-smooth acknowledgement that a womanly gender in the presence of his manly-man awakened his testosterone, that he just can’t seem to turn off even today, typing one-handed “sweatheart” & “lady” in this forum.
        I find his antics amusing in the internet context of today, because: “The Internet, where men are men, women are also men, and children are FBI agents.” Or these old rules about “there are no girls on the internet.”
        Be this as it may, as the female admin’s at his old stomping grounds can attest, when opinions differ and his maleness the more superior according to him, the other “feminazi” shoe drops.

          1. I have to add that the URL link our ‘gallant’ and ‘gentlemanly’ superhero provided is in the worst of taste. If it is meant as a reflection on me, remember the actual source.

  17. So now, we have an example of a game of “one-upmanship” or “Power-over”.
    And I admit that it occurred to me only as we were in the process. Clare was not privy to my intent, and I admit that I was “unkind” to a certain degree and knew that I had made taunts.
    I now apologize most sincerely. I hope Clare will not hold it against me.
    I think Clare is an intelligent person who deserves the respect due to her.
    But what do we see in the exchange? I think one of the things we learn is how pervasive the systemic pressure for the “Power-over” urge to manifest despite our awareness of the principles that drive it.
    But if Clare wishes to make a “defense” that the ‘contest’ was only one sided, with her as the innocent bystander, and myself as the wisecracking hoodlum, well that is fine with me too.
    I offer her the last word on the subject, if that is her wish.

    1. Your intention seemed the opposite at one point and you apologized and I said it’s okay to drop it and I have no intention of holding it against you. Pls consider how you come across or what maybe the other person is trying to say, too, but other than that, I don’t need a last word and hold nothing against you. 🙂

    2. Does it matter if someone is intelligent in forwarding respect? How about respecting others because it is right and it reflects highly upon the one respecting.

      1. Well master of Owen,
        Fine moralistic rhetoric might be attended by some indication of intelligence indicating that the moral judgement is made with a true understanding of what has taken place here.
        Could it be perchance that your familiarity with the personalities and history of commentary here is a bit lacking to make a snap judgement – as it were?

        1. Hybridrogue, do you have to comment on everything here? I mean, we left the issue and Owen has mentioned that just respecting people is a good habit. You claimed you were kidding, though repeating what I asked you not to do and commenting on my character did anger me, and then you acted as if I were unhumourous — a typical slight against women who don’t leave the challenge uncommented upon. So, let us leave it. Owen is right; and you and I have left the issue. I hope you have a good night, both.

  18. How about if we drop the sparring match, start treating each other – regardless of gender – with a minimum of respect, and get back to some substance.

    1. I have apologized Craig, and I have no intention of saying another word about it.

        1. Well, Craig, this article often diverts attention away from the real issue here: You break the Jewish hegemony, then you can shine a clear light on what happened before 9/11, on 9/11 and after 9/11. If the movement doesn’t do it, 9/11 will reach the dustbin of history.

          1. How does it divert attention, exactly? What do you mean by this? It’s about the mainstream media attack on 9/11 truth and the use of the accusation of anti-Semitism to limit investigation and discussion of 9/11 and Israel’s involvement in false flags. Among other things.

          2. Craig: Does your article open the curtain to get behind what is really going on? Who’s behind Coren? I think that some of these articles are for baiting purposes only. I think your analysis is rather superficial. I think people are waking up to the real culprits and this a way to get a whiff of the opposition.

          3. Baiting purposes only? Superficial? I have no idea what you’re talking about. My article is not an attempt to figure out “who’s behind Coren.” In fact, what it’s about is self-evident. But if there is something we should all know about the deeper truth concerning Coren, then why don’t you educate us?

          4. I’m not the owner of the article, you are. It’s my take that these type of pieces are fluff and don’t get to the heart of the matter. Why are you unwilling to go all the way down the rabbit hole? If you respond that it is about fear, then I can respect that and have empathy for your positions. It’s my contention that the 9/11 Truth Movement needs to move to be a ‘Movement’ and what I see is going round and round in a cul de sac.

          5. To criticize an article that’s about one thing on the basis that it’s not about something else makes little sense to me. You seem to be in possession of information that sheds light on the subject of “who’s really behind Coren.” Why don’t you just tell us so that our movement can start moving again?

          6. Owenmeister,
            I suggest you make a close study of the thread just before this one:
            Pay attention to the last part of the commentary especially. I think you will find that there is a problem in the way you frame this issue. Zionism is a very specific entity, that has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity, or creed. The diversion you speak of is actually in your embrace of the subtle trick the Zionist leadership has played while it hides behind the skirts of Judaism. This is a more nuanced and subtle problem than you assert.

          7. Sorry, don’t buy it though I will read the link in the near future. PNAC was a who’s who of elite Jews. The comptroller of the pentagon on 9/11 – Jewish. The Director of Homeland Security – Jewish. Larry Silverstein – Jewish. The Jewish people represent one half of one percent of the world’s population but are almost always at the top of the power pyramid.

          8. “Sorry, don’t buy it though I will read the link in the near future.”~Owenmeister
            How can you disagree with something when you do not yet know what you think you disagree with?
            Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, et al, are not Jewish. The “Born Again Christian” lunatics are not Jewish, but they are outspoken Zionists.
            “I think that some of these articles are for baiting purposes only. I think your analysis is rather superficial.”~Owenmeister
            Let’s be real clear about this bucko, are you asserting that it is Mr McKee’s intent to “bait”? Is your charge of “superficial analysis” meant to say that you think he is purposely propagating a veneer to cover a hidden truth he doesn’t wish revealed?

          9. As Madea would say, “Hell to the yea.” Anyone who takes you to the rabbit hole and no further is engaging in superficial analysis. And for the record, my moniker is Owenmeister, not bucko. Your intentions of uncivility are clear.

          10. My dealing civilly is gauged to match the civility of whomever I am engaged with.
            Your intent to slander this site as engaged in “superficial analysis”, and “baiting” with quips and bumper sticker assertions is in no sense civil, it is rank defamation; you veritably beg for a less than civil reply.
            Your bob and weave rhetorical game will not serve you well here. Drop your jejune pretenses and speak frankly.

          11. I knew that you weren’t quoting Euripedes’ Medea in your comment of April 6 at 5:23 PM Owenmeister, but I have to tell ya, your lowbrow taste in movies doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

          12. Let’s get on the ball Owenmeister,
            The long time lags between your postings gives the impression that you are having strategy meetings with some group to decide your next move and commentary.

        2. Ya know Craig, it sure would be great if we could coax one of these belligerent blowhards to make an attempt at debate here on your blog.
          It seems so weird that no one has the cajones to show up here. Even Honnegger, a supposed truth researcher scurried from such a challenge. Sure, she deployed a few of her yes men, but they were obviously unprepared for any serious exchange.
          ‘Who’s Afraid of Truth and Shadows?’ — perhaps it should be made into a stage play on Broadway.

          1. “‘Who’s Afraid of Truth and Shadows?’”
            All the right people are afraid! The list of the fearful is long and distinguished. Off the top of my head the list includes:
            David Chandler
            Kevin Ryan
            Barbara Honegger
            All 911blogger mods
            Virtually all CIT critics
            Virtually all DEW and Video fakery advocates
            Corporate media representatives
            Government representatives
            Sandy Hook and Boston bombing official story believers
            JREFers will not openly come here although they do troll under pseudonyms
            I for one am proud as hell of that list. Of course many of them claim falsly that we are uncivil. They simply claim any challenge to their false beliefs is uncivil so they can maintain a facade of credibility while still avoiding a debate they know they will lose. People challenge me all the time and I argue my side of the issue, they argue theirs, and we continue until a resolution is reached. That is IF both sides debate in good faith. The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.

          2. Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:

            People challenge me all the time and I argue my side of the issue, they argue theirs, and we continue until a resolution is reached. That is IF both sides debate in good faith. The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.

            Ah, yes, but on the “nuclear DEW” front, unresolved issues remain, because Mr. Ruff hasn’t been debating in good faith as evidenced by uppity statements regarding being proud of ~not~ reading what the debate opponent writes and of ignoring such postings. I do not fault Mr. Ruff for this, because it can be a time-sucking rabbit hole. But Mr. Ruff can be faulted for hit-and-run trolling actions, and for making bold statements about the (supposed) inapplicability of nuclear means to 9/11 and then not defending them.
            Yes, I have not forgotten Mr. Ruff’s bad behavior that is clearly hypocritical to the quoted passage above.
            Moreover, the nuclear argument has been honed even further. Wouldn’t you know it, when I thought I had come across something that I thought was definitive (e.g., neutron nuclear DEW), I recognized the validity of an argument presented by Dr. Wood’s supports that has me cycling through things presented by Dr. Wood. She isn’t completely right, nor can she ever be until she’s willing to get us closer to make-and-model of the devices. But she’s closer than all other theories, particularly when researchers are willing to separate the WTC destruction building by building. [Whereas “beams-from-space” seems inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, it ought to remain on the table for other anomalously destroyed buildings.]

          3. “The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.” ~Mr Ruff
            Señor El Once responds thus:
            “Mr. Ruff hasn’t been debating in good faith as evidenced by uppity statements regarding being proud of ~not~ reading what the debate opponent writes and of ignoring such postings. I do not fault Mr. Ruff for this, because it can be a time-sucking rabbit hole. But Mr. Ruff can be faulted for hit-and-run trolling actions, and for making bold statements about the (supposed) inapplicability of nuclear means to 9/11 and then not defending them.”
            This reply by the anonymous entity calling itself “Señor El Once” is spurious bullshit, as both myself and Mr Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate wherein the entity refused to bow to reasoned argument while spinning long arguments of verbosity based on nothing but assertions based on weak presumptions. “Señor” has never had “the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong”.
            This entity calling itself “Señor” clearly has no interest in any discussion here unless he can make an attempt to make it appear plausible that something said in the commentary is ample excuse to make a sales pitch for his singular product, the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit.
            This shall not be construed as a challenge to once again “debate” an issue that should have long ago been relegated to the trash bin.

          4. Mr. Rogue wrote this priceless reflection of his true inner-character:

            This reply by the anonymous entity calling itself “Señor El Once” is spurious bullshit, as both myself and Mr Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate wherein the entity refused to bow to reasoned argument while spinning long arguments of verbosity based on nothing but assertions based on weak presumptions. “Señor” has never had “the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong”.

            I count three lies in that paragraph alone. Lie #1 is that “Mr. Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate [with me].” Never happened, even though Mr. Ruff has been called out by me many times to substantiate his hit-and-run “no radiation at the WTC” hypnotic suggestion. Every time a debate of substance tried to begin, Mr. Ruff would huff and puff and scurry from the scene under the auspices of “not wanting to feed the trolls” or other bullshit. He prided himself on not reading my comments.
            Lie #2 is contained within the same grammar-challenged sentence, re-written as “Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate [with me].” Lopping off Mr. Ruff and concentrating on Mr. Rogue’s efforts alone, “many months” applies, but the “reasoned debate” does not.
            “Reasoned debate” implies all sorts of qualities that Mr. Rogue lacks. For one, it implies objectively reviewing the material that the other side brings to the table. To this end as but one example, Mr. Rogue admitted not only to not finishing Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook but also to violently defacing it to use as bird cage liner. In exchange for receiving his copy, he was charged with producing an objective “good, bad, and ugly” review chapter-by-chapter and with paying it forward or passing it on when finished. He welched spectacularly on the deal. I probably would have been in agreement with any of “the bad and ugly” he might have offered up, but his inability to acknowledge any of “the good” contained therein — however closely or sparsely spaced they might be — is an excellent example of Mr. Rogue’s definition of “reasoned debate” that doesn’t hold muster.
            Whereas Mr. Rogue can point to his one-sided blog as proof of his time commitment, titles like “Maxifuckanus” give more than a hint as to the quality of his “reasoned” efforts for bored readers and gluttons for punishment. What the same readers won’t find is a “debate”, because Mr. Rogue purges dissenting views.
            Lie #3 is his second sentence: “Señor” has never had “the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong”.
            I used to be a no-planer, but not any more. I offered up a public apology in several places including these T&S forums.
            I can provide other examples of me admitting being wrong, but this one suffices to corner Mr. Rogue (yet again for the umpteeth time) as being a LIAR, and thereby allowing me to call Mr. Rogue a LIAR whenever I see fit without consequence, because it was — and now is again — a substantiated, valid, character assessment.
            Mr. Rogue continued:

            This entity calling itself “Señor” clearly has no interest in any discussion here unless he can make an attempt to make it appear plausible that something said in the commentary is ample excuse to make a sales pitch for his singular product, the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit.

            This tidbit about me supposedly having no interest in any discussion here (outside my hobby-horse nuclear area) becomes lie #4, as demonstrated by other comments to this thread and to all other threads. For example, I read Kevin Ryan’s book, which neither Mr. Rogue nor Mr. Ruff did, despite them making many comments to that thread. Noteworthy is Mr. Ruff trying to bluff why he wasn’t going to read it (based on hearsay), another lame excuse similar to his refusal to read Dr. Wood’s book. We can’t call their objectivity into question if they haven’t gotten over their ignorance of the actual subject matter, a much worse reflection on their style of “reasoned debate.”
            Big words that Mr. Rogue utters, “the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit,” but he’s shooting blanks. In fact, neither he nor Mr. Ruff can prove the corner-stone of their “no-nukes” premise namely, “no radiation at the WTC”. If they had the character or integrity to admit when they were wrong, they would acknowledge that ~all~ 9/11 reports on the radiation and dust are faulty, with the delays in taking samples being the most glaring one, sufficient to cover-over the side-effects of 4th generation nuclear weapons whose radiation is not lingering.
            At best and in an honest moment, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue could say that neither radiation nor the lack of radiation can be proven at the WTC, so it can’t be used as a determining factor either way. The case for nukes or no-nukes would need to be built on other evidence. Too bad that neither Mr. Ruff nor Mr. Rogue has ever admitted to being wrong about chemical-based explosives and incendiaries in not being able to account for all of the observed evidence, such as the duration of hot-spots and the relative quiet decibel levels.
            Mr. Rogue concludes:

            This shall not be construed as a challenge to once again “debate” an issue that should have long ago been relegated to the trash bin.

            If Mr. Rogue had a better memory and more integrity, he wouldn’t be so easily trapped and outed as a liar. Yet his faulty memory is actually a dubious tactic, whereby he purposely mis-remembers and hypnotically suggests that nuclear topics were discussed and, based on sound arguments and “reasoned debate,” relegated to the trash bin. Didn’t happen.
            Mr. McKee has been dragging his feet on writing his own article on nuclear 9/11 themes, or publishing an article from me. On this forum, nuclear themes have only been touched upon tangentially.
            On Mr. Rogue’s former home court, he was pwned so badly by me on this subject that from the onset of my arrival there he came unhinged against me and a female admin, so much so that he was |<–this close–>| to being banned. Indeed, Mr. Rogue’s efforts to counter my nuclear arguments that he has re-published on his blog should have been edited & cleaned up long ago, or relegated to the trash bin. Instead, he serves them up as supposed “proof” of his “reasoned debate.”
            Nope. “Reasoned debate” on nuclear themes has yet to commense here. I give my debate opponents an advantage, because almost the entirety of my nuclear 9/11 position is available on my blog and can be addressed section-by-section, point-by-point in advance. The one deviation that I haven’t had a chance to write up is that I no longer champion neutron nuclear DEW. In yet another instance where some evidence from the Dr. Wood camp [the dust and pulverization of the towers was “cool”] had me admit where I was wrong, I’ve moved from nuclear devices further into Dr. Wood’s DEW via Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices that tweak my proposed neutron nuclear DEW devices further, exchanging heat & blast wave yields for energy at wavelengths, ala Project Excalibur, Casaba-Howitzer, x-ray lasers, etc.
            P.S. Mr. Owen Meister, your assessment of the “oh elite and pedantic one” is very good.

          5. Dear Ms. Kuehn,
            I should have been clearer. I used to be a believer in no-planes at the WTC. September Clues (SC) and its premise of imagery manipulation had me duped something fierce. Direct dealings with them together with the crumbling of a cornerstone argument — the 44 videos via 3D render depict the same flight path that is in agreement with two sets of radar data — proved them deceitful. I still believe that some degree of imagery manipulation did happen; there is proof. Just not to the dubious degree that SC peddles it: all imagery is faked, no image is real. [How stupid or dubious can you get? I mean, if the perps could fake all imagery, then by golly they would have done it right. No pods on planes; no pulverization at gravitational acceleration. All of that shit could have been fixed in the pre-production and wouldn’t be hanging out to give them grief.]
            I was never a believer in the NPT argument based on holograms. It has glaring weaknesses. I recently debated a NPTer on FB and knocked out every pillar of her substantiation before finally being banned. Planes at the WTC isn’t even my hobby-horse. Learned a lot, though, and now I’m more convinced than ever that real aircraft (not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft) were used.
            With regards to the Pentagon and Shanksville, I remain in the NPT camp. I believe no commercial plane crashed at either location.
            Your quote could stand some elaboration:

            Whoever is not a no-planer has forgotten the basics of the case.


          6. I see. Well September Clues and other arguments are both fine for WTC no planes.
            Two planes were not scheduled to fly that day; two others were over other locations; planes intersecting with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least; these supposed planes act like bullets into articles far softer than bullets, but the supposed planes are far too slow, intersecting with floor trusses of steel and floor pans of steel on multiple floors, and have parts which bullets don’t, and are intersecting with objects far more dense than they are.

          7. I should also add that what you say about “if the perps could fake imagery they’d have gotten it right” is not true: different contracted or agent groups and different means of faking can lead to different results.
            Happened with JFK. Lots of sloppiness in faking the images in time and getting the images over time to match each other.

          8. I take exception to your suggestion that I am “dragging my feet” on a nuclear article. The good thing about having my own blog is that every article I choose to publish is published at exactly the time I want it to be. And every subject that is dealt with is exactly the subject I wanted to deal with.

          9. Hah…what a brawl we have going here aye Craig?
            Maybe you can just post a blank thread for all the spurious New Wave 9/11 “theories”…???

          10. The entity calling itself Señor El Once proceeds once more with his favorite PR technique of ‘Argumentum Verbosium’; a form of Argument from Intimidation – in this case, by being incredibly verbose, using a plethora of words and twisted perspectives to make one’s case.
            As well Señor is outright lying himself in charging that I lied about anything whatsoever, and misrepresenting other aspects in the more subtle manner of intimation.
            I will not be intimidated into silence by this bullshit artist, nor will I be taunted into yet another futile carousel of endless back and forth with someone who admits himself that there is no evidence of radiation, but that we must consider “other” evidence besides the prima facea evidence of the collapse of the towers themselves to determine such – by what I have pointed out time and again is nothing but empty assertion based on supposition, presumption, and the disfiguring of data.
            As far as Señor’s participation in the discussions on this blog, all one has to do is go through the last half dozen or so threads to see for themselves. The entity will usually make a token appearance to give a short praise to Craig, and that will be just about it. The only other times will be to take an opportunity to disparage my character in some way, as is seen on this very thread on APRIL 3, 2014 AT 6:31 P.M.

          11. Craig,
            I would not hold your breath for either of them to step up to the plate and debate the pentagon. They seem to lack the integrity to do so. Ryan and Chandler both have an over abundance of arrogance and vanity such that they cannot engage in any discussion where they could be shown to be in error. That is why they have evaded pentagon debate for years now. You see in their ego fueled minds they cannot be wrong. God forbid someone else uncovered important evidence about 9/11 which they didn’t. Even worse for their bloated ego is that the NOC evidence is just as powerful and important as their demolition evidence is. That fact tends to take some of the spotlight off of them, the very spotlight which feeds their bloated ego. NOC evidence is therefore shunned by both men in spite of its importance in the overall case of 9/11. I find them to be disgusting individuals in this regard because their own fat bloated ego’s are causing the vitally important NOC evidence to be minimized by some in the truth movement. From my viewpoint that is absolutely shameful.
            For the record both David Chandler and Kevin Ryan have been politely invited to debate the pentagon issue on more than one occasion and both have refused. In fact neither one of them had the common courtesy to send a reply at all even to decline. Neither one of them is a truth movement leader in my book and I have zero respect for them at this point. To block important evidence because of your ego is dispicable.

  19. It doesn’t take much effort at all to dismiss NIST for their 9/11 Reports. It is crystal clear that they did not fulfill their mandate to explain why and how the WTC Towers collapsed. They even admit it. That this is breach of contract and criminal fraud should be enough to cause grave concern and deep suspicion.
    However further investigation into the ways and means of the NIST operation in the 9/11 case brings to light more specific issues, indicating massive scientific fraud.
    The clincher that this is a massive systemic cover-up is in the fact that such prima facea evidence goes entirely missing from the narrative of the mainstream press and media. It is most obvious orchestrated theater, and is part and parcel of a long history of burlesque stagecraft in the place of honest reporting and legitimate governing. To state that the entire system is a criminal enterprise is far from hyperbole. The culture and society of the west is pathological in the extreme. It’s political leadership is plainly criminally insane.
    Going along to get along is fine … until you get where they are taking you.
    We appear at the edge of the abyss now.
    “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” Euripides Greek tragic dramatist (484 BC – 406 BC)

  20. What many people take to be “conspiracy theory” is actually ‘deep systems analysis’, an investigation into how things actually work, rather than relying on appearances. The catch here is that in sociopolitical matters there is much subterfuge and intrigue involved in struggles for power.
    As subterfuge and intrigue are bywords for conspiracy, the term “conspiracy” itself becomes a sub-section of systemic analysis.
    The architecture of political power must be viewed from a historical perspective in order to be fully understood. And the use of language must be fully understood, and the nature of what is called “psychology” – both personal and mass psychology must be understood. And all of these together must be understood as living processes that are not static in time, but do have patterns and cycles.
    For many on this site, what I am saying here is ‘primer’ level, ‘101 class’ information. But not all of our readers will have gone through the elementary thinking to be up to speed on much of what is discussed here. And certainly those who blabber on about “tin-hat conspiracy nuts” haven’t even begun to think. If they are ever to educate themselves, they must begin constructing a rational epistemology, and grasp that they are going to have to do their own thinking. And this begins with reassessment of everything one has been taught by the system of control.

    1. Conspiracy theory is a fine term, a technical term. If you mean CT as nonsense, then that’s CIA disinfo — and should be stated as “conspiracy theory as nonsense not a technical term”, so we don’t kow tow to the disinfo.

      1. Ms Kuehn
        I don’t mean anything other than what I said. And I did not say that conspiracy theory is “nonsense”. I said that the consideration of conspiracies are a subsection of systems analysis.
        Personally I have no problem with being referred to as a “Conspiracy Theorist”. What I am speaking to above is that there is a larger subject that is a panoramic view of history, a history that is in no way actually hidden by anything other than non propagation. Anyone can discover this history who has a mind to do so.

        1. You made excellent points about analysis, hybridrogue1. It was the juxtaposition of the term CT and the next bit which made me want to clarify about CT as a term, just in case a reader thought you were using it with perjorative implications in the first mention. Kudos on your points.

          1. Very good then Clare, if you were not clear on what I meant, others might possibly have read it the same way – so it is good we cleared that up. Thank you.

            1. Intention and Purpose:
            composition, construction, design, architecture, plan, assert, induce.
            2. Quest and Seek:
            analysis, diagnosis, test, inspect, examine, determine, assess, inquire, deduce.
            Following data or Leading data? Standing to reason, or misusing reason in rhetoric?
            Determining or Asserting? Deduce or Induce?
            Is it analysis or propagation? Is it deconstruction or construction? Much of the language is the same in either situation, the differences are subtle. The technique of design masquerading as diagnosis is often only a matter of a small shift in context.
            Deduction is necessary to all but the gods of creation, for we are all born after the fact and must look to what is known of history to know where we stand. We deduce because we weren’t privy to the induction.

          3. Design posed as analysis is the method by which the Hegelian Dialectic is spun. The dialectic is an induction form, taking for granted that which itself asserts to create the new synthesis.
            Deduction is based in analysis, which is deconstruction {or reconstruction in academic terms}. My concern here, and why I am speaking to this is, that practically all propaganda uses the form of ‘Design posing as Diagnosis’ – this is how the media presents information, this is the technique of the “think tanks”, it is the key trick of the construction of the false paradigm. It is the “spell” that induces the enchantment by electronic necromancy.

  21. Owenmeister,
    We have two choices here, you are either a dupe of the Zionists who believes that “the Jews” are at the root of all the worlds ills, or you are a double agent for Hasbara.
    To give you the benefit of the doubt, I will presume for the time being that you are the first, someone who thinks that “The Jews” are evil incarnate. But you have the opportunity here to explain yourself further.
    Is it your opinion that Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business?
    Fill us in on the basis of your opinion. We all know the evidence for Israeli involvement. This is not a matter that is disputed here. This is not something that is avoided here. It is a matter that is only one aspect of ‘who’ are the perpetrators. That it is not the single issue addressed here, nor the even the central issue addressed here, is no just basis to claim that there is an attempt to avoid or bury the information.

    1. There’s enough straw to fill a barn man. You realize strawman arguments are unethical and reflect poor character, poor thinking, etc. I may enter the bait shop hotel, but only in the lobby, never rent a room. Your attempt at bait is funny.

      1. Mister Owenmeister,
        Your refusal to make an answer to the simple question asked,
        Repeated here:
        ‘Is it your opinion that Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business?’
        …is not funny, it is evasion tendered with a load of rhetorical bullshit. You make assertions with zero foundation and claim it is I who have “poor character, poor thinking etc.” You make the claim that I am making a “strawman argument” but do not expound on what it is that is that you define as such.
        You provide empty bluster, not argumentation. You make a vapid allegory about a “bait shop” with no explanation of what the “bait” is supposed to be. If your answer to the question on what your opinion of the Jews is, must remain secreted from us, it must be assumed that the worst applies to you.
        You still have the opportunity here to explain yourself further. But you have gotten off on the wrong foot by avoiding clear and concise questions. As is my personal policy, I offer you one more chance to answer before I dismiss you as a disingenuous troll.
        For absolute clarity, that question is:
        Is it your opinion that Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business?

        1. In your opinion. You realize that you are essentially a man marooned on an island self-imposed. Nobody is touching this. By the way old man, you might want to check out what the forth leading cause of death is according to the WHO. Camping out here isn’t good for your health. Make sure when you do your routine tomorrow, get out of your chair every twenty minutes.

        2. Since Owen has nothing to say, he could say it more concisely by saying nothing at all.

          1. I agree. If you cannot openly state what you think or answer a simple question then you are playing games. I will answer HR1s question myself in order to demonstrate what an honest discussion looks like.
            HR1 asks: “Is it your opinion that Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business?”
            No the Jewish people as a group are not involved in this nefarious business. Some of the people involved in the crimes of 9/11 happen to call themselves Jewish while others happen to call themselves Christians and still others call themselves Muslims. The truth is that none of those involved in the crimes of 9/11 are “religious” at all, they are arch criminal scumbags deserving of severe punishment. The fact that some of these arch criminals refer to themselves as Jews does not reflect upon the Jewish people in any way shape or form. Guilt by association is the tool of small minds. If you follow guilt by association to its logical ends all humans are cannibals because Jeffrey Dahmer is a fellow human.

          2. And you are free to not respond to my post, “Oh elite and pedantic one. The one who has a special perch reserved for himself who sees almost all things in a panoramic and precise way.” The clown who was calling me a member of a terrorist group or a Zionist stooge from jump street.
            Get over yourself. This isn’t your playground, for if it is, I will gladly start kicking sand in your face. You’re the guy that treats this place like a graduate lecture class while probably wishing you had the moxie and character to hold such an esteemed place in society.
            The guy who is a bully but cannot admit that he has an inferiority complex and projects his problems onto others. I also consider you unworthy of further responses until you learn getting along and playing well with others 101.

        3. It is Owenmeister’s opinion that “Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business” – this can be deduced by his refusal “to touch this”.
          Such an opinion is grossly irrational, dismissive of any sane reading of history and clearly xenophobic. His accusations against “the Jews”, which fails to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism is the very slander which is mistakenly referred to as “antisemitism”. Although this slander is misnamed, it is nevertheless a real offence to all rational beings.
          This site has never attempted to dismiss or cover over the very real and expansive evidence of Israeli/Mossad involvement – deep involvement in the perpetration of 9/11. So Owen commits a double slander in accusing this site and Mr McKee personally of, “superficial analysis”, and “baiting”. He has shown himself incapable of reasoned discourse as well, while falsely counter-charging in a hypocritical manner the very techniques he accuses of.
          Whatever other bullshit excuses Mr Meister may present, I preemptively dismiss here and now.

          1. Again owenmeister spews naught but swaggering bucko hypocritical slander.
            His notes on etiquette being his special brand of hypocrisy.
            He has had ample opportunity to give his opinion of the Jewish people, phrased in any terms he might choose. But all we get here again is more dissembling and bullshit excuses.

  22. Zionism does not begin with Herzl. This is only the modern era incarnation. Zionism began close to 4000 years ago with the curses of “God” in the book of Deuteronomy, when the tribes of the Levites became the first “scribes” to write down what had been the spoken myths of the combined tribes of Judea. Although Deuteronomy predates Genesis, it is called “the second book” – the first in the long history of deception perpetrated by the Levites. Genesis was written as an account for the purposes of placing the Leviticans in a genetically central role as direct decedents of Abraham.
    The major curse against “the Chosen People” was the demand that they not possess “the Promised Land” until they would obey the word of their “god”. Zion, is the term for this “promised land”. Zionism is the hope for the “return” to Zion. That a practical political movement took to making a plan to achieve such a return in the 19th century in no way the proximate beginning of Zionism.
    That this agenda is one of practical politics, it is properly removed from the issue of religion. By the same token, the benefits of such practical politics now has a more universal appeal to those who embrace the validity of ‘might as right’ and that the ‘ends justify the means’. The belief in such realpolitik is in no way exclusively a Jewish fixture. Neither is identity politics an exclusively Jewish activity. “Manifest Destiny” is no less the same apparition for the Amerikans.

  23. I suppose if they spoke Yiddish in Israel and not Hebrew they wouldn’t have the legitimacy to call anyone who is critical of them an ‘anti-Semite’?
    In other words, if Yiddish was the national language of Israel, the Semites living in that part of the world would be Palestinian.
    Calling someone an ‘anti-Semite’ really does prompt us to think about what that really means.

    1. “Calling someone an ‘anti-Semite’ really does prompt us to think about what that really means.”
      Yes Socrates, I go into that in some length on the thread just before this.

    1. Ah yes, and seeing my comment: I like the italicized name and the circular avatar. Eyes that look at the computer all the time need a change of scenery every now and then 😉

    2. I disagree completely Mr Syed, I think this template is horrible, and it is especially annoying to find the third Reply format as almost single words stacked on top of one another. There is more wasted space here than the last format, and it takes twice the time to scroll through this set-up as the last due to the huge lettering and spread out construction.
      I have always opposed “fixing” things that aren’t broken out of boredom.

  24. NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP:
    DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms
    All cloth from the same loom of lunacy. The garments made of this whole cloth are the same as those worn by the naked emperor.
    They all have one purpose, to distract from real solid and rational investigation to lead into the weeds of confusion.

    1. I shall be reading your article on your blog tomorrow. Wow, did you write it in 2012? That was probably around the time when I rejected the ‘plane crash theory’ and all the official crash sites.
      Anyway, don’t want to make war with you over this. Perhaps I’ll copy and paste one or two of the major points that I don’t agree with on this blog, if you don’t mind.
      Anyway, Israel was not a topic of discussion on this blog a year or two ago. I suppose if we can talk about that country now it’s because we all acknowledge and are in agreement with what Sharon said (the prime minister at the time if I am not mistaken) “9/11 was good for Israel”

      1. Frankly Socrates,
        It was my intent to make the material on my blog available precisely because that material is not relevant to the Israeli/Jew topic of this thread.
        If I wanted to discuss it here, I would bring up the information myself.
        I think this thread is already being hijacked to change the subject of Mr McKee’s article. We were pretty much on topic until a certain so-and-so pulled a Full Monty here with another fusillade of his non sequiturs, misinterpretations, and full frontal lies.

  25. Yes it was Netanyahu, and he is close buddies of Lucky Larry Silverstein.
    The Israeli-Mossad evidence is overwhelming. I don’t think you are a constant enough reader to determine if this issue was being talked about here for the past two years. I know for sure that Mr McKee has never denied it, nor any of the people who remain engaged here. A few shills may have complained on these pages, but that would have been in countering the position that the Israeli’s and their Zionist network were deeply involved in the events of 9/11.
    Owen is talking through the seat of his trousers to claim that this site is in anyway attempting to hide Israeli involvement.
    We have often complained of Kevin Ryan for failing to enumerate the Israeli angle here, as well as his gross misinterpretation of the Pentagon event.
    But as I say, let us not go into the No-Planes, Video Fakery, or any of that on this thread. Your video on Netanyahu is relevant. The other issues should be sidelined for now.

    1. Wasn’t it you who brought up the ‘NPT’? There are 3 recent posts of yours, 4 in fact where you are saying and I quote “NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP: DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms
      I thought it was a bit odd when it had noting to do with the topic except that the pictures were brought to us via the Jewish media
      So, you’ve been talking about Mossad and Israel and the Jewish angle on this blog, that’s good!

      1. As I explained Socrates, I posted those links preemptively to avoid having other issues pursued other than the “antisemitic” topic we were involved in until Señor took his opportunistic and characteristic swipe at Mr Ruff.
        Therein it was Señor who mentioned all three of the topics. He drug Clare into it as well.
        Again I urge that these topics be postponed for another thread. I am not in favor of giving these topics page space on this blog, but that will be Mr McKee’s decision.

  26. Dear Ms. Kuehn,
    Let us make a distinction between “no planes crashing at the WTC” (No Planes Theory [NPT]) and “not the alleged commercial planes crashing at the WTC” (No Commercial Planes Theory [NCPT]). The latter is applicable to your statement beginning:

    Two planes were not scheduled to fly that day; two others were over other locations;

    You wrote:

    Well September Clues and other arguments are both fine for WTC no planes.

    September Clues (SC) has been proven to be clueless with regards to crash physics, or any physics for that matter. Richard Hall deliberately misrepresents the radar data and its tolerances in order to promote holograms projected by cloaked planes, two technologies that have stark limitations to being convincing from all angles and perspectives of 9/11.
    The towers were designed for aircraft to penetrate them: “Pencil through a screen.” You wrote:

    [P]lanes intersecting with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least; these supposed planes act like bullets into articles far softer than bullets, but the supposed planes are far too slow, intersecting with floor trusses of steel and floor pans of steel on multiple floors, and have parts which bullets don’t, and are intersecting with objects far more dense than they are.

    The face of the tower falls was not 100% solid. 50% of the wall face was composed of window slits that offered zero resistance to plane. The bolts connecting the wall assemblies were designed-in failure points. The steel columns in the wall assemblies were not solid steel. They were composed of 1/4″ steel plates fashioned into box columns 14″x14″x3-stories.
    The Sandia F4 crash as well as Mythbusters’ rocket-snow-plow videos demonstrate how crash physics changes when velocities are very large. The velocity-squared term in the energy equation is sufficient to overwhelm the materials of the aircraft wings/tail and shatter them, when they aren’t being sliced and having momentum carry them into the towers. They wouldn’t bounce as a whole unit off of the wall face, which is what crash physics at much lower velocities (<50 mph) demonstrates. The damage to the towers’ faces needs to be quantified: how many wall assemblies failed at the bolts; how many wall assemblies were pushed out of the way; how many box columns got bent near the bolt junction (giving the impression of slicing); and how many box columns were outright cut? The damage can be misleading, but the number of box columns damaged is well within the energy of the fast moving aircraft.
    Once the walls were breached, empty floor space greeted the aircraft unless it traveled through the core area (WTC-1). Dense wheels from the landing gear not only made it through the impact wall and the core area, but also knocked a wall assembly right off the back-side, severed at its bolts. That wall assembly flew 700 ft and was found with a wheel still in it. Between the two planes’ 3 sets of landing gear, 20 wheels were in the mix. Ten separate reports of landing gear (e.g., wheels) were reported by reliable witnesses and would not have been easy to stage in the minutes after the “impacts” and when first responders arrived. Lots of aircraft debris was found, but due to the distance of most cameras and those cameras not being high speed, the shattered debris is easy to under-estimate or misrepresent, like SC does.
    The plane at WTC-2 hit at an angle and its engine managed to rocket out the angled corner window (on a floor without a vertical beam in the window), fly 1,400 ft, bounce off a building at Park Place, and then tumble (?) under a scaffolding at Church & Murray. If you do the math, the engine had been slowed at impact from 500 mph and exited the towers at around 130 mph, well within the range of plausibility.
    If you want to make hay out of the engine under the scaffolding, then it is reasonable to speculate that agents were trying to remove it, because it was not of the proper make-and-model for the alleged commercial aircraft and would have exposed the ruse. They were caught by rubber-necking civilians with cameras, so went with it. The whole crime scene was tampered with.
    If you want to make hay out of the speed and precision of the aircraft not being possible for the alleged commercial aircraft at low altitude, I’m down with that but that doesn’t mean that no aircraft were involved. It just means the aircraft weren’t the alleged commercial ones. And if not the alleged ones, then all bets are off regarding what other enhancements were made to the planes (and/or the towers) to facilitate the observed destruction.
    I believe that the “no planes at the WTC” argument was deliberately sown to distract from the legitimate cases of no planes crashing into the Pentagon and Shanksville. The NPT at the WTC is deliberately argued poorly by the likes of SC and Rich Hall, so that it will be discredited and sour the considerations elsewhere.
    You wrote:

    “[I]f the perps could fake imagery, they’d have gotten it right” is not true: different contracted or agent groups and different means of faking can lead to different results.

    If you’re arguing for digital manipulation of the imagery, why would all of the planes in 44 some videos be consistently rendered ~and~ have the pod on more than just several of the crucial ones? If you’re arguing for holograms being projected by a cloaked aircraft, why would that hologram have the pod on it? This isn’t a question of different results; if it is going to be faked, this consistent error would ~not~ be present.
    Regardless of which no-planes argument you are supporting, the aircraft debris is overwhelming the more you research it. It would not be easy to fake and plant, and match trajectories observed of ejected pieces. It significantly increases the numbers of perpetrators involved in the ruse to get things planted unnoticed in a short time frame. And why bother when real aircrafts are available, and the only concern is them having sufficient velocity to assure penetration? The only miscalculation with real aircraft is identifiable parts from the aircraft escaping the towers.

    1. As if fragmenting this thread with his nookiedoodoo honk isn’t enough, we have to endure this exposition on No-Planes.
      I even agree with the asshole about this particular item, but it is totally out of line to hijack this thread for his own purposes.

      1. Again, if open to argumentation, a person has to admit there were no planes at the WTC gash sites.
        September Clues and other arguments are both fine for WTC no planes.
        Two planes were not scheduled to fly that day; two others were over other locations.
        But if we posit anyway those planes or other planes:
        planes were to have intersected with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least; these supposed planes act like bullets into articles far softer than bullets, but the supposed planes are far too slow, intersecting with floor trusses of steel and floor pans of steel on multiple floors, and have parts which bullets don’t, and are intersecting with objects far more dense than they are.
        There are no bullet planes into butter or apple buildings.
        As to what some say about “if the perps could fake imagery they’d have gotten it right”: that is not true. Different contracted or agent groups and different means of faking can lead to different results.
        Happened with JFK. Lots of sloppiness in faking the images in time and getting the images over time to match each other.

    2. Dear Ms. Kuehn,
      You use the analogy of a bullet without understanding it. You can easily google high-speed film of bullets. I was amazed what I learned in one instance that showed a bullet hitting a steel plate. The bullet completely shattered on impact with the plate; its fragments never made it through and went in all directions mostly orthogonal to its direction of travel. Yet the bullet transferred its energy into the plate causing a plug of steel in the profile of the bullet to get shoved out the backside along with splaying of the metal. Although the resulting hole was big enough for the bullet to pass through, no bullet made it through the hole.
      Your following statement is in in error:

      planes were to have intersected with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least.

      You are completely discounting the path of least resistance, which is between window slits and between floor pans. The aircraft were sliced by these elements. Plenty of low resistance space for sliced material to go. Again, I encourage viewing the Mythbuster’s rocket-snow-plow video.
      And if you observe both the videos and the images of debris around towers, you would know that parts did fly off. It just wasn’t entire wing assemblies or tail assemblies for reasons that I have already explained having to do with shattering of materials at very localized spots ~before~ or ~instead of~ materials-as-a-cohesive-whole (e.g., wing/tail) acting.
      Beyond that, I am a bit annoyed at the degree with which you copy-and-pasted your previous comments in this thread, as if the blatant repetition makes the erroneous more true. If you really wanted to convince me, one could argue that re-writing it in a different way would have half a chance. But to paste a near identical copy without enhancement or extension? To not address specific points in my response? You’re making me lose respect. You won’t fair well with further brain-dead postings. Step up your game, or get out.

  27. The instances of Mr. Rogue lying in this very thread have been substantiated. So his counter argument of “Señor is outright lying himself in charging that I lied about anything whatsoever” falls flat as a sophomoric “me-too-ism.”
    Readers can find humor that the “oh elite and pedantic one” finds a plethora of words intimidating and that he misrepresents this as “Argumentum Verbosium.” Mr. Rogue has numerous character flaws that come to light when challenged, which then in his mind permits lying and misrepresentation. Too bad they backfire.
    Case in point, Mr. Rogue misrepresents my position as: “someone who admits himself that there is no evidence of radiation.”
    The correct framing is that neither Mr. Rogue nor Mr. Ruff can prove the premise of “no radiation” which they erronously extrapolate to mean “no nukes.”
    We’re already familiar with the philosophical question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Perverting this, if nuclear devices are detonated and no one measures radiation within 48-72 hours (or longer), can all nuclear devices be ruled out? [Answer: No. Fusion and neutron devices can go undetected.] Another variant is: if various groups take samples and tabulate their data but don’t discuss all anomalous aspects and correlations in the tabulated data, can the resulting report’s “no nukes” conclusion be trusted? [Answer: No.]
    Mr. Rogue boldly writes:

    I will not be intimidated into silence by this bullshit artist, nor will I be taunted into yet another futile carousel of endless back and forth…

    Silence was not expected. The links to Mr. Rogue’s blog are good for a laugh. But the deceit in Mr. Rogue’s efforts is evident when he lumps together “DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms”, thereby giving inadequate short-shrift to all and watering down whatever valid points he might make on any one of those themes.
    Moreover, while my nuclear views shift when new information and analysis is presented, not so for the “oh elite and pedantic one”. Reminds me of when Mr. Rogue tried to debunk the entirety of Dr. Wood’s 2010 textbook with links to Dr. Jenkins’ 2007 efforts. Today, Mr. Rogue tries to debunk 2014 analysis into 4th generation nuclear devices with tripe that he penned in 2012. 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.

    [DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms] all have one purpose, to distract from real solid and rational investigation to lead into the weeds of confusion.

    I agree.
    Mr. Rogue doesn’t assist the discussion by malframing them and by being resistent to nuclear powered DEW that are late-3rd-generation and early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices.
    Mr. Rogue made a claim of “empty assertions” pertaining to my premise. Also:

    I have addressed all the vital points of these disinformation campaigns in previous rebuttals and offer these articles and attendant commentary.

    Nope. Aside from being old, it comes up short.
    The following was posted on 2014-03-22 to another thread, but owing to the number of links, it still sits in the moderation queue. I’ve removed the links except for one.
    Whereas Mr. Rogue will point to the following as “Argumentum Verbosium,” the real danger is that it proves that Mr. Rogue has ~not~ addressed all the vital points, neither in his old articles nor in anything he’s written recently.
    Mr. Rogue should be wary of the age-old computer expression: “garbage-in, garbage-out.”
    The “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. It re-defined “trace or background levels” in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21) — aside from being delayed — allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
    Mr. Rogue seems to point to the Paul Lioy report for his 0.14 pCi measuring of tritium. Tritium wasn’t the purpose of that report; lamely explaining away radioactive isotopes was. It had elements of “garbage-in”:
    – Limited its analysis to three (3) “representative” dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
    – Samples were only collected at “weather-protected” locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
    – Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
    – Does not provide actual measurements or levels for trace measurements. It just writes that what was measured was at trace levels.
    Whereas one might be able to say that the tritium report and the Lioy reports achieved their goals — which were to underscore minimal health impacts from tritium and radio-active isotopes –, these reports with their limited scopes serve as the “garbage-in” to other efforts that try to “garbage-out” conclude that no nuclear devices were used.
    Mr. Rogue confidently writes:

    … the minute amount of tritium … an infinitely small amount.

    First of all, we are taking it on faith that no juking of the measured amounts happened, which would be a large leap of faith given issues already identified in their methodology and limited scope.
    Secondly, tritium was measured, and the reports lamely try to cover it over. They have never fully explored all possible sources for the tritium, because associating it with nuclear weapons was out-of-scope.
    Thirdly, the readers should inform themselves about the design aims and capabilities of fourth generation nuclear devices, which aren’t that far from the neutron nuclear DEW devices that I had been championing.

    Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
    Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A “change of paradigm” where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.

    Third generation nuclear weapons are basically “tailored and special effects” warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
    – ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
    – RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
    – EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
    – DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
    – EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
    – ETC —

    [M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.

    My wild-ass, bat-shit crazy ~speculation~ into this theme begins with the fact that nuclear devices can make trade-off’s during the design with regards to the expected yields and side-effects. Low-radiation or “reduced radiological impact” weapons have been a goal of weapons design for decades.
    As an example of design trade-offs, neutron devices — based on (fission-triggered) fusion devices — expell the highly-energetic neutrons instead of containing them. Neutron radiation is very dangerous to life forms but is not lingering. When aimed in DEW fashion, collateral damage to life forms is more predictable. When aimed at certain materials, they become radioactive but it dissipates in 24-48 hours. [This highlights a purposeful fault in all government-sponsored reports on WTC radiation: delays in taking samples and/or narrow sample pools.] Also, the neutrons can be aimed away from tandem neutron devices, reducing the likelihood of fratricide.
    Moreover, controlling the amount of escaping highly-energetic neutrons helps literally dial in other nuclear detonation side-effects like heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Nuclear weapons of tactical low-yields are hard to achieve, but become easier when assumptions of “efficient usage of the nuclear energy” are discarded; energy is purposely wasted and “thrown-away usefully and purposely” by allowing the highly-energetic neutrons to escape.
    Here are two data points. The Hutchison effect involves extremely-high frequency waves at resonant harmonics whose wavelengths are comparable to the distances betwen molecules and atoms of materials. Casaba-Howitzer and Project Excalibur were some of the origins to channeling selected wavelengths (e.g., x-rays) from the spectrum of nuclear emissions.
    Wild-ass, bat-shit crazy extrapolation from those two data points would be a neutron device that would channel, say, x-ray frequencies of the nuclear detonation in a narrow cone ~upwards~ and missing the spire. Additional trade-off’s in design could further sacrifice portions of the heat and blast wave yields.
    The cone of x-ray (or other realm in spectrum) frequencies at resonant harmonics with its targets’ components would achieve material dissassociation in the target. “Aersolization” of materials, like iron.
    Another effect of this DEW related energy infusion — like a microwave — could be to turn water molecules trapped in materials instantly and directly into very hot steam, whose rapidly expanding volume-pressure blows apart the materials in question: concrete, drywall, humans, etc.
    Such neutron detonations had a tactical but intense heat wave associated with it. Limited by the design and placement in the towers, it would have been masked by debris raining down from above. The “steel doobies,” the arches, the horseshoes, and the iron spheres exhibited in dust samples could be attributed to this side-effect. Mutual exclusivity does ~not~ have to exist between traditional nuclear side-effects and what is attributed to Hutchison effects.
    Some videos of the towers demise captures what looks like squib charges running ahead of the collapse wave. Again, my wild-ass, bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter is that this squib was the result of a conventional charge used to initiate the whole nuclear process. Maybe it was needed to inject the fissionable material together that then generates the high heats needed for the fusion process whose output yields are then manipulated. The output yields were directed upwards, which means they plow through existing structure above as well as then falling debris. Other pictures and videos exhibit what appears to be a fountain-effect regarding dustified content having an upward component to its trajectory vector before gravity turns it around and it falls to the ground.
    If you look closely, the demise of both towers had remnants of a spire (one more short-lived than the other), which is a smoking gun that strongly indicates placement and aiming of such devices in the tower to miss the spire.
    The duration of under-rubble hot-spots cannot be attributed to DEW or nuclear heat wave, because materials heated by such would have begun to cool as soon as the heat source stopped. 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the tower basements — even ignoring fresh air limitations and fire-fighting efforts — cannot account for the duration, as proven by math. Likewise, math proves nano-thermite with any combination of chemical-based explosives or indendiaries that were ~unspent~ from an original purpose of pulverization would be in quantities obscenely massive and not at all Occam Razor. Thus, as admitted by Dr. Steven Jones (September 2012), “Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite).”
    The energy sources (neutron nuclear devices) — and in particular from devices that failed or fizzled — comes closest to explaining the duration of hot-spots and anomalies in those under-rubble fires. Need I name drop “Fukushima?”
    When the tretris-evidence blocks of the meteorite and fused filing cabinet comes down that we must orient into our 9/11 theory stacks, we need not quibble that a DEW portion of the expected yield created something as opposed to other side-effects also playing a role.
    The wall assemblies that fell and were streaming gray matter as if a mixture of smoke, steam, and disassociated matter should be recognized as the same wall assemblies “steamed cleaned to the beam’s metal” on top of the piles.
    Each floor of the towers had a steel pan on which the concrete slabs were poured. Between this and the steel outer wall assemblies, an EMP portion of the nuclear detonation would be largely mitigate except for what might slip out of window slits line-of-sight.
    As part of my bat-shit, crazy speculation, I’ve often stated that the vehicle damage in the parking lot and along West Broadway could be attributed to Eddy Currents created by EMP escaping the towers.
    However, I leave the door open to 9/11 WTC damage not being exclusively the domain of one weapons system. It could be many, particularly when the crater to WTC-6, the bore-holes to WTC-5, and the level of WTC-4’s main edifice at a line with its North Wing are considered. Lasers from space aren’t out of the question. The vehicle damage then might be attributed to (a) targeting corrections, (b) beam start-up, (c)_ beam fall-off.
    Before the carousel gets cranked, Mr. Jeff Prager’s analysis of the dust sampled by USGS proves existence and correlation of atomic elements indicative of fission. This is a valid nuclear clue, along with tritium. I attribute this to fission-triggering of fusion in the neutron device.
    In conclusion, the above is an imperfect marrying of Dr. Wood’s DEW theories with a neutron nuclear devices to explain how the towers’ content were pulverized. A different beast.

    1. So there we have it, Señor has commandeered yet another thread to smear his putrid pap, and to hell with the issue of “antisemitism” and the discussion preceding his crashing the party here.

    2. “We will have a world government whether you like it or not.” ~James Warburg – before the Senate February 17, 1950
      “We will have a discussion on nuclear due whether you like it or not.” ~Señor el Once – April 8, 2014 on Truth and Shadows

    3. Mr. Rogue has made 67 out of 149 (45%) comments so far to this thread. I have made only 8 including this one (5%).
      If we restrict ourselves to only comments made with today’s date, my total including this one is 5, while Mr. Rogue’s total is 13. If we set aside all of Mr. Rogue’s on-topic postings from today, his count of off-topic postings still exceeds mine by a wide margin, which contradicts his own words:

      So there we have it, Señor has commandeered yet another thread to smear his putrid pap, and to hell with the issue of “antisemitism” and the discussion preceding his crashing the party here.

      Further contradicting Mr. Rogue are his 5 postings from today so far to his masterful Carnival d’Maxifuckanus.
      He ponders:

      Who does he attack on Truth and Shadows? Mr Ruff and myself. Who are the most active commentators on Truth and Shadows?

      Mr. Ruff wasn’t attacked. He was reminded that he is expected to “walk his own talk.” Mr. Ruff’s track record from several instances has been to pompously plunk down “rules for debate” on which he himself has been proven hypocritical.
      As for Mr. Rogue, when he spreads lies, he can expect to be called on it.
      Mr. Rogue writes on his lame blog:

      I despise this little punk… Maxifuckanus is still spreading this bullshit. He even partners up with a low life papsmear like Owenmeister… Full-Monty Delirium: Another fusillade from Maxitwat of non sequiturs, misinterpretations, and full frontal lies. … Again the little twit is confused… Señor El Once is the cops… This is the profile of an agent; a clever mole eating the roots of 9/11 truth… Señor Maxitwat is not interested in anything but promoting spurious nonsense, and defaming those who make strong arguments.

      Defaming those who make strong arguments?!! El-oh-el! Nothing like Mr. Rogue discrediting himself.
      Despite Mr. Rogue’s hypnotic assertions — “I have address every single one of these spurious points on this page already.” –, it was a round of new lies from Mr. Rogue that were the subject and that he skirts in his hypocritical musings.
      Because Mr. Rogue makes it so easy, let’s hit upon another lie.

      It has never been my or any other’s position that the pyroclastic flows were particularly hot.

      In the discussions where Mr. Rogue’s theories needed to address the torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, conveniently forgetful Mr. Rogue was indeed championing that nano-thermite and other badness in the dust caused this anomalous vehicle damage. For him to say “never my position” is so easy to expose as both a lie and cheating debate tactics. In fairness, Mr. Rogue has modified his stance based on dubious work by Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can’t.
      Mr. Rogue charges that my postings are “a form of intimidation to silence [Mr. Rogue].”
      I only want to silence Mr. Rogue in spreading his defamation and lies. And if he isn’t going to discuss Fourth-Generation Nuclear Devices in good faith, then indeed he should STFU there, too, and just ignore me. Don’t rise to the occassion. Shouldn’t be too hard.
      But for all his charges of me “being the cops, the profile of an agent, a clever mole”, readers only need to compare his 45% of the comments in this thread with my 5%. Projecting anyone? Amazing how this clever mole only has one or two hobby-horse, while innocent old Mr. Rogue plays the “Wal-Mart Greeter” to all who post here.
      What I find most dispicable in Mr. Rogue is that he has a switch. As soon as it gets flipped, there’s no turning back, no compromise, no re-evaluation even when something new is put on the table. Mr. Rogue’s switch has been flipped against me since his entrance. It is flipped against DEW, against nukes, against any combination of the two, and is flipped for chemical-based explosives/indendiaries despite the science and math proving it obscenely unreasonable. If anything exposes an agent’s profile, it would be an inability to consider new information and amending views.

  28. Hoare’s dictum
    This dictum is named after computer scientist C.A.R. Hoare, who said, “There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors.”
    This applies to logical arguments as well: you can make the argument so simple that there are obviously no errors. Or you can make it so complicated that there are no obvious errors.

  29. “Mr. Rogue has made 67 out of 149 (45%) comments so far to this thread. I have made only 8 including this one (5%).”~Señor
    Bullshit beancounter “statistics”. My commentary until Señor was all on the topic of the thread. I can write this comment now, and it will be counted as another comment of this few words, whereas Señor’s commentary is always a long diatribe. This whole gambit of Señor’s is scurrilous nonsense.

    1. Good thing I can count, because Mr. Rogue obviously can’t. He’s got four (4) comments that link to his lame blog that were off-topic and were posted this morning before my two. Another proven ~lie~ from Mr. Rogue. //

      1. Those four comments, three of which have links to my blog were posted after the first opening lines of your nookiedoodoo shit. You were already on your nookiedoodoo roll on the 7th. You posted more crap later, after I had posted the links, but that is not what you are implying here.
        As I explained to Socrates, I posted those links in an effort to avoid this detour. Your attempts to revise history right on the very thread where things take place are remarkably transparent.
        Your the beancounter, but you can’t even keep the sequence straight.

  30. “In the discussions where Mr. Rogue’s theories needed to address the torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, conveniently forgetful Mr. Rogue was indeed championing that nano-thermite and other badness in the dust caused this anomalous vehicle damage. For him to say “never my position” is so easy to expose as both a lie and cheating debate tactics. In fairness, Mr. Rogue has modified his stance based on dubious work by Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can’t.”~Señor
    It was not the pyroclastic flows that effected the cars along West Broadway and the car park, all of the cars were directly under the still incendiary debris falling from the tower. The cars along West Broadway were towed there afterwards.
    “Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can’t.”~Señor
    The dust was full of mettalic microspheres, the smug assumption that such material could not cause electrical shorts is more spurious assumption.
    Yes, indeed Señor, I do despise you with a passion. It is not your championing of the Nookiedoodoo nonsense as much as your intent to defame and disparage my character. I didn’t start this “agent” crap here on this blog, that was your gambit right after I began posting here. My final straw was when you accused me of puppeting A Wright. Your historical revisionism is blatant bullshit.
    And yes indeed, I have become convinced you are part of a well organized unit of Sunsteinian moles out to eat the roots of the truth movement. You’re the cops in my book.
    As you have already commandeered this thread, let’s go for it.
    This BOOK that you make such a fuss about. I offered you the piece of crap back. You refused. I came to the conclusion that there was nothing substantially different in the Wood book, than could be found on her web site. You were the one that insisted the book was necessary to get the “new info” that was missing from the site, and that her work could not be fairly evaluated without it. I read enough of the book to discover this was a flat out lie. You tried to chump me with your strong arm sales pitch, and when it backfired on you it ruined your day. You keep quoting me out of context and claiming that these are proofs that I am a liar. You are in fact the liar and obviously very expert at it.
    You chagrin also revolves around disparaging my commitment to stay on the case and engaged here. Where you are finally now attempting a full court press to paint me as a villain, whereas nothing I have said on any other subject but your bullshit nookiedoo can be faulted, even by you. So you pretend that since I dispute your bullshit that I must be a liar…but I only lie about that. It is this inconsistency in your charges, that leads to smarmy complaints that I act as “the Walmart Greeter” here, because you can’t find any other valid reason to complain for my constant engagement on this site.
    I am not going to roll over for you here. But I will say, that if this were my site that you have now taken over for the last part of this thread, I would kick your ass off post haste. And this is the same reason I won’t allow one stinking word from you on my blog.

  31. And thanks for posting the link to the Maxifuckanus thread Señor. If you think that you are going to come out smelling of roses after a reading of that entire thread, and not just the out of context portions you grab and paste here, you are delusional beyond redemption.

  32. I have no idea of what percentage of commentary this one will count as, but I do have to wonder; it would seem to me that the readership here must be pretty sick of this flame war. I know I am, because I had no intent in getting involved in this. But Señor’s rabid attacks cannot go without answer.
    I leave it to him to cease this nonsense now. But will not hesitate to defend myself if this continues.

  33. Enough.
    I don’t want to read any more of this exchange. I do not want to see any more comments on this thread dealing with nukes, no planes, anyone’s comments on another blog, mention of discussions on another blog, and rehashed personal attacks (whether deserved or not) relating to any of these.
    The subject at hand lends itself to comments on a variety of things, including anti-Semitism (or unfair attacks of anti-Semitism), media propaganda, and how we can advance the cause of 9/11 Truth despite the media and despite our differences of opinion on how this false flag was pulled off.
    Can we all manage that?

  34. It can be difficult to regain momentum lost. Trying to regain the thrust I was on before the flashbang… some reconstruction is in order.
    We were considering the psychological tensions created when the curse of “antisemitism” is leveled. Like many aspects in an Orwellian state, it is a designed strategy of tension. The differing reactions of various personalities can be dramatic. Mostly it will result in confusion and the average person just turning off and away from the whole subject, as if it doesn’t exist.
    But when it is constant solid-state paradigm, there will be other reactions, some hyper and hysterical, some reasoned and well thought through, and all manner in-between.
    I think the example of Owen is something that can be highlighted. He is obviously very angry. He also feels that he is shielded from criticism of his hyper-reactionary stance to the question of “the Jews”. He feels justified in projecting his unfocused hatred towards a whole group without reasoned distinctions being made.
    Those who point out such reasoned distinctions to someone like Owen are met with more reactionary hysteria. His protective shell grows thicker. And as I have been trying to articulate here, this is exactly the desired result of those playing the ‘control game’ of the Hegelian dialectic. Owen has chosen a team. And this team has its own particular form of groupthink. And Owen marches in lockstep to a rather militarist drum beat. Of course this is the “true-believer” syndrome, that comes in so many varied shapes and sizes. It is a dogmatic state of mind, and a hard one to reason with.

  35. I may not have been clear enough previously when I listed things I did not want discussed further on this thread. ANYTHING off topic will be deleted as several comments have been over the past few minutes. And it doesn’t matter whether future comments are in response to previous ones.

      1. Thanks, but I’ll decide what is allowed and not allowed. My purging, as you call it, is not selective at all. I was very clear that I wanted the discussion that had derailed this thread to stop. Not forever, but on this thread. You seemed to suggest that you had not agreed to these conditions (and therefore were not bound by them). But this is not a negotiation. And your comments were not the only ones removed.
        I try to be as fair as possible, often erring on the side of being too lenient. When I ask for an end to a particular departure from the topic, I expect that to be respected.

          1. Hi Mr Syed,
            It is encouraging to hear from you – to know that some are still following this.
            So I thank you as well.

          2. I have no issues with Mr. McKee’s handling of the situation, only respect for Mr. McKee. Our history on T&S is longer than all others, and I’m sure it gives him no pleasure to (legitimately) smack down an “internet friend.”
            One benefit to the recent change to instant-approval of postings is that emails are sent immediately to those who have notifications turned on. While the comment can be purged, the email can’t be recalled.
            I like to assist my debate opponents by providing my sources of information and my arguments, for which the email serves that purpose even if the comment doesn’t survive for being off-topic [not that it hasn’t been lobbied that an on-topic area is needed.]
            Why assist my opponents? Because it isn’t about me being right; it is about what is the Truth. Forearmed with my sources and arguments, if they find errors in either one, they assist me in winnowing things down to what is the Truth. I have the integrity to admit when something duped me and I was wrong.
            For when my nuclear hobby-horse topic comes up again — and it will, because that is where Truth leads –, my opponents’ in-boxes have foreshadowed the cards I’ll be playing. Counter them if they can. “Legitimately,” I might add, and not with cheap-tricks as some have been known to deploy, particularly when cornered and/or their premise is found inadequate.

          3. I’m not necessarily opposed to a debate or discussion of the nuclear question (I’d rather have the topic dealt with on a single thread rather than have it come up everywhere else), because I am concerned about the truth, first and foremost.But I have serious doubts about whether this could be done here in a productive and informative way. Perhaps it can, but it would have to be more than a rehash of what has been fought over here at length in recent months.
            And as I’ve said to you privately, I have a full plate right now, both in terms of the blog and other writing projects, so I’m not going to want to tackle something over the next two or three months that would be a major time and energy commitment. I’ve also been focused more on how to get the 9/11 truth message to a wider audience than on resolving issues like what type of explosives were used to bring the towers down. But that could change in the weeks ahead.
            I do certainly acknowledge and appreciate that you have been part of this blog from the beginning, often offering support and encouragement when there wasn’t a lot of that coming from elsewhere. And I appreciate that you, Hybridrogue, and others who comment here are able to offer thoughtful and evidence-based commentary on the subject of 9/11. But while we don’t all agree on the details, we have to find a way to get on the same page as far as moving the discussion forward productively.

  36. There is a technique that the Zionists are fond of using, especially when they are being scrutinized for the various acts of brutality they have done throughout the ages; that is to play the battered victim. To turn the tables rhetorically and pose as mere innocents.
    Remarkably enough, this confidence game works a great deal of the time.

  37. It does. Any government, any country, and any political movement should be open to scrutiny and criticism based on facts and evidence. When people are afraid to speak the truth because they will be called anti-Semite then they will often just remain silent. My family history goes back to Britain and Northern Ireland, and I have no problem criticizing anything being done in those places or on behalf of those places. I would never accuse someone of being a bigot who criticizes British imperialism, past or present, But Michael Coren and others like him would have us believe that any criticism of Israel or Zionism is simply anti-Jewish bigotry.

    1. Yes, it is a sort of reverse psychology that the so-called “war on terrorism” is framed in. The US is involved in the very same thing. False Flags are often predicated on this concept as well.
      I won’t quote anything here from the work, but the Protocols have a great deal to say about this reversal process, from aggressor to victim, and the manipulation of what they call “our Lesser Brethren” – which of course refers to the average Jews, that are entirely in the dark as to the agenda, and their unfortunate part in it. The Zionist leadership makes damn sure they are never in the position of being victimized, but there are the lower class who are always available as cannon fodder and pawns on the chessboard of power.

    2. “But Michael Coren and others like him would have us believe that any criticism of Israel or Zionism is simply anti-Jewish bigotry.”~Craig McKee
      And so by the same token; would Jewish bigotry be called ‘Semitism’?
      Again, that would be a nonsense-word, the same as ‘antisemitism’ is a nonsense word, as I illustrated in a post on the thread just before this one.
      I think such analysis shows that this whole issue is framed in Newspeak by the MSM, and all of its flaming propagandists – Coren being just the highlight du jour.

    “Analysis has always been at the heart of philosophical method, but it has been understood and practiced in many different ways. Perhaps, in its broadest sense, it might be defined as a process of isolating or working back to what is more fundamental by means of which something, initially taken as given, can be explained or reconstructed. The explanation or reconstruction is often then exhibited in a corresponding process of synthesis.”~Michael Beaney
    Socrates made a distinction between “true belief” and “knowledge”.
    ‘They embraced that which they perceived as the way it was
    But the way it was, was not that which they perceived
    An artifact believed: The Golden Calf.’ ~ Willy Whitten, lyric
    \\][// ®

  39. Well this thread is apparently dead.
    The question is, did it die of natural causes? Or was it thrown under a bus?

    1. I vote for it having been thrown under a bus. I find it very interesting in each new article from Craig the new posters that pop up. Invariably there seems to be an agenda other than honest discussion and debate behind their posts. I notice further that when these agendas fail that the derailers roll in to spoil the discussion. I am fully convinced that professional disinfo operatives pay attention to this blog and from time to time pop in for a little chaos creation.
      For the record since this thread is dead SOE continues dishonestly to portray myself and HR1 as refusing to address his/her/its nuke theories. We have both addressed them at length and debunked them thoroughly. I am sick of SEO claiming we have not done so, it is dishonest and should not be allowed to continue. I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered. That is what the troll A.Wright used to do. It is just an attempt to waste my time along with the obvious derailing of the thread. SEO claims all kinds of new nukes are out there but to my knowledge shows no evidence that these “low radiation” nukes even exist in reality much less that they existed in 2001. The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again.

      1. Mr. Ruff: How can honest discussion and even debate exist when on my second post entry, I am called either a Zionist stooge or a member of a terrorist group? Let me answer that for you. It can’t and that is what this site is for: To actually shut down any real discussion of the issues by paper activists. Any real activist worth his or her salt would not be calling another poster of this site a low-life pap smear.
        Craig: Your appeal for civility rings hollow when you allow other posters’ character to be defamed by others with impunity. I’m a low-life pap smear, huh? Silence is consent, buddy. You set yourself up for some serious liability when you don’t squelch that type of emotionally unbalanced talk.

        1. owenmeister,
          I have read through your current comment several times, just to be sure I didn’t miss it, so I am positive that you still are not answering the question put to you many times now.
          This question is and remains:
          “Is it your opinion that Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business?”
          . . . . . . . .
          No one has called you “a low-life pap smear” on this thread. You tend toward hysterical hyperbole, and have a distinct and obvious inability when it comes to reading comprehension, which results in your continued nonsensical commentary.
          You began your participation here with baseless insults, asserting that there has been some sort of campaign to veil the participation of Israel in the events of 9/11, and charging that Mr McKee is “baiting”. You are then shocked, ‘oh so shocked’ that any here would take umbrage at such outrageous nonsense.
          I suggest you answer the question put to you or discontinue your obvious trolling here.

          1. You referenced me in a comment to Senor El Once that we were in cahoots together, you and that low-life pap smear. Are you denying you made that comment? My reading skills and character, unlike yours, is in fine shape.
            As in your question put to me, I think my initial commentary speaks for itself. PNAC, Comptroller to the Pentagon, Director of Homeland Security a who’s who of elitist Jews. I don’t need to write a doctoral dissertation each and every time I regretfully converse with you. If you can’t read between the lines, I’m not going to walk you by hand through life.

          2. The problem you are having here OwenMeister, is in using a quote from “Senor El Once” that is not posted here on this blog, but which comes from my blog – wherein I can say any goddamned thing I please.
            You therefore have no basis for complaint to level at Mr Mckee or Truth and Shadows. And if you don’t like my use of colorful language on my own blog spot, tough shit. You might also take it up with Mr Once, who is the one who put that up on this blog – it appears here in HIS commentary exclusively.
            “If you can’t read between the lines, I’m not going to walk you by hand through life.”~OwenMeister
            I am an expert at the deconstruction of written text bucko. It is the fact that I can “read between the lines” that compels me to get you to say plainly and clearly that you are blaming “the Jews”, when it is obvious that members of every ethnicity, religion and creed who are among the perpetrators of this crime and the war crimes that proceeded from it.
            Your refusal to parse these points is what gives assholes like Coren ammo to make his accusations – as linguistically misframed as they are.
            And this is the very reason I and others here want to distance ourselves from you and your childish views.

          3. Mr. Rogue wrote on April 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm on his blog:

            What amazes and sickens me is that even now, after all of this time, Maxifuckanus is still spreading this bullshit. He even partners up with a low life papsmear like Owenmeister, who has not made a single comment of substance on the current thread at Truth and Shadows.

          4. You Señor El Once are the one responsible for this confusion, it is your continued stalking of my blog, and mining it for commentary elsewhere that puts the onus on you.
            I have the right to say anything I please on my own blog. You have the right to read that blog. Your rights end there and your liability begins here.
            Perhaps we have learned the lesson of just who the jejune parties are here, from this fiasco you started, aye Mr Once?

          5. Mr. Rogue’s blog is public. Mr. Rogue’s words were quoted fairly and accurately. Attribution was given to Mr. Rogue. It was explicitly stated that the comments were made on Mr. Rogue’s blog. A link was provided to the blog article in general; a search from there would have found the offending statements. The only thing missing at the time was a link to the exact location within the comments, due to changes in the T&S administration of comments containing more than one URL.
            Liability isn’t mine. Mr. Rogue wrote the offending words. Sounds like he finally copping up to having stated them after his previous weasel “nobody called anybody that on this thread.”
            Mr. Rogue should look up “criminal libel”. Having one’s own blog does not give anyone the right to say whatever they want. At some threshold of proven libel on a personal but public blog, the writer can be held liable in a court of law. [I’ve been through a portion of it before. My lawyer counseled me into stopping the effort, because (a) the libel would probably get worse — from tag-teaming buddies — before it got better and offensive statements removed; (b) getting a judgment in my favor is different than the prospect of restitution, which in Mr. Rogue’s case probably won’t even cover legal fees.]

          6. Perhaps Mr Once should keep the words of his lawyer in mind. It is my interpretation of that advice that Mr Once was being fairly advised that he was attempting what is technically referred to as a “frivolous case” – in-which it would be Mr Once who would be held liable for court costs.
            I would argue that there is no “criminal liable” in calling someone a “papsmear” – I would posit that someone bringing charges of criminal liable for such satirical material would be thrown out of court.
            Again, if Mr Once is tired of reading my blog and getting a sharp stick in his eye, he has the option of keeping his eyes off of my space there.
            And I would urge Mr Once to take me up on writing that essay on Lenny Bruce that I post on my “most offensive site”
            And I would advise that Mr Once take his own advice and look up “criminal liable” with his browser and get a clue.

      2. @Adam Ruff
        I don’t know where you have answered questions I have asked since you rarely address anything I write here except to respond with derogatory personal insults that are not based on anything I have written, combined with reminders of how much more moral and righteous you are yourself.

        1. Mr Wright also has a question pending that he has failed to answer. In case he has forgotten that question it is:
          Why are you here Wright? What motivates you to stalk this forum? What is in it for you? You have never even attempted to give an explanation.
          You haven’t made a reasonable answer to this question since it first came up. Now, why are you defending the absurd narrative of this criminal warmonger state?
          How can you propose that it is a “derogatory personal insult” for you to be characterized as a stooge and a shill for the system? It is your whole shtick. You claim that you have been insulted for things that are not based on anything you have written. This is utter bullshit Wright. EVERYTHING you have written here is clearly state propaganda.
          That you persist here, even though your thinly veiled cover is blown, indicates that you are compensated in some form for your web presence dealing with 9/11.
          Do you share office space with this “owenmeister” clown?

          1. @Hybridrogue1
            Considering that I have previously written here that my name isn’t A.Wright, I’m not an american, am an ordinary office worker who has taken an interest in this issue of 911 , hate to see people wrongly accused , and people being accused without a defense being offered (apparently not a good enough reason to contribute a few comments on this forum) – all of which then resulted in more accusations from you that I am some kind of agent assigned to the forum and, bizarrely, a search on a database to find people named ‘A. Wright ‘ I’d say telling you anything would be pretty much a waste of time. Apparently whatever I tell you won’t be believed so why should I bother telling you anything?

          2. “Apparently whatever I tell you won’t be believed so why should I bother telling you anything?”– Not A Wright
            That’s a good point. I don’t believe anything you say, so you might as well buzz off.
            You cannot prove the obviously guilty parties innocent here. This is not a court of law. Your lame posing as ‘Counsel for the Defense’ is entirely ineffective when addressed to those of us who understand that the official story is impossible, and so have investigated the case to exhaustive conclusion.
            Nevertheless, there is only your MO to go by here. It doesn’t matter if you are employed by the warmongers Mr. Not A Wright, such vile apologia is criminal all the same.

  40. Consider what a full spectrum dominance regime would develop as a strategy to conquer the remaining rational elements in a society. Taking Cass Sunstein’s formula to heart, it is reasonable to assume that there would be an assortment of approaches taken. For a dialectical purpose there would be at least two teams directed towards dampening independent thought.
    One side of the dialectical coin would be the outright stooges for the state. A shining example here would be Mr Wright, a straight forward shill and apologist for the state apparatus. For a synthesis to occur there would be a team of moles, pretending at being a part of the group of independent rational free thinkers. Owenmeister, stands as a very probable example here.
    So herein we find ourselves stretched between two extremes; the staid ‘conservative’ pretender {Wright}, and the lunatic fringe ‘radical {Owen}.
    Both yet still presenting a similar complaint, that of being “insulted” by the responses given to them here.
    They do not necessarily need be connected in any official sense, but take cues from one another. However proposing the possibility that they are in fact working together as team members is not out of the question, nor unreasonable in the slightest.
    Another distinct possibility is that they are both simply stark raving mad, or dupes of the PR Regime. Either way, they both present us with spurious and ludicrous commentary, giving us the opportunity of analysis as to their motivation.

    1. And the paper activist spouts off again. Let’s get a few things clear – legend in your own mind – there is no allusion that I am a damn good free thinker. Calling me a lunatic brings the picture every time to you looking in the mirror. I’ve done more constructive, loving activist work in my less than 50 years on this planet than you’ve done in your less than stellar 65 years on same planet.
      Further in your derangement from reality, I draw no cues from A. Wright. Sorry, pal, but while you camp out here endlessly on this site watching for alleged infiltrators, I’m saving lives and giving hope to many.

      1. Well Owen Meister
        If you are really the Mighty Mouse you claim, I suggest you be off to save the day for someone out there, because you don’t have the communication skills to write commentary on blogs.
        If your attempts at insult weren’t so funny, I might be a little pissed off, but as it is I am simply amused. But you are a great subject to study, as far as “personalities” go.

  41. Owenmeister, you started your contribution here by accusing me of “baiting” and “diverting” and writing fluff – which were baseless and very insulting attacks. It is your pouting about civility that rings hollow to me.

    1. Can you Craig, tell the board how my comments directed to you are baseless? It’s seems like you’re dangling on this one. My comments about baiting were more geared to the inn keeper of the bait shop hotel. Further, what have you reported that gets the 9/11 Truth Community as far down the rabbit hole as possible?
      And are you conflating my alleged insulting comments about fluff and diversion with a comment directed towards me that I am a low-life pap smear?

  42. “And are you conflating my alleged insulting comments about fluff and diversion with a comment directed towards me that I am a low-life pap smear?” –owenmeister
    Unless Owenmeister is one of Señor’s sock puppets he is totally delusional.
    I never called anyone a “low-life pap smear” on this thread, and the passage that has stuck in his guilty craw is this:
    My comment of APRIL 8, 2014 AT 3:11 PM:
    ‘So there we have it, Señor has commandeered yet another thread to smear his putrid pap, and to hell with the issue of “antisemitism” and the discussion preceding his crashing the party here.’
    As anyone with 5th grade level reading comprehension can see, no one has been called a “low-life pap smear” on this thread. Not even Señor was called a “low-life pap smear”.
    Now there is the issue of the distinction between the leadership of Zion, and the Jewish people as a whole, which Ownmeister refuses to address.
    And this is at the root of his obvious pathology and mental confusion.
    Finally there is the issue of Israeli involvement in the perpetration of 9/11. If Owenmeister feels the issue hasn’t been address in enough depth on this particular thread, he might have put that case forward in a positive manner. Instead he makes spurious allegations, as to baiting and fluff and lack of focus on his pet aspect of 9/11.
    Owenmeister needs to get past his jejune asinine and grow up, and keep his juvenile ass out of adult discussions.

    1. Dear Mr. Owen Meister,
      My apologies for the confusion and for not providing the link, held back at the time because too many links puts comments into the moderation queue.
      Contrary to Mr. Rogue’s charge, you are not delusional about what Mr. Rogue called you. You aren’t my sock puppet either. Mr. Rogue attacks me with such charges to defray the intimate athlete’s hand/foot connection [and a family connection] that Mr. A.Wright and Mr. Rogue seem to have. Did you notice how tag-teamer Mr. Ruff called for Mr. A.Wright to appear; Mr. A.Wright danced his jig; and the only carousel cranker to engage him — as usual — was Mr. Rogue? Legend establishing.
      Mr. Rogue wrote on April 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm on his blog:

      What amazes and sickens me is that even now, after all of this time, Maxifuckanus is still spreading this bullshit. He even partners up with a low life papsmear like Owenmeister, who has not made a single comment of substance on the current thread at Truth and Shadows.

      Thus, Mr. Rogue is technically correct that on this thread he has not called anyone a “low-life pap smear.” The deficit is rectified on his blog, though. Such a juvenile effort through and through. Mr. Rogue needs to get past his jejune asinine and grow up in his web presence.
      P.S. Herewith I proclaim to participating on T&S with only one alias. I am not Owen Meister. And my views on the Protocols of Zion have been previously posted here. Interesting, but not by hobby-horse.

      1. “The deficit is rectified on his blog, though. Such a juvenile effort through and through. Mr. Rogue needs to get past his jejune asinine and grow up in his web presence.”
        Did you read the one about Lenny Bruce on my blog Mr Once?
        If you don’t like my “web presence” – it is probably best you stop stalking my blog. It is my blog, and as I say above in a previous post, I can say whatever I choose there. You have the right to read that blog, but the onus is yours when you choose to copy and paste from my blog and spread it elsewhere.
        One more thing Mr Once, you are not an invited member of my readership on the HR1blog. Your commentary is not welcome there either. The repercussions of making such commentary elsewhere should be a lesson to you. But since your major agenda here has become defaming me, you seem to have lost any proper perspective on what is and what is not pertinent to the commentary that appears here on Truth and Shadows.
        P.S. Herewith I proclaim to participating on T&S with only one alias. I am not A. Wright. .

  43. Owenmeister,
    I would like an apology from you for accusing me of allowing an insult that in fact did not appear on this blog.
    You wrote: “Craig: Your appeal for civility rings hollow when you allow other posters’ character to be defamed by others with impunity. I’m a low-life pap smear, huh? Silence is consent, buddy. You set yourself up for some serious liability when you don’t squelch that type of emotionally unbalanced talk.”
    Silence is consent? Serious liability? Will you acknowledge that the insult in question did not occur on this blog and that you had no right to accuse me of tolerating it?

  44. This thread is now closed for comments. A new post will be up shortly, and it is my hope that we can get back to constructive commentary at that time. I do not want to see this rather petty argument continue on the new thread. Thank you.

Comments are closed.