I was invited this week to write a commentary on a recent episode of CNN’s The Lead for the web site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The substance of that article has been incorporated into this one, but new material has also been added.
May 24, 2014
By Craig McKee
The 9/11 Truth movement is under attack once again – but this time there’s more good news than bad.
It seems that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s decision to distribute “alternative” pamphlets at the site of the new National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York City has pushed the media into a flurry of hysterical attacks against “truthers” (they call us “so-called truthers”) and what the media love to call “conspiracy theorists.”
These attacks, and the attention that the 9/11 Truth movement is getting as a result of the opening of the museum, mean that the public is being reminded that what happened on 9/11 is still very much in dispute. And that, on balance, is a good thing.
The pamphlets being given out by A&E volunteers mimic the design of the “official” ones (which has provoked much of the media outrage and resulting attention), but instead of the official story, they contain information about how the three World Trade Center towers had to have been brought down with explosives. Unlike the official version, the photo on the cover of the AE pamphlet shows the twin towers AND Building 7.
But beyond the pamphlets, it’s the very existence of the museum that could backfire on the propagandists and perpetrators of the 9/11 false flag operation. This building –which is an attempt to literally set in stone the paper-thin official story of Muslim extremist hijackers – offers a focal point for those opposed to the official lie. It has also given new energy to those determined to fight for the truth about what really happened on 9/11.
In its attacks this week, the media dusted off all their favorite talking points about how truthers are insensitive to the victims of 9/11, how they ignore all that terrific “evidence” in pushing their crazy theories, and how they want to believe in conspiracy theories because it helps them make sense of an increasingly upsetting and senseless world.
One wonders at times whether they read from a single script – if they don’t, they might as well.
Most notably, we had the cartoonishly inane installment of CNN’s The Lead with the smug Jake Tapper, featuring the laughable theories of Slate magazine editor Emily Bazelon. The two trotted out the usual attacks, but Bazelon went several steps further, contending that right-wing anti-government sentiment and people not wanting to pay their taxes are what’s really behind the persistence of the 9/11 Truth movement.
But before we get into the details of the CNN piece, let’s look at a few other print reactions to the A&E initiative at the museum:
The Toronto Star, in its article entitled “‘Truthers’ persist in the face of evidence,” went for the “it’s all been debunked” argument as staff reporter Jacques Gallant offers this gem: “Official investigations have always disproved the truthers’ versions of events, but they are relentless.”.
The “relentless” reference, another common talking point, suggests a kind of mindless dedication to a position when all the facts point elsewhere. The problem is that where 9/11 is concerned, all the facts contradict the official story, and any sincere journalist who cared to actually do a bit of research would see that very quickly.
The Star piece pulls out all the familiar clichés. There’s the insensitivity to the victims again (“Not surprisingly, these conspiracy theorists have angered many by loudly expressing their views with little regard for the feelings of those affected by a particular tragedy.”). Then there’s the lumping together of anyone who questions anything into one homogenous group (“Aside from the 9/11 group, other prominent truthers include climate change deniers (hello, Pat Sajak), those who questioned the veracity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate (the “birthers”) and those convinced that the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, was not the work of a lone gunman.”).
The Washington Times had this headline: “9/11 truthers to distribute propaganda at museum opening.” One wonders how the Times defines propaganda, exactly. Apparently, it’s any idea that differs from what they have already told their readers.
Then there’s The Village Voice, which we’re told “broke” the pamphlet story (as if it was ever meant to be a secret). The Voice noted that AE911Truth is not from New York and is raising money to fund the trip – as if that disqualifies them from having an opinion on 9/11 or this “national” museum. And then they offered this nugget of sarcasm: “If nothing else has worked to open the eyes of the non-conspiracy-minded public, surely fake brochures will do the trick.”
My favorite headline of a print piece on the campaign was by the web site The Week. Their blurb in the “Speed reads” section of their site (doesn’t that just suggest intellectual depth) was: “9/11 truthers plan subversive protest of terror attack museum.”
Ah, the old subversive free speech. I thought we got rid of that by now.
But it was with the CNN broadcast that things really got crazy. Tapper’s report is a hysterical compendium of all the empty slogans and anti-conspiracy-theory talking points that make up the mainstream media’s continuing attack on the 9/11 Truth movement. It didn’t take more than a couple of seconds into the report to know how Tapper was going to play the story.
He tells us that “the conspiracy group” AE911Truth plans to stand outside the museum and hand out fake museum pamphlets that look exactly like the real ones. The whole exercise is labelled an affront to the victims’ families.
“Can’t these people give it a rest for one day out of respect for the families?” an exasperated Tapper queries, adding that the 9/11 memorial is “sacred.”
Tapper states that truthers are using the opening of the museum as an opportunity to spread their lies about the attacks. He reads from the AE pamphlet: “Welcome to the other 9/11 story” but then adds, “the false one.”
Of AE, he says: “Of course they don’t prove anything except for man’s capacity to believe crazy things and man’s insensitivity to, for instance, the families of the approximately 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylania by Islamic terrorists with al-Qaeda as every credible investigation has actually proven.”
I’m not sure if he’s talking about the 9/11 Commission Report, which even commission members have called a “cover-up” or the NIST report, which AE911Truth research (and other research) has shown to be rooted in fantasy, not science.
It was Bazelon’s job to help Tapper figure out just what is psychologically motivating all these crazy and heartless truthers.
She says: “Usually with a conspiracy theory you imagine that people are trying to make sense of the senseless. But with 9/11 we have a real conspiracy called al-Qaeda. And so one has to imagine that the anti-government motivation of the 9/11 truthers is really what’s driving this. Because if you could imagine the government made up 9/11 as a hoax then the government is completely monstrous, and there’s no reason to believe anything any federal official says and certainly no reason to pay your taxes.”
She certainly likes to imagine.
First, she admits that her pet theory about making sense of the senseless (which we hear regularly from the official story apologists) doesn’t fit the situation. But that doesn’t deter her as her remarks then take a turn toward the surreal. In her world, if you don’t unquestioningly swallow whole the story of Islamic terrorists with box cutters then you must think EVERY government official is in on it, and therefore you don’t have to continue funding that government.
Perhaps Bazelon, who seems to pluck her theories out of thin air with absolutely no basis in fact or evidence, could provide us with even one example of a 9/11 truther whose views have their genesis in a desire to avoid paying taxes. I wonder if either Bazelon or Tapper could come up with anything at all to back up anything they say in this report.
The frowning Tapper then asks, “What happens when this nonsense hits the echo chamber of the Internet?” This prompts more incoherence from Bazelon.
“You see these dark corners of the Internet where people pile on, and there’s this minute parsing of the technicalities of the supposed evidence, and more and more detail gets added and accumulated, and it kind of feeds on itself,” she responds.
Huh? Is that sort of like saying that people on the Internet examine all the evidence and accumulate and discuss their findings? Perhaps if the mainstream media did some examining of evidence then the truth about 9/11 might be clearer to everyone by now, including their viewers. But that’s not really their role in this scenario, is it?
Not to be outdone, Tapper risks straining himself with some political analysis.
“Historically, we see that these conspiracies come after very upsetting events like the Kennedy assassination, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. – is there a pattern there?”
Could it be that people get upset by conspiracies to kill public figures for political reasons, and they get just as upset when the government and media collaborate in covering them up? And could it be that one of the reasons these events are so upsetting is that the conventional explanations for them are so transparently bogus?
And these explanations are always wrapped in phony emotion so that the rational doesn’t have to be addressed. Do we all see that pattern? Our “journalist” friends would have us believe that the only appropriate way that we can and should react to an event like 9/11 is emotionally. The museum itself focuses on the heroism and the emotion of the day – whatever it takes to stay away from the facts, which overwhelmingly contradict the official story.
Tapper attempts to clarify just what truthers are actually saying:
“And the idea here is not just that the three buildings were destroyed by explosives, but that it’s all part of this grand conspiracy where the U.S. government – and let me state, if I haven’t made it clear enough, none of this is true, this is all just crazy talk – that the U.S. government faked it, killed all these people intentionally, and it was just to start a war in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Is that the idea they’re going for here?”
Here’s where even Bazelon has to admit there were some problems with how the Iraq war started.
“That’s the idea, and just to state it is to show how horrifying it is. I suppose that given that the American government did put forward some false ideas to motivate going into Iraq – in particular the whole idea that there were weapons of mass destruction there – that’s the tiny, tiny kernel of truth that is in some way related to this completely crazy theory.”
Some false ideas? She means lies, but for some reason she won’t say that.
Bazelon minimizes the importance of these “false ideas,” which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and she makes sure to get the word “crazy” in there to counter her subtle admission that the war was started under false pretenses.
Up to this point in the report, the really big gun hasn’t been brought out, but Tapper takes care of that with his predictable accusation that truthers are motivated by anti-Semitism.
“There’s also a lot of scapegoating with the 9/11 truther stuff,” he says. “There’s anti-Semitism, anti-Israel, anti-corporations.”
Anti-corporations? Are we to understand that being critical of corporations now pegs one as a conspiracy theorist as well? From her place in the official story echo chamber, Bazelon responds:
“Exactly. And I think you see these virulent strains that are related to each other from familiar right-wing talk, and they all get weirdly braided together in this particular theory.”
I suspect she uses phrases like “weirdly braided together” more for sound than meaning.
The anti-Semitism charge is a common one, and it seems to be thrown at truthers more and more often as time goes on (the theme of the “contagion” in the form of the term “virulent strains” is also a part of this). We saw this with the attack on A&E’s Richard Gage by Sun News journalist Michael Coren, who accused truthers and Gage in particular of believing that all the Jews were told to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Coren also used the word “virulent.” Of course, Gage made no such comment (I covered this in two recent articles on Truth and Shadows, here and here). All the same talking points were there in Coren’s report that we see in the CNN piece.
The CNN propaganda masquerading as news is actually a carefully crafted attack on anyone who questions what the media tells us and anyone who is not satisfied with the official cover-up of 9/11. And it is far from the only recent example. Newsweek, for example, has just produced a cover story ominously entitled, “The plots to destroy America.” In this attack on “conspiracy theorists” we are told that it goes beyond craziness and insensitivity – that public health and public policy are threatened by those who question the official line.
It seems that those of us who question 9/11 must be making progress if the mainstream media lapdogs have to dust off these kinds of attacks against us. It also seems that the purveyors of the 9/11 official story may have made an error when they decided to enshrine this story in a museum of glass, steel, and concrete, because now they have given the Truth movement a place where they can direct their efforts to expose the great 9/11 lie.
89 comments
Comments are closed.
We are getting at the ruthless little barstards that’s all I know !
Designing the pamphlet to look-alike the OCT illusioNIST garbola is an act of genius and congratulations to them wot did it (sic). Keep it going. It’s a free speech right to be on site and presenting the truth. good strategy. Fuck CNN.
Yea Fremo,
One thing for sure – the truth movement is activated more than it has ever been now.
The powers that pose tried to scare us into silence with this “homegrown extremist” bullshit and it has backfired.
\\][//
That’s pretty sweet, Craig; Richard asked you to write for him. You say:
“One wonders at times whether they read from a single script – if they don’t, they might as well.”
Well, I lean toward that they do. That decade-old documentary, “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” conclusively showed that to be the case there. Set conveniently right to the 8:36 mark. Of course, “Outfoxed” made it appear that Fox was uniquely corrupt among the MSM, though it did call the other networks a couple times in the film for following right behind Fox’ lead. I thought it was a good expose of corrupt journalism; can’t believe it’s been a decade, I remember when this came out like yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFDwdRXCg3I&t=8m36s
Hmm, I did add the extra t=8m36s at the end, but it’s still starting from the beginning. Well, you know how to get there.
This is so ridiculous!! Hey how about you interview Richard Gage or any of the thousands of architects and engineers that support 9/11 truth? Oh wait that’s right, they will ultimately provide logical conclusions and questions that you should have came to/ asked a long time ago. Ultimately the public will become informed and it’s apparent that’s not what you or your government employers want. Tell the Truth!! Free your soul!!!
Bravo!! Craig. Excellent deconstruction.
Dear Mr. McKee, I second Mr. Dennis’s assessment. //
Shame on these so called journalists. They have a huge responsibility to report fairly without bias regardless of the subject.
The day journalists confront their editors, the day the media will be trusted.
Shame on you, shame on you CNN..
Very good Craig, a beautiful job of hitting every nail on the head.
It is obviously true that the system is in a state of panic, blowing their horns like air-raid sirens. I think you are right, they really F’d up in setting up their bullshit showpiece “museum” to cement the blatant lies.
Let their hysteria rage, that is when their blabber undoes itself, when they are freaking out.
\\][//
Craig, thanks for taking the time to write such an excellent article. If every journalist did what you did here we would have most of the population knowing full well what actually went on and the necessary changes would be made.
I really appreciate that, Tony. And I appreciate all you are doing to raise awareness as well.
Hello Mr. Szamboti! Love you, it would be wonderful if you’d chime in at this blog more often! 😉
Mr. Szamboti,
I am compelled to agree with Mr Syed and Mr McKee that your dedication to the cause of 9/11 truth has been a great inspiration to me as well. I too would encourage you to join in on the conversations on this blog more often.
~Willy Whitten – \\][//
That picture at the top of the page is exquisite, what a couple of sourpusses.
Hahahahaha, the “look of concern”.
\\][//
The “truth movement” needs to begin chanting a new mantra, such as, with respect to the mainstream media cowards and liars – “You’re no longer relevant”. No hard feelings, but after 12 years of spreading vicious, cowardly lies which have directly resulted in the transformation of the US into the police/gulag state that it is, not only are you no longer relevant, but you are all complicit in mass murder by covering up one of the biggest crimes in the history of humanity. The truth movement needs to stop playing defense. This is not a game. Also, from this point forward, all, er, ‘truthers’ should also absolutely dismiss any invitations from the mainstream media cowards for interviews as we know they will be used to twist, ridicule and dismiss. And, as said above, the mainstream media cowards are no longer relevant.
The one thought I find interesting is that for the first time in history, with the internet, youtube and the like, years from now when the world finally embraces the truth, these cowards will be electronically recorded in the history books forever – FOREVER – for future generations to gawk at. Should be interesting viewing for our children and grandchildren.
Perhaps that’s why they’re getting so vicious now – they realize the same (and most have already gone on record on media that’s on the internet) and thus that it’s an all or nothing at this point for them with respect to their reputations in perpetuity. Hence their madness and insanity as their doomed ship of lies takes on water . . .
Craig nicely done!
This whole thing is really excellent news for the truth movement! The more these so called journalists attack us the more people reject them altogether. CNN is doing us a favor (a small one I admit due to their dwindling viewership) by attacking us with such over the top bluster. They are helping to grow the truth movement which is of course the opposite of what they wanted out of their media whores Tapper and Bazelon. I hope they bring out more attack pieces and use them over and over and over because it is the backfire effect happening here in a big way.
When I was in high school I used to play Dungeons and Dragons. The game got very popular and then an attack on the game as promoting a “satanic” agenda came out of the MSM. Oh the uproar was huge (in the media) but on the ground with the D+D players not much attention was given to the attacks, we went right on playing and having fun. The net result of all the hysterical media attacks was that more people, not less, started playing D+D and the game became bigger than ever. The backfire effect!
So I say bring it on MSM whores! You can’t win, if you strike us down we shall grow more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RCQDDsMpU
Superb piece, Craig. Here’s an interesting tidbit: Emily Bazelon, the shill being interviewed here, is the granddaughter of Judge David Bazelon, a corrupt Zionist power broker and influence-peddler who was intimately tied in with the Chicago mob, Sid Korshack, etc. Read Supermob by Gus Russo.
What I would like to know is what are these news people going to do when the truth comes out, move to the country, or are we going to have one big mass suicide, because they haven’t the guts to face the rest of us.
Great job as always Craig!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/cracking-conspiracy-theorys-psycholinguistic-code-the-witch-hunt-against-independent-research-and-analysis/5383108
“A new crusade appears to be underway to target independent research and analysis available via alternative news media. This March saw the release of “cognitive infiltration” advocate Cass Sunstein’s new book, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. In April, the confirmed federal intelligence-gathering arm, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), released a new report, “Agenda 21: The UN, Sustainability, and Right Wing Conspiracy Theory.” Most recently, Newsweek magazine carried a cover story, titled, “The Plots to Destroy America: Conspiracy Theories Are a Clear and Present Danger.”
Operation msm hole plug . The asymmetrical information overload on OCT control systems by all the amazing truth researchers never ceasing god bless em, bites the deep state arse. Cool. Bite deeper. These two CNN geese used every possible slur, Machine-gunning us with opprobrium ….But it sounded like panic. They blew it. It’s like an overexposed photo. They danced too fast. Ran out of juice, hurrying from the room to ask supervisors what they missed?..People are waking up. Talking more. Wanting the experts DVD. The academics DVD. Even intellectual nobs are backfooting when confronted because they haven’t researched it and they feel the threat. FREE FALL has got them. They cannot answer to free fall. No one can. Not able danger. Not Q, not special plans.Not even that little crippled epistemologist Sunstein can answer free fall.
Yes indeed Fremo,
I read James Tracy’s article at Global Research a couple of days ago.
Following up on that I read the article in Newsweek – pure wind, and despicable propaganda.
I went on to read the reviews of Sunstein’s new book on Amazon, wherein I can say with some glee it was being shot down by one star reviews. The book is no more than a furthering of his earlier article on ‘cognative infiltration of “conspiracy groups” ‘ – another tome of statist propaganda.
There is nothing in any of these PR products that addresses the actual issues in anyway whatsoever, as you have duly noted in your commentary.
\\][//
I pledge defiance to the False-Flag of the United States of America, and to the Bla Bla Bla for which it stands, one Police State under gawd invisible, with bright orange jumpsuits for all.
\\][//
So, the crippled epistemologist has produced another work on the conspiracy theme, while at the same moment responding to Luke recently when openly confronted – and posted on Utube -that he “didn’t remember” the original paper.
coy little fella that he is,
would had to have been working on this latest book at the time.
But don’t forget the official terminology here; the crippled epistemologist didn’t “Lie” – he “Misspoke” … missed his poke, so to spake fer gooness sake.
\\][//
Craig,
Thanks for the update on the Sun News complaints. Disappointing but very much what we expected. At least these complaints and the discussion of them are a web topic. And stands testament to the spurious nature of the PR System.
\\][//
“Memorial Day is when we commemorate our war dead. Like the Fourth of July, Memorial Day is being turned into a celebration of war.
Those who lose family members and dear friends to war don’t want the deaths to have been in vain. Consequently, wars become glorious deeds performed by noble soldiers fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Patriotic speeches tell us how much we owe to those who gave their lives so that America could remain free.
The speeches are well-intentioned, but the speeches create a false reality that supports ever more wars. None of America’s wars had anything to do with keeping America free. To the contrary, the wars swept away our civil liberties, making us unfree.”~Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/26/364229/why-war-is-inevitable/
\\][//
I just left this comment on the YouTube site for the CNN skit on 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMrU84r_2X8
Nice to see that the people who understand the TRUTH of 9/11 outnumber the shills in the commentary here.
Having studied this false flag event for more than 12 years I can say with confidence that NOTHING the so called “Official Investigations” produced was even vaguely true. The US is now nothing less than a Panoptic Maximum Security State ruled by a despotic oligarchy.
These stooges on CNN are accessories after the fact to war crimes.
\\][//
I have researched AE911truth tax returns and the following confirms my findings. How interesting that the U S Department of Defense is affiliated with AE911truth.
THE SHAKY MORAL FOUNDATION THAT AE911TRUTH IS BUILT UPON
We reported about Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) in episode 16 of our audio reports. We worked for them as their systems administrators for almost two years. As a high-level administrator inside the organization, I witnessed a stunning degree of mismanagement and I was privy to everything; including the stuff that nobody was supposed to see.
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/590-the-shaky-moral-foundation-that-ae911truth-is-built-upon.html
FIELD INTERFERENCE 013 AE911TRUTH: A FAILURE BY DESIGN
Thomas and Sarah Corriher of http://healthwyze.org are on the show to discuss their experiences as tech workers for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They found themselves the targets of a “cult shunning” when they questioned the goals of the organization, and left their tech position in disgust
http://youtu.be/MTwPsj1pOxA
If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best “scientific forensic evidence”, only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.
Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 “research”, including the unscientific ‘9/11 Commission Report’. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.
“This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.”
~Emmanuel Goldstein
This is balderdash Goldstein, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for Wood’s loopy ideas, whereas ALL of the evidence points to controlled chemical explosive demolition.
See this report:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
Goldstein,
I just read the hit piece by by Sarah C. Corriher at the URL given in your commentary. It is first of all, Islamophobic bullshit. Second of all it is all a bunch of slurs with ZERO to back it up.
I encourage all here to give a read, and deconstruct this junk attack as I have.
There is a precedent to this type of character assassination by Wood and her supporters that go all the way back to the Morgan Reynolds – Judy Wood hit pieces on Professor Steven Jones that accused him of having a part in debunking the Ponds Fleichman cold fusion fraud – and yes theirs was a fraud, but one outed by the entirety of the nuclear physics community, not Jones.
It seems Judy Wood launched her career by attacking others, and continues attempting to bring attention to herself by attacking others.
Her ‘DEW’ proposition is a scientific fraud, and her PR is unprincipled defamation, all part of her ‘black arts’ voodoo bullshit.
\\][//
Emanuel Goldstein reads like a knife thru the ribs.
Here we stumble along forensic paths and roads smothered 16″ deep in ppm unignited thermitic chip laden DUST, past the molten steel flowing ‘like lava in a volcano’, molten pours from steel towers, air heavy with elemental sulfur and 6%Fe spheroids burning lungs and paint off cars; the sound of explosive sequences recorded and witnessed boom boom boom boom (count me down Emanuel) BOOM -before, and during, and after plane strike -blasts dissolving history and thought alongside 11stories per second of complex steel framed high rises in free fall: radial arcs of stripped bare high grade builders steel fragments shot 600′..into barges for China.
those survivors left able, staggering past the OCT or creatioNIST narrative into the light of evidence absolutely up and running of conventional but extremely sophisticated incendiary/explosive demolition——–only to find mr.Goldstein…Biblical in exhortation of technologies and weapons acting BEHIND the conspiracy already complex enough by virtue of its “new phenomenon” “thermal expansion” agnotology designed to look EXACTLY in evidence like controlled demolition—–tough enough to prove THAT in a world of bent judicial/administrative procedure employing professional LIARS up to the Presidential levels determined to control it….hard enough for THAT truth to be argued in itself.,
ONLY TO FIND these clever archangels of death employing even FURTHER deceptions behind THAT, dressed beyond complexity to another, deeper, cause and effect.
It’s all in the timing.
“ONLY TO FIND these clever archangels of death employing even FURTHER deceptions behind THAT, dressed beyond complexity to another, deeper, cause and effect. It’s all in the timing.”~Fremo
Yes, it is a two front war, the first front against the ‘official’ bullshit story, and a second front against the well funded ‘crackpot’ disinfo stories.
It is tiresome to have to fight a rearguard action on top of attempting to gain ground against the MSM lollipop machine. There is a continuity obvious in the ‘No Planes’ ‘Video Fakery’ ‘DEW’ and ‘Nuclear’ bunghole spewing anal hurlant that has the same sort of stench as each.
I have just added the actual history of the ‘The Pons and Fleischmann — Jones, Cold Fusion Affair’ to the article:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/#comment-1647
\\][//
Remember how the tobacco industry ridiculed the scientific correlation of tobacco and cancer? Remember how the petroleum industry ridiculed the scientific correlation of the health consequences of tetraethyl lead in gasoline? Remember how the NFL ridiculed the scientific correlation of football-inflicted head injuries and irreversible brain damage? Remember when the asbestos companies ridiculed the scientific correlation of asbestos and lung cancer? Ask yourself, what business interests would benefit from ridiculing the scientific correlation of the WTC destruction by DEW and free energy (off the grid)? I can guarantee you that it’s not the thermite industry! LOL 🙂
HOW WASHINGTON AND ITS ALLIES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO TOPPLE GOVERNMENTS & MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION
In 2011 it came to light that the U.S. military had developed a ‘sock puppet’ software for creating and managing fake online identities. These sock puppet accounts were to be used to spread propaganda on social media sites, forums and blogs. The software which was described as an “online persona management service” allows one soldier to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world. When this program was exposed the U.S. government claimed that the program was never used on English speaking audiences. Considering that these are the same people who swore up and down that the NSA surveillance program never targeted U.S. citizens, we can take that with a grain of salt, but it’s worth noting that they explicitly acknowledged in their statement that the program was intended for covert operations in foreign countries. BTW…Those who ridicule and marginalize Dr. Judy Wood are promoting the fascist police state that Edward Joseph “Ed” Snowden is alerting us to…
http://scgnews.com/how-washington-and-its-allies-use-social-media-to-topple-governments-manipulate-public-opinion
Goldstein,
Your twaddle doesn’t address anything that isn’t already common knowledge about the fascist police state as far as the readership of this blog is concerned. All of this rhetorical balderdash is non sequitur and does not link to a valid assertion that the DEW proposition has merit.
Edward Snowden is a self proclaimed government spy who hasn’t alerted us to anything we don’t already know.
So who’s the “sock puppet” on this page? Everybody here already knows my name. I know who Fremo is, Adam Ruff, Adam Syed, and most of the others.
There are only two entities here who I would suspect as agents provocateur, yourself and one other that needs no highlight at this juncture.
The fact of the matter is that Pons and Fleischmann did more harm to the quest for cold fusion than anyone else, except for perhaps Wood, with her screwy PR which taints the concept even further.
Another fact is that controlled demolition by chemical explosives has been proven beyond any doubt. To assert that any other mechanism could mimic all of the singular characteristics of controlled demolition is absurd on the face of it.
You Goldstein, have no case, and trying an end-run around the facts of the matter by bringing all this external rhetoric into play isn’t going to get you to the goalpost.
\\][//
DEW’s destroying the towers is debunked garbage. Funny (NOT) how these supposed truther bloggers just pop up from time to time and try to throw their debunked theories into the mix here in order to give the opposition an advantage. They can simply point to the DEW garbage and say “see how all these truthers are engaging in wild speculation based on whacky theories.”
Let it be known that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers have looked at the DEW, Mini Nuke, and Video Fakery theories and found them to be completely bogus. So to the corporate media whores out there who think they can equate the entire truth movement with these bogus red herring theories you had better think again. Some of us know that these theories and the ones who promote them are working for the same people who pulled off 9/11. We know they are attempting to undermine the real truth movement and their efforts are more and more transparent every day.
The fact is the truth movement has already won the information war and all the other side is doing now is trying to fight a delaying action to hold off their total defeat, capture and arrest, trial, and eventual punishment for treason. That includes the corporate media by the way who are guilty up to their eyeballs in covering up mass murder and treason. Your days are numbered. As to the so called truthers who continually attempt to derail us with nonsense like DEWs or Nukes your days are numbered as well. Your attempts to derail us are not working anymore and your Sunstein tactics don’t work anymore. I reject you completely and totally and recognize you for what you are and for what you are doing and so do MANY others. You are DONE!
The three WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 were blown up with explosives. The pentagon crime scene was staged and the observed plane flew over the pentagon and away. The media and government are guilty of covering up these facts which makes them all traitors and guilty of treason. The truth has not been contained by ALL of their efforts and it is breaking out into the wider world and their time is running out. WE KNOW!
“The fact is the truth movement has already won the information war and all the other side is doing now is trying to fight a delaying action to hold off their total defeat, capture and arrest, trial, and eventual punishment for treason.”
There is something missing there between trial and punishment .what is it ?….I just can’t remember . it’s probably nothing important. Oh yes , conviction. But wait a minute ..
” That includes the corporate media by the way who are guilty up to their eyeballs in covering up mass murder and treason.” ,”The media and government are guilty of covering up these facts which makes them all traitors and guilty of treason. “.
I see, they were already pronounced guilty even before the capture and arrest bit so that explains it. It does save time.
“see how all these truthers are engaging in wild speculation based on whacky theories.”
“The three WTC towers 1, 2, and 7 were blown up with explosives. The pentagon crime scene was staged and the observed plane flew over the pentagon and away.”
I see what you mean.
“It’s all in the timing.”~Fremo
A very prescient point. We notice of course that right on the tail of Mr Goldstein’s tale, the ever flatulent Mr Wright joins in right on cue.
His petulant pouting anal hurlant blubbering the bladder of his cheeky “concern for justice”. One needn’t even sit on this whoopy-cushion to get the frapping effect of the novelty toy.
“Conviction” – yes a term that has several definitions dependent on context.
At any rate an interesting juxtaposition of critic/enemies of AE911Truth – both ends of the spectrum in an obvious coordinated attack.
\\][//
My comment was actually right after Mr. Ruff’s ‘let’s round up the guilty,and put them on trial’ rant, followed right on cue by a ‘twaddley- makey- uppy words pre-adolescent ‘ type comment by someone else.
So now we get the chunky style flatuals from Wright, sort of like phlegm con carni with GMO corn kernels. As appetizing and nutritious as hot dog flavored water.
\\][//
….followed by more of the same.
A Wright should know better than to expect his bullshit to be taken seriously. He is infamous for his oinking twaddle here.
\\][//
…still more of the same.
WELCOME TO SPOOKSVILLE
This post is for those involved in an ongoing self congratulatory, pseudo-intellectual, mutual masturbation fantasy of ongoing total and perpetual self-delusion and denial of the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable forensic evidence That Dr. Wood presents:
If Richard Gage has evidence of WTC destruction with the use of a welding material (thermite), then why hasn’t he filed a court case like Dr. Wood did? Dr. Wood does not ask for donations. Why does Richard Gage ask for donations to his truth club? Where did Richard Gage come from? Dr. Wood has a long and verifiable history.
To put it simply, what happened to the buildings (mid-air dustification) is evidence that a technology exists that can do that to buildings. But that technology doesn’t have to be used to do that to buildings but can instead be used for good purposes, like freeing people from the energy-control system by providing free energy to the world. So, the evidence of what happened on 9/11 is evidence that free-energy technology exists.
It might come as a surprise to the spooks that post here, but Dr. Wood does not present a theory in any way, shape, or form. Dr. Wood presents a forensic study. And, because she only presents evidence and an analysis of the evidence, her work cannot be refuted. This causes a lot of problems for those interested in covering up what happened. (transnational energy lobby)
Dr. Wood does show parallel evidence, such as an incandescent light and a fluorescent light in her book, to demonstrate the fact that although “hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot.” This does not mean that Dr. Wood has “a lightbulb theory.” Similarly, it does not mean that Dr. Wood has a Thomas Townsend Brown theory either. She also doesn’t have a Leedskalnin theory, or a Tesla theory. And surely Tesla was not the first. John Hutchison replicated the work of Tesla. So, those that claim John Hutchison is a fraud would be claiming that Tesla was a fraud too.
Dr. Wood does not have a Tesla theory or a light bulb theory or any other kind of theory. You cannot solve a crime with a theory. Either you know something or you don’t. You can’t file a federal qui tam case based on a theory without being sanctioned (fined) for wasting the court’s time. Dr. Wood filed such a case and was not fined by the court.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
But again, the easiest way to cover up evidence is to refer to it as “a theory.” After all, why is there still a cover up of 9/11? The facts are known to those who want to know them. But most people would rather call these facts “a theory” and keep them covered up. Knowing that Dr. Wood does not have a theory, she doesn’t have one to be wed to. In contrast, perhaps we should question Mr. Rowntree on why he is so wed to his theory that thermite destroyed all seven WTC buildings?
Occam’s Razor is to minimize assumptions. Dr. Wood only looks at evidence and does not make assumptions. If there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion, Dr. Wood states this. But from the evidence, we can rule out Thermal Energy and Kinetic Energy as the destructive mechanism. And from the evidence, we can conclude that energy was instructed (directed) to do something differently so that the binding energy of matter was affected in a particular geographical region (directed).
The evidence that Dr. Wood presents rules out Thermal Energy as the destructive mechanism. So those who claim “Dr. Wood promotes laser beams from space” actually identify themselves as promoting disinformation. The buildings were not cooked to death nor beaten to death.
9/11. Finding the Truth. A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson. Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
So Goldstein shows that he [?] understands neither science nor the literary devices of construction. Or he/she is lying.
It is the process of science to present ‘hypothesis’ to develop ‘theory’ and to put such to experiment to test such theories.
It can be said however that Judy Wood’s loopy ideas do not qualify as proper scientific theories, but theory it is nevertheless.
Goldstein the anonymous entity tries to misrepresent the substance that is identified in the WTC dust as “welding material (thermite)”, proving that the entity is utterly ignorant of sol-gel technologies and the power of such materials.
–“Where did Richard Gage come from? Dr. Wood has a long and verifiable history.” ~Goldstein
Gage has a long verifiable history as well, just as all of us using our real names do. Goldstein has a long history as well, as a character out of a novel by George Orwell. We can rest assured that Goldstein did not step out of this book as a living breathing human being, but is in fact an anonymous shill taking on such a moniker as some sort of hidden message, as a calling card as to the origin of its species, and then speaks to “Spooksville” as the likely ‘Tobacco Road’ of this spooks genesis.
I submit that Wood {thus her coterie of supporting agents} is a Psyop, organized and funded by the state to develop cognitive dissonance, and disrupt sites such as this. I assert that this is as obvious as the official story is unscientific hogwash – both propositions being lollipops for the jejune and ignorant.
\\][//
” Dr. Wood only looks at evidence and does not make assumptions.” ~Goldstein
I have heard this bullshit too many times now to let it pass without comment.
The assumptions that Wood makes are as clear as the spin she puts on the evidence and the way it is presented. Her readers are coming away from her work with the very specific idea that a directed energy weapon was used to fell the towers on 9/11.
Who is she trying to kid that she makes no assumptions under these auspices? Who are you trying to kid Goldstein?
I’ll tell you who you are trying to kid; the gullible and the naive, and the just plain stupid.
Wood claims to present no theories, but to simply offer the evidence. This is not so, and anyone who understands PR knows that it is the ‘spin’ and the ‘slant’ of a presentation that projects the bias of the presenter. The ways the issues are framed, reveals the assumptions held by the author/presenter. There would be no controversy about Judy Wood if she didn’t have an obvious interpretation and opinion of what the evidence she shows means.
More to this is the fact that she makes the assertion that she makes no assertions, as if she truly believes this to be the case, and this can be said to be ‘confirmation bias’.
My interpretation of the evidence, not just what is within the Wood presentation, but in all that I have been able to review in the past almost 13 years, is opposed to Wood’s interpretation. I make that clear in what I have written here. And I assert that whether intentional or not, Wood presents disinformation with her interpretation. She dismissed the evidence that conclusively proves explosive demolition. She fails to address her critics in anyway whatsoever. When confronted by a qualified and knowledgeable critic, she begins to sputter and spew unintelligible nonsense. She refuses to see illustrations that are placed right before her eyes.
She even presents videos and images [on website and book] that taken together in a proper deductive manner belie her entire interpretation. There are many pictures and videos that she has addressed that show solid steel beams being blown out, that show squibs, and demolition waves rippling down the building ahead of the dust cloud. These are clear evidences of explosive charges going off.
It is this evidence that conclusively proves a controlled explosive demolition, that disproves the various alternative theories of the use of exotic weapons to destroy the WTC.
\\][//
Where Did The Towers Go?
[Pg. 96] ; Wood’s argument against conventional explosives is asinine. It is all based on the assertion that the building would “slam to the ground” as one event. The video evidence – and she is so insistent on facing that evidence – shows that the materials hit the ground throughout a period of time, not all at once.
Her assertion that the material would ‘slam to the ground’ all at once as one event in an explosive demolition is obviously false. The material was blown laterally for hundreds of feet, raining down as an event taking somewhere near 12 to 13 seconds for each tower. The largest peak of the seismic event was at the very beginning of each tower’s destruction, indicating an explosive event at sub-level, which is typical of explosive demolition.
It matters not where she goes with the rest of her argument, for the whole thing is based on this proximate and false proposition.
\\][//
Really now, what could be more obvious?
Here we have A Wright the ringwraith, Goldstein the woowoo cracker, and CNN {representing the whole of MSM} all thumping on Richard Gage and AE911Truth, as an obvious concerted effort.
We are supposed to take this as ‘coincidence’? I have never catered to Coincidence Theory, and I am not about to make an exception in this case.
It is orchestrated Psyops, clear and simple.
\\][//
Next will be Albury SMITH of WINSTON, MISTER and SMITH osp.con .
In any open and honest democracy; by the standards set, the evidence now gathered by ae 911 has long surmounted threshold onus or burden of proof required to argue it. Evidence EXISTS of incendoary/explosive actions on 911, at WTC.
that there is no court in the great “free“ land to contest the forensics establishing sophisticated incendiary/explosive technologies at play,WTC911, testifies to political and administrative coverup at HIGHEST level.
DEW, thermite or nukes? Nukes fits the facts best.
911truthsea,
Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is rather like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles’ broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938.
\\][//
Let it be known that I — the T&S resident champion/troll on themes Dr. Wood, DEW, and nuclear devices — did not bring any of these subjects up first. Moreover, I tastefully waited patiently to see if the discussion would wander by itself out of those weeds… weeds that my pet hobby-horse, the infamous “Neu Nookiedoo”, loves to nibble on.
Mr. 911truthsea wrote:
The situation was not mutually exclusive. No harm in saying that “nano-thermite played a role in the destruction” as did the kitchen-sink that they threw at the entire WTC complex, but the evidence and supposed analysis that would make nano-thermite into being the primary mechanism of destruction is 9/11 Truth’s sacred cow in need of being slaughtered. Nano-thermite cannot explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, the anomalous damage to vehicle along West Broadway and in the parking lot, etc.
Brief detour, I had a FB discussion with a supporter of “plain old ordinary DEW” [e.g., Dr. Wood] and could not seem to grasp what I meant by “nuclear DEW”. My question to her was: “How do you power ‘plain old ordinary DEW’?”
Don’t let me rain on any parades regarding free-energy from space or hurricanes. But gee! Getting energy from nuclear sources is old hat to the MIC, and would be a nice alternative to keep available for the 9/11 psyops. And as luck would have it, fourth generation nuclear devices explain really well the evidence as well as the delays and omissions in investigative activities.
If Mr. Goldstein is still monitoring this discussion, he is encouraged to review the material and discuss.
Many 4th generation nuclear devices are derivatives from fusion and neutron devices. Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation is short-lived, dissipating withing 24-48 hours… which correlates well to why date-stamps on samples were after (sometimes by weeks) this dissipating period. Neutron radiation, if part of the process like to “release excessive excess energy” lasts for the duration of the detonation event and can be targeted in useful directions, like upwards. Tritium was measured, haphazardly and delayed, which were perfectly in line with the stilted scope of the Tritium Report whose task it was to explain the measured tritium as coming from content of the towers, such as airplane exit signs, sights from weapons, and time pieces (like watches); it re-defined trace-levels to be 55 times larger; it stopped taking samples at its select sampling sites when the tritium values were well under EPA thresholds for health risks; assuming the above issues aren’t isolated, then even the very published data itself should be vetted and certainly remains insufficient to be the entire story on tritium at the WTC and its true sources, like fourth generation nuclear devices.
Dr. Judy Wood’s work is closer to the mark than the “established 9/11 Truth Movement” is willing to admit.
Think about this: even before the 9/11 Memorial was open, the 9/11 Truth Movement had look-alike brochures to counter the PR. On the other hand, Dr. Wood’s website has been around for quite some time (with certain pages still with “Under Construction” and dates from 2006.) Dr. Wood’s book was published in 2010. Where exactly is the scholarly, peer-review report on either the website or the book that definitively chapter-by-chapter (web-page-by-web-page) legitimately smacks down the bunk from Dr. Wood? Missing in action. Why? Because it doesn’t have as much bunk as many clowns want you to believe:
Objectivity Test was administrated using Dr. Wood’s book. Subject failed miserably. Subject stopped reading Dr. Wood’s book, probably at page 96 before November 2012, when the quote below was first written. In a fit of sociopathic rage, subject violently rips apart the 500 page book for bird cage lining, so subject conveniently no longer has book available as a continued reference or to pass along to someone else.
Not true. It matters. Nuggets of truth, and all that jazz. Plus, it was the assignment that the above weasels out of.
Not true and never substantiated or personally analyzed in detail. The Subject is talented at hypnotic suggestion but not objective review.
Heigh-ho, Nookiedoo! Away!
//
“…the kitchen-sink that they threw at the entire WTC complex..”~The Nookiedoodoo Man
Of course professional jobs are calibrated to achieve that which is necessary and only that much. Any more is excessive, needless, and a danger to success. Only the jejune, naive, and silly fail to understand something as basic as this.
\\][//
“…assignment that the above weasels out of.”~Seenyor
Interesting word, “assignment”. It implies that the one “assigning” has some valid authority to make such and assignment.
One needn’t “weasel” out of an “assignment” made under false pretense, such as those encountered in this incident.
To have to repeat the real story of this on each and every thread of T&S becomes a bore. But the entity makes it necessary:
Now here is the date/time stamp of Señor’s veritable admission that there is virtually no substantial difference from the Wood’s book and website. I have already deconstructed this. But as it is evidentiary, I want this recorded:
–”The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/sun-news-claims-of-free-speech-dont-cut-it-in-attacks-on-gage-911-truthers-complaint-2-filed/
So … Wood’s BOOK v Wood’s website according to the Señor entity:
Parse this closely and what is really found in this spin?
– “Many errors from the website were fixed in the book,” Well, which errors?
Well deconstruct this:
– “The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood …[BUT]… This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts.”
That’s it; the most definitive statements are few and far between … WTF?
The entity doesn’t say what is in the book that was left off the website that was “under construction”. He makes no mention of what is new of substance. The only thing Once can come up with here is, – “The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”.
Is it? Part of what the entity refers to here is a plastic card, pretty durable, that has the layout of WTC as an areal view, with all the buildings numbered and the names of the streets. Is this “worth the price alone”? Preposterous. The card is handy no doubt, but the rest is more hyperbole. And I reiterate again; the entity cannot think of WHAT it is of substance that is revealed in the book, but missing from the website – he merely asserts that there is, and then offers these expansive remarks about a card with the Legend to the buildings seen from above.
And I will repeat this as many times as need be:
When Seenyor refused to take the BOOK back when I offered it, he forfeited any and all debts of any kind that he felt he was due, be it monetary, or the tasks of debating the issues any further or of passing the item forward.
I have no ethical duty that he can claim to. That is simply the way it is, and I need add nothing more to this explanation. But I will repeat it as often as necessary:
No “deal” was broken in offering the BOOK back, because the “deal” was tainted by false advertising as the proximate cause.
\\][//
–“Let it be known that I — the T&S resident champion/troll on themes Dr. Wood, DEW, and nuclear devices — did not bring any of these subjects up first.”~Señor
Let it be known that it is not a matter of whether the entity brings the subject up first. It is the matter of the entity needing to slur and defame me while making his case. And yes it is indeed defamation, as I have explained he is lying when he continues to reference the ordeal of THE BOOK.
The entity creates many complex lies in his attempts to frame me as the liar here. Close examination of any of these charges the entity makes shows that they are all created out of stinking cheese cloth and twisted rhetorical games. Unraveling each and everyone of these disingenuous tales would be a lifetime project, as the entity continues manufacturing almost daily it would seem.
Unlike this slinking spiteful character assassin, I have no desire to make a lifetime project out of dealing with his obsessive nonsense. As such, I call upon the entity known as Señor el Once to cease and desist in any further defamation, and to make his case for whatever he thinks happened at the WTC on 9/11 without the spurious allegations against my person.
Obviously I have no problem speaking to the issues themselves. It is only the underhanded techniques used by the entity to attempt to win his case by undermining my person by Gross Ad Hominem.
Enough.
\\][//
The aforementioned “Objectivity Test” that the subject spectacularly failed had these three agreed upon parts:
Nowhere in the above is any provision that overlap between a book and website makes the assigned book review null-and-void. *Beep!* *Beep!* Nope. Ain’t there. Fail.
Nowhere in the above is any provision for sending the book back. *Beep!* *Beep!* Nope. Ain’t there. Fail.
If the purpose of the book was to inspire rational discussion within the 9/11 Truth Movement, then any blatantly cheating, lying, weaseling suggestion to “send the book back” as opposed to “passing the book on to those who would appreciate it” [even a public library] would defeat this intellectual purpose, as well as the spirit of “pay-it-forward.”
Squirm the weasel does.
By his own admission, the sociopathic clown didn’t finish reading the book. His reference to page 96 was probably as far as he got (November 2012). Condition #1 down. To avoid further boring into specifics, the sociopathic clown violently defaced the book so its pages could line his bird cages. Condition #3 down.
As for Condition #2, the sociopathic clown late to the game now tries to float a “false advertizing” argument of the dubious nature that if the book overlapped the website in content, no book review was needed according to his logic. Not so by any reasonable person’s standards. A book review is a book review; a content review is a content review, be it website or book.
But if such overlap were such a dastardly deed, the sociopathic clown could have written that up as part of the bad in his good-bad-ugly review. In fact, the sociopathic clown would have had an easy job of the review if we were to believe his other pathalogic lies regarding (a) the clown himself having written up and published an extensive, detail review of the her theories from her website and (b) someone else in internet-land having published such a detailed review for copy-and-pasting.
What makes this oh so worse for our resident hybrid sociopathic rogue clown is that plenty of information was available in advance with regards to how I was using Dr. Judy Wood’s book to inspire rational discussion from the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Whether or not they accepted my offer, hay was going to be made from the situation.
[No, I do not consider Mr. Rogue a leader of the 9/11TM. But the sociopathic clown spent half a year disparaging Dr. Wood’s work, largely without specifics. The one exception were copy-and-pasted passages from Dr. Greg Jenkins. Whereas some of criticism had merit, some of it was just as far-fetched and didn’t. Even if we give credit to those valid points from Dr. Jenkins, the fact remains that Dr. Jenkins (nor anyone else) did not definitively take anything out of contention; he just raised doubt on a few items in order to sweep valid but otherwise unexplained evidence off of the table. And to rely on Jenkins 2007 efforts to debunk a book published in 2010 is rather stupid. But this is exactly what the aforementioned sociopathic clown thought he could do when he accepted the conditions.]
As for our resident sociopathic clown, he doesn’t like substantiation about why he comes across as a pathalogical liar, a cheat, and a weasel. Guess this is the strain of alphafa that a science-challenged, integrity-challenged, objectivity-challenged individual sows, but the warning about me making hay with any defaulting on the conditions came with the conditions and with how I handled previous pay-it-forward attempts. *Ding! Ding! Ding!* for the “ah-ha moment.”
Our resident sociopathic clown cannot make good on Condition #1, Condition #2, or Condition #3. He knew that he would not make good on them when he accepted, based on how he ran out the clock and made sure that accepting the offer didn’t preclude him from continued negative assessments of Dr. Wood’s work.
Exactly, mostly because I have relieved the sociopathic clown of his obligation when it became clear he didn’t have the mind, spirit, or focus for the challenge and, in an unstable way, physically destroyed “Where Did the Towers Go?”
Owing to his failing marks on a very straight forward “Objectivity Test”, what Mr. Rogue forfeits is his credibility on the subjects of Dr. Wood, DEW, and nuclear DEW… and possibly in general. Mr. Rogue should heed his own words, his own promise, his own needs: “[Mr. Rogue] needs add nothing more to this…”
The irrational logic of a sociopath, trying to weasel “offering the book back” into the assignment and conditions…
I will repeat this as often as necessary:
To the extent that any advertising was done — be it deemed true or false –, it could have been re-used to made the task of the book review easier. Any existing reviews on website or book from others could have been re-purposed for the assignment.
All of the nonsense about “false advertising” is a side-circus act of our sociopathic clown meant as a straw man to alleviate him from his “not-doing” a review, on purpose. Fail.
And the review could have been so simple in its initial form: for each chapter, three (3) sentences on what was good [required], what was bad [optional], and what was ugly [optional]. From there, various topics and themes could have been explored further.
I now know that Mr. Rogue does not have the intelligence, focus, or organizational abilities, which is why he’s not be asked to complete the task. I cut my losses on ever getting anything rational, logical, open-minded, and complete. And I thoroughly enjoy making hay out of the situation, the spectacular fail of a wanna-be Wood-DEW-Nuke debunker.
Three (3) responses to my one (1) comment so far? Why couldn’t this failure of an objective person not have been more patient and waited to collect all of his thoughts… before posting more pathalogical lies.
The public record on T&S does not start or end with the linked comment [June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm, almost exactly 2 years ago]; a good portion of the book ordeal is certainly published within the discussion comments. [Do CTRL-F and then type “el once” to locate my postings.]
How pathetic that Mr. Rogue must pathalogically lie in a failing attempt to re-write our personal but public history!
Whereas Mr. Rogue does not forfeit the right to write his hypnotic ignorance, he does forfeit the right to have his words trusted at face-value or at all. And due to his uncharitable, unworthy, disorganized, incomplete, and lame efforts to discredit the work of Dr. Wood and others on nuclear-DEW themes, Mr. Rogue ought to banned from such discussions on T&S.
[Coincidence that Mr. Rogue’s participation only gets the discussion quickly degenerated into flame wars, probably even with purposeful insertion of known-lies, known-cheats, known-weasels — ANYTHING — to derail an attempt at a level-headed, rational, logical discussion on nuclear DEW themes? Coincidence that Mr. A.Wright shows up to getting Mr. Rogue cranking a different distracting carousel? Coincidence the tag-teaming of some others?]
Then don’t. Ignore me. Please. Just ignore my comments.
You made promises about this in the past. Many times. All of them broken.
False statements are requisite for defamation to occur. When the statements are true, however damaging to a reputation, they are not defamation.
If Mr. Rogue wants me to cease-and-desist from any further pointing out what a lying, cheating, weasel he is, particularly on subjects like “neutron nuclear DEW” and Dr. Wood’s material, …
… First and foremost, Mr. Rogue can cease-and-desist in his participation here on T&S. COTO is ready for Mr. Rogue’s triumphant return from his Ashram.
… Secondly and probably more importantly, Mr. Rogue can cease-and-desist with his participation style and tactics that quickly unravels as lies, cheats, and weasels.
Meanwhile, though, when I said that I would make hay out of any defaulting on the agreement, I have made good on my word. Mr. Rogue deliberately walked right in front of my noisy, clacky, dusty, hay baler, and what gets bound up and tied in baler-twine are neat bales of lies, cheats, and weasels stacked up for reader consumption and to sour their stomachs on Mr. Rogue.
//
Señor launches cartoonish assault on AE911Truth & HR1 right here on T&S
–“Meanwhile, though, when I said that I would make hay out of any defaulting on the agreement…”~Señor
As explained I do not “default”, I REBUKE said “agreement”.
I counter here that the entity known as Señor continues his lies with every post he makes here. He does not want to discuss the Nookiedoodoo theory, he wants to expend the vast majority of his efforts on his defamation agenda.
Exotic Weapons at WTC:
Because it is not so, it is simple to prove that there were no exotic weapons used to destroy the WTC complex on 9/11. Because it is not so, there is absolutely no evidence that exotic weapons were used.
Because it is not so, any “proofs” of such weapons and their use will have to be manufactured by rhetorical slipcraft. And that is the easiest of all things to prove in argumentation.
First of all, by proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition; this alone is proof that such exotic weapons were not involved. And this proof is prima facea, and settled argument.
But further, it can be shown that the whole argument for both DEW and Nukes is built of spurious nonsense made up entirely of supposition, with no other basis than pure imagination.
Because it is not so that exotic weapons were used, the entity must distract the forum with this extraneous bullshit and lying rather than prove his rocking horse is alive and not a toy on curved rails.
I again refer to my comment just prior to the entity’s latest outburst of bullshit. The history of the incident of THE BOOK is clear and simple. It should not need to be reiterated time after time here.
\\][//
Typo Alert:
4th paragraph from bottom, should read:
First of all, by proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition; this alone is proof that such exotic weapons were not involved. And this proof is prima facea, and settled argument.
\\][//
The Hypocrisy of “The Well Respected Man About Town”. Señor El Once
–”Assuming that “Seenyor” references me, if Mr. Rogue were “fed up”, he would cease and desist. Don’t feed the trolls. His continued participation here contradicts the sentiment of being “fed up.” Burn.”~Señor El Once – MAY 27, 2014 AT 5:08 PM
–”I no longer have problems pushing Mr. Rogue’s buttons. I want him caught in the honey-pot and fouling out. Why? I’m fed up. I’ve already attempted two years plus “sane discussions” with Mr. Rogue…”~Señor El Once – in the very same comment as above.
. . . . . . . . .
So pointing out Señor’s blatant hypocrisy, by the simple fact that he can be “fed up” and blabber on for a whole page, at the same time claiming I am “contradicting” myself by continued participation. Such blatant hypocrisy is never isn’t recognized by this entity who claims to be:
–”vastly more principled than Mr. Rogue on all levels — within my family, within my community, within my work, within my hobbies real-world and on-line — and consistently demonstrate such principles.” –
Hahahahaha – no seriously, WTF? Yes he certainly demonstrated SOMETHING in that commentary.
Seenyor also claims that I want to “Win” at all costs. It is bullshit. I don’t want to win anything, I don’t want to, have to, or need to “debate” this son-of-a-bitch. I just want the asshole to stop badgering me.
\\][//
And so I have to wonder, what would this “upstanding family man, and well respected member of his community” think if that community were to discover that he has this secret life on the web? A covert operation as an anonymous phantom working as a character assassin against an innocent party who is himself publicly known.
So yes I understand the desperation that grips Seenyor to consider such revelations being made. It is at a crucial point in this affair, and Seenyor should consider these consequences of his actions, whether it is likely or unlikely that he might be revealed.
I think it not worth taking that chance, regardless of how remote he thinks the possibility.
His judgement so far is far from sound. His calculations on this one point are a make it or break it situation for the Seenyor entity.
\\][//
First response in 35 minutes. Second response 10 minutes after that, is a copy-and-paste from May 30, 2014 at 8:30 pm, and isn’t even relevant. Third response? More inapplicable and lame copy-and-paste.
Such clownery, from our dear Mr. Rogue!
And to make his point more clear about not wanting to, not having to, and not need to debate in any rational or logical fashion, Mr. Rogue lays down some wimpy lies, cheats, and weasels precisely so such a debate won’t happen.
Interesting that Mr. Rogue hasn’t quoted from his threats that don’t just contradict his denial, but also prove the “win-at-all-costs” contention of Mr. Rogue’s disceitful participation.
COTO wants their misogynistic village idiot back! [Actually they don’t, but Mr. Rogue was never banned so can make a triumphant return.] Mr. Rogue wants me to stop badgering him about his pathalogical lying and disingenuous agenda without him having to stop such. I want Mr. Rogue just to stop.
Win-win-win when Mr. Rogue leaves T&S for greener pastures.
Facebook. Mr. Rogue should get on Facebook. The perfect, time-sucking, memory-hole, bit-bucket, forum for a Mr. Rogue with way too much time on his hands, way too much ego in his head, way too much… Ooo, and get this! FB is perfect for the style of “dialog” quick back-and-forth and back-and-forth exchanges. Ron Wieck, Elizabeth Tague, and others anxiously await Mr. Rogue’s edification in FB places like “9/11 Truthers are Crazy” and “9/11 Debates”.
P.S. If Mr. Rogue aren’t used to pressing SHIFT-ENTER to get a line break, he may end up pre-maturely publishing his thoughts. Writing off-line helps, as does copying-and-pasting from what might have been published elsewhere. Mr. Rogue will quickly discover the tricks to pushing (or being pushed) into the FB “read more” scroll region, to bumping article placement relevance, etc. Most important of all, Mr. Rogue will see how quickly his words disappear, unless he takes steps (a) to write things more worthy of preservation and (b) to preserve his writing himself, like on his blog.
//
Dear readers,
IS IT CLEAR ENOUGH NOW?
Is it not obvious that none of this has to do with Mister Señor’s nukiedoo nonsense and everything to do with his attempted character assassination of yours truly?
He has spent literally no time at all trying to defend his bullshit nookiedoodoo nonsense, but instead piles reams of flatulence attempting to defame my character.
This is clearly his main agenda on T&S. He has proven that himself on the last two threads.
\\][//
“False statements are requisite for defamation to occur. When the statements are true, however damaging to a reputation, they are not defamation.”Señor El Once – JUNE 4, 2014 AT 3:37 PM
Yes indeed, but as I have pointed out the Señor entity’s allegations are not true, they are in fact lies revealed by his own confirmation that there is no substantive difference between Wood’s website and her book. [Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM]
So defamation does occur because these statements by the entity are proven false by his own testimony. And now we go round’n’round on this same fucking carousel that has been cranked up over and over again by this lunatic stalker.
The Señor entity is a LYING PRICK.
Now, is there a single person here who thinks that I am seriously asserting that the Señor entity is a disembodied engorged sex organ capable of communication by speech or writing? Of course not. And this is why calling the entity a PRICK is not defamation. And by his own definition, calling him a LIAR is not defamation because I have proven that his story about the BOOK is untrue.
\\][//
So now that the entity has effectively hijacked another T&S thread, how much more from Mr Blablabla, from our very own Robin Goodfellow?
The blithering snake seems to have only one obsession, and that is my possession. He can never gain it, and I won’t give it up. Has he lost his mind? Or has he always been as crazy as a shithouse rat?
Señor Maxitwat’s is a COVERT OPERATION, in that he is an anonymous covert entity slinging barbs and slurs from behind his faceless gravitars.
And now Seenyor has the hypocritical gall to assert that it would be “UNETHICAL” of me to reveal his real identity – after close to two and a half years of this maniac stalking me and attempting to assassinate my character!!??
Whatever moral bearings could be driving that thinking is certainly mysterious.
This is absurd as anything else this crazy prick has come up with. How does he figure he is immune to justice?
Who could blame me if I get the chance to yank his mask off his lying face?
So yes, he had better hope I never get verification as to who he really is.
After all of this there will certainly be no hesitation on my part.
\\][//
Three-to-one again.
No, Mr. Rogue has only made hypnotic suggestions of this nature. No proof. No quotes. No links.
Look what I posted on 2012-07-22 and what Mr. Rogue responded after having the book about a month:
Guess what Mr. Rogue did not do? He didn’t read the book. And he didn’t keep the book, either, preferring to destroy it. Doesn’t keep his promises. Not a man of his word. Intrity challenged.
By 2012-09-25 and over three months of patience on my part, Mr. Rogue began his more concerted weasel moves.
At 2012-07-22 or 2012-09-25, did Mr. Rogue ever dispute what the agreement was? Did he dispute anything at the time about the history of our exchange? No.
And part of the reason “my” version of the commissioned book review (which is also public on T&S) is the correct one, is that IT WAS SET UP FROM THE ONSET WITH A “CONTROL,” an independent 3rd party who was BCC’d with the offer and conditions, precisely to pre-emptively cut-off suspected attempts at a later date of Mr. Rogue lying: “Those weren’t the conditions! That wasn’t the offer! I’m right. SEO is lying!”
The very lame and much more recent attempts [afterthoughts] to frame the agreement as “false advertising” with regards to perceived differences/similarities between book or website — besides being irrelevant to a objective review of content — are pretty jejune. Had they had any significance, weight, or bearing, September of 2012 was their “sell-by date”, not June of 2014.
Hey, dear readers. Want to see a very recent example of Mr. Rogue lying?
“Lunatic stalker?” Yeah, right. I was on T&S first, trying to encourage rational discussion on 9/11 issues that the mainstream movement tried to derail, like themes from Dr. Wood. Mr. Rogue’s January 2012 entry into T&S was the start of his stalking of me, this forum, and overwhelming everybody else.
Then the idiot invites me to his then-home-court (COTO) via his ego-links from T&S to COTO. And what did I discover? Behind-your-back, misogynistic, ad-hominem, pot-shots. On his home-court, he got his ass, hat, and coat handed to him, nessitating him ramping up his blog for more of the same.
No, Mr. Rogue has only made hypnotic suggestions of this nature. No proof. No quotes. No links.
Mr. Rogue remains the pathalogical liar.
And who’s the prick?
Yep, yep, yep. When he can’t win fairly, objectively, legitimately, the misogynistic prick of a rock has no hesitation to take actions that would further the fall of his integrity beyond any redemption.
Facebook should be Mr. Rogue’s new playground. And rather than using his “real name”, the fool should uses his rogue alias. Be off and good riddens, Mr. Rogue.
… so that fourth generation nuclear DEW can be discussed by more rational, logical, and level-headed participants here on T&S. Clearly, Mr. Rogue has nothing valuable to contribute, and his failed objectivity test proves he’d learn nothing either.
Enjoy Facebook, Mr. Rogue.
\\][//
“Lunatic stalker?” Yeah, right. I was on T&S first,”~Señor
Sure the entity was on T&S first. However his stalking me over to COTO, and staying just long enough to see the fruition of the reason he showed up there: My exit. Is one part of this stalking – the other is right here on these threads, wherein, just like this one, he has nothing to offer T&S besides this character assassin game. I have never started one of these rows. I never mention the entity by name, and try my best to keep his excuses at a minimum.
I have gotten a lot of advice from this lunatic, and I think it is only right to offer that platter back to him, he can buzz off and continue playing on Face Book, he should go back to COTO where the idiots there would indeed greet him back with open arms. And he should keep the fuck out of my blog. If he doesn’t like what he reads there, then he should stay out.
As far as my continuing on with T&S, that is a matter for the owner manager of this site, Mr McKee, and has nothing to do whatsoever with what the raging lunatic Señor thinks.
\\][//
“Guess what Mr. Rogue did not do? He didn’t read the book. And he didn’t keep the book, either, preferring to destroy it. Doesn’t keep his promises. Not a man of his word. Intrity challenged.”~Señor
Oh yes, I was impressed with THE BOOK when I first received it, it is a nice hefty volume. And when I did get into reading it, and I did read more than the entity is intimating here – I discovered that there was nothing new aside from the fact that it is a physical object, from any of the information on the website. And yes this pissed me off after all the brouhaha put to me in the entity’s sales pitch.
Again; I offered to send the BOOK back to Señor – he refused. He has since admitted there is no new information of any substance in that book, regardless of all the pressure cooker bullshit salesmanship he had to go through to get me to agree to his offer.
Why didn’t the entity take the BOOK back when I offered? Obviously so he could go through this slamdance routine he goes through today.
And if he thinks he can start using my sign off logo as his own, it is only one more proof of what a crazy motherfucker this crackerjack is.
\\][//
I am tired of reading this same stuff over and over again between you two. No more on this thread. And, as of now, it is officially against the rules to mock someone else’s name.
Hi Craig,
I doubt if there could possibly be anyone more “tired of reading this same stuff over and over again…”
Not only this thread, but ANY THREAD. I am however satisfied with the new rule as per mocking someone else’s name here. I can live with that easy enough. Especially if there is no more of this continued harassment.
Thank you, Willy – \\][//
So Mr McKee,
Have you changed your mind about the admonishment for no more of this argument between Señor and I on this thread?
If your admonishment still stands, Señor has rebuked your authority by posting yet another load of defaming bullshit, this time including slashes aimed at Mr Ruff as well as myself.
I would like a clear and final determination on this matter.
I was discussing the remarks of Mr Whitesands, and asking for a clarification on something he had said. I was not confronting Mr Señor in anyway, nor continuing the argument. But as in all instances here Señor will take the slightest excuse to jump back in with his slashing character assassination attempts.
What is it to be Mr McKee?
\\][//
Way back at the end of 2011 I was using an unfamiliar computer at a cafe to log on to 9/11 Blogger which I had been following with interest, the heated debate about the Pentagon and as I scrolled down I stopped on Craig’s header re his banning from Blogger. I was intrigued.
So to Truth and Shadows and, well folks, I’ve been here almost every day ever since. I’ve read every word, followed every link to all the info and to COTO. Saw all that go down. I like to think I’ve got to ‘know’ something of the personalities of the regulars here and some there. I’ve got quite attached to T&S but who would know, I hardly ever comment (I must be one of those ‘lurker readers’ – I wonder how many of us are out here) but us Lurkers take EVERY thing in.
It’s been a rocky ride. There was a two week silence from this blog last December and I got a bit concerned especially as it followed a nasty thread concerning the Pentagon (again) and also the T&S Facebook posts had stopped AND Craig didn’t respond to a couple of Merry Xmas emails (lol) … I was getting paranoid. I had nobody’s email. I googled T&S only to be confronted by a header by someone claiming to be born free detailing his treatment from the barbarians at T&S and no news about Craig McGee being abducted by aliens. I finally found Jim Fetzer’s email and after a reassuring reply that Craig had been recently on a radio interview I breathed a sigh of relief.
Bottom line is ….. Willy, maybe you should’ve read that ferkin book.
Mr Whitesands,
I found your comment interesting, and I know you “lurk” COTO as well. But I don’t see the connection between your little story and how it leads to your “Bottom line”. It is what is called a non sequitur – that means “it doesn’t necessarily follow”. There is an inexplicable leap from one thought to another.
I have another story, longer ago and totally disconnected to the blogs, 9/11 or any of the rest of this. It’s about a friend of mine in California during my movie days in Hollywood. He is a sculptor like I am, and we worked on many shows together. We were part of a little click of sought after sculptors for the sci-fi fantasy genre. We’ll call him Jim [because that’s his name].
Well Jim and I both got to the position of being ‘in the money’ as they say. I went out an bought a brand new Mazda RX7, a pretty popular car in 1983. It was silver, zoomy, and cool. It was a great set of wheels, I never had a single problem with it.
Jim decided to get a brand new Firebird, hot-red hot rod mean rumbly and fast. He leased it rather than buy it. I don’t know why, or if it would make any difference in the outcome of the story. But he of course signed a contract for the lease, just as I signed a contract to make payments on my car rather that pay cash for it.
About 2 weeks after Jim got this car it started having mechanical problems. It ended up in the shop. It was a lease-mobile so the company leasing it to Jim paid for the repairs. Jim was given [funny coincidence} a red RX7, a couple years old as a ‘rental’ while his car was in the shop.
The Firebird was in the shop quite awhile. Almost 2 weeks as I recall. Jim was elated when he finally got it back. About 3 days later I got a call, it was Jim, he was in a parking lot in Hollywood and asked if I could pick him up. I lived in Van Nuys at the time, it wasn’t a long drive, and I liked doing Laurel Cnyn in the RX7. So I got to where Jim was, and picked him up. I saw a tow truck with the red Firebird hooked up. Jim was furious. Seems the ‘same thing’ was going on with the Firebird that they had supposedly fixed.
So it was back to the rental car for Jim. This went on like this for months. I don’t think Jim was able to drive that car for more than a solid week in all that time. Thing is, all the time Jim was driving the rental, and the Firebird was in the shop, he was paying his rather hefty monthly lease for the new Firebird.
Somewhere around 4 months of this Jim demanded a new car, the same kind, a red Firebird, but a different one that would work. The leasing company said that this was impossible, that he had leased this one and was still under contract for it. This conflict went on for another couple months, the whole time Jim driving the rental car. Jim went to a lawyer. The lawyer read the contract and told Jim, that was the deal he had signed and he would have to live with it.
Well, Jim simply stopped paying his monthly payment, and the lease company took him to court, and Jim was forced to pay a pretty meaty severance fine to get out of the contract. And he never got to enjoy that car.
Moral of the story? Jim was really pleased and excited when he first got the car home, and when he was able to actually drive it for the first week or so.
But it turned into a deal from Hell for him.
But hey, he signed the deal, he agreed to the contract. Everybody was right and he was wrong. You know how these things go. Just like paying income tax, the system is right and you are wrong if you rebuke the ‘debt’ you owe.
In the system’s eyes, Jim was in default.
This might be an allegory to something here. Maybe. Depends on one’s point of view I suppose, one’s innate since of fairness opposed to the conditioning to the “ethics” of the system.
Personally I think Jim got screwed. He got a raw deal regardless of the technicalities. In my view, morally he should have been able to just walk away from that lemon and the “deal”.
\\][//
Hi HR,
I could’ve just written the last line and left it at that but I was just demonstrating that I have been reading this blog almost daily from 2011 and following the discussions.
Alistair.
Personally,
I skip right over any post from Senior el once and save myself a lot of time and stress. I have no obligation whatsoever to read anything he/she/it posts nor do I care at this point to address anything he/she/it says no matter how false or defamatory it may be. He/she/it can start calling me a child molester Nazi with aids as far as I give a crap at this point. I literally do not care AT ALL and will not read any response from he/she/it.
Hello Adam,
Recently I spent a day reading about ‘the other side of Hitler’. Because I know the victors in wars write the history I was interested in what is in the record about the timeline of events 100 years ago and about Hitler’s achievements. There were many apparently.
I’m just asking should folks dismiss everything with malice that someone has researched because we don’t agree with some of their theories.
Alistair
So Alistar,
You, having kept up with these discussion all of this time are of the opinion that the malice between myself and this other was begun by me?
Of course I have a completely different perspective if that is the case. But you are free to hold your own opinion.
\\][//
Alistar,
Your lack of a direct answer would indicate to me that you are timid as to my direct question. Don’t be, I have no need to rebuke an honest answer. It is not worth the time to argue with you and attempt to convince you of anything.
After all, you have kept up with the discussion all of this time. Your reasons are your own, I don’t even ask for explanation. All I would like is an openly stated declaration as to my question.
\\][//
Out of 72 comments at time of writing:
– Emmanuel Goldstein has 3 (4%)
– RuffAdam has 3 (4%)
– SEO has 5 (6.9%)
– Mr. Rogue has 36 (50%)
Emmanuel Goldstein made 3 comments that generated 7 comments from Mr. Rogue. SEO made 4 comments that generated 12 comments from Mr. Rogue [just on T&S]. The expression “over-acting” ought to be familiar with Mr. Rogue from his Hollywood daze.
Mr. Rogue’s hyperventilation here is but an act to distract the forum from a rational discussion of nuclear DEW or fourth generation nuclear devices, which is the natural extension from Dr. Wood’s efforts and fills in the gaps.
Mr. AlWhitesands said it best:
The only reason why the book came into the picture was that Mr. Rogue could not be bothered to parse the source website for the good, the bad, the ugly. This applied to Dr. Wood’s website as well as September Clues and other discussion venues. Blow-hard Mr. Rogue was all about making boastful statements without substantiation.
Mr. Rogue claims that I badgered him for months about getting the book. In reality, I badgered him for months to get informed first-hand about the content (book or website) and to mine nuggets of truth. I badgered him to be fair, objective, and open-minded.
Getting the book into Mr. Rogue’s hands was a good-faith gesture to get Mr. Rogue over his stumbling blocks and into a valid review.
Talk about screwing the pooch called “Mr. Rogue’s Objectivity!”
Mr. Rogue wasn’t expected to agree with every sentence in the book, or its conclusions (if they could be found).
Expected was that Mr. Rogue would contemplate rationally the material and isolate the specific areas of error, down to the page number and figure caption if required. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would re-use analysis of others to help bolster his case. Expected was that Mr. Rogue with assistance from me and the forum would take down legitimately any nonsense found therein. Expected was that Mr. Rogue would acknowledge what wasn’t nonsense for re-purposing in more appropriate theories.
Mr. Rogue says that he was tricked or conned into it. If any trick was played on Mr. Rogue, it was in the facts (a) that Dr. Wood’s work might have inapplicable concepts but very little nonsense, (b) that Mr. Rogue would have to acknowledge large numbers of truth nuggets that only inconveniently fit into other mainstream 9/11 theories, and (c) that the DEW/Nuke/Wood debunking resources are primarly internet echo-chambers that neither individually nor collectively achieve a definitive debunking goal.
Thus Mr. Rogue was going to have a difficult time. Happens all the time in science and engineering when a stated hypothesis is disproven by the research and testing. But Mr. Rogue didn’t approach the task with a hypothesis. Mr. Rogue approached it with an agenda and pre-ordained conclusions, which the (a)-(c) facts confounded.
If any deceit was involved, it was entirely on Mr. Rogue’s side [and gets exhibited regularly today trying dig himself.] He lied to himself regarding his ability to read and analyze the book. He vastly over-estimated the number of debunking resources available from which he could plagarize his comprehensive debunking review. On this front, both he and Mr. RuffAdam continue to lie today with statements like:
How can I be so sure this is a lie? Mr. RuffAdam wrote on November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am:
Obviously, if such comprehensive DEW debunking were available in November of 2012, there would have been no need for Mr. Ruff to assemble his task-force for such an assignment. If Mr. Ruff would have completed his decisive debunk of DEW theories between November 2012 and now (June 2014), why, he would have have provided the link.
Because Mr. RuffAdam admits that he doesn’t read my comments, it is fitting that his own words be used to skewer him [June 3, 2014 at 12:41 am]:
This is not true. What is true is that the vast majority of real 9/11 researchers are just like Mr. RuffAdam and Mr. Rogue, two science-challenged, proud, high school graduates who defer to opinions of leaders within the 9/11 Truth Movement, particularly those with PhDs. The vast majority form their opinions from 2nd- or 3rd-hand sources, not from their own assessments of original sources.
And those 2nd- and 3rd-hand sources that report on original sources? They are plagued with improper framing, improper scaling, improper analysis, and being incomplete.
[Video Fakery] On the first pass of my tour through video fakery, I accepted the video analysis at face value. What eventually soured me were the lame and deceitful explanations filling the void once imagery was taken off the table. There was little sharing and collaboration to see how a nugget from one meme might support or undermine something in another meme. With this sour taste in my mouth, my second pass was able to detect more of the deceit in the original video analysis and many of its conclusions, like “no real planes at the WTC.”
To be sure, video fakery (leading to NPT) has unraveled to be a disinformation honey-pot.
What disturbs me is that valid instances of video fakery on 9/11 exist (e.g., four versions of a helicopter shot), a persistent nugget of truth that debunkers of video fakery are all too eager to sweep from the table. If valid instances exist, what other instances are there? More importantly, to what purpose? To and/or from what is it drawing our attention?
[DEW] Most who try to debunk directed energy weapons do not have a good grasp on it, which is evident by their framing. Quick they are to say “beams from space” and then “WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 destruction started from within the building, not from the tippy-top down, therefore no DEW.” Thus, potentially valid cases of “beams from space” in other buildings are ignored. More importantly, “beams from space” is not the only form that DEW devices can take. In fact, most of the fourth generation nuclear devices loosely fit into the category of DEW devices.
[Mini Nuke] Most who try to debunk nuclear devices do not have a good grasp on nuclear-anything. As such, they miss the skew and omissions from those with PhD’s who are assumed to have a good grasp on it when their 9/11 TM reports steer thinking away from it. The unqualified expression “mini nuke” is actually sufficient to debunk the 9/11 nuke debunkers, because qualifications of fission, fusion, and neutron have vastly different yields and side-effects. Fourth generation nukes change further the configuration and the types of expected yields.
“Cognitive dissonance” refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. It produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in attitudes, belief, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
We’re familiar with the cognitive dissonance examples from the general public where anomalous 9/11 evidence is ignored rather than change a belief about the involvement and actions of the government. However, the pains of cognitive dissonance are also visible inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, like when a truther has invested lots of effort into studying, convincing themselves, and convincing others about method A being used. They apparently don’t adapt very well to the premise that the evidence can support multiple methods, that more of the evidence supports method B, and that many deficiencies exist with method A being the ultimate explanation.
Nano-thermite (method A) does not explain all of the evidence. It can’t even address the duration of the hot-spots. And the PhD who popularized nano-thermite despite its limitation is the same PhD who waved everyone off of contemplating nuclear devices (method B) in a paper that accepted unchallenged stilted reports, didn’t even mention neutron devices or their derivatives, and made not attempt to see if third or fourth generation nuclear devices could achieve what was observed.
If Mr. Goldstein is still around, I would appreciate an objective review of document about fourth generation nuclear devices with regards to it bridging the gaps from Dr. Wood’s DEW into something real-world nuclear DEW.
//
P.S. I apologize for the editing oversight that left Mr. Rogue’s \\][// sign-off instead of mine on one of my comments.
Just one example of Señor’s taunting as to the lack of the “essential” BOOK, as if the book had substantial new information, and as if I were even claiming to be making a “book review”, both assertions being untrue. And this is 8 months prior to my finally accepting the book, and only one of a constant barrage of such pressure sales tactics:
–“Dear Mr. Hybridrogue,
Judging a book by its cover, I see. I love how your book review comes from the lofty position of not owning it, not borrowing it, not stealing it, and otherwise not having it to read. Bravo!…Your status of not having Dr. Wood’s textbook certainly sifts the BS from the honest effort. Thank you.”~Señor
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/
\\][//
Señor El Once once again shows that he has absolutely no respect for Mr McKee, and has therefore no respect for this forum. He doesn’t give a shit about anything as long as he can make a lunge at me with his defamation dagger.
I was discussing things with Mr Whitesands, not arguing any points about the raging fanatical idiot Señor. I requested Mr Whitesands make his position clearer, that was all.
As pointed out, the slightest excuse and the anonymous entity hiding behind the mask of Señor leaps from the shadows slashing. And he is a lying son-of-a-bitch.
\\][//
Mr. Rogue writes:
No one is stopping Mr. Rogue from discussing this with Mr. Whitesands further. [Mr. Whitesands, thanks for the great quote about the “ferkin book.”]
Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Rogue, and Mr. RuffAdam all made introductions and/or detours in DEW and nuclear methods that I would like to pursue further with Mr. Goldstein, particularly fourth generation nuclear devices and their relation to Dr. Wood’s work. This document is the basis for further discussion and is requisite reading.
Because Mr. Rogue has shot his credibility and objectivity on these very subjects all to hell, he is not invited to participate. A golden opportunity for him to fulfill his promises of ignoring me. He should stay on the newer thread about the “New Consensus points…” where he re-posted lyrics from the Who.
This point going forward here, Neu Nookiedoo gets to run!
Heigh-ho, Nookiedoo! Away!
P.S. My comment, having more links than two, sat in the moderation queue and needed approval.
//
Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
\\][//
Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci), is like understanding that one dollar is one billionth of a billion dollars ($).
The readers should note that this a nanocurie (nCi) mumbo-jumbo comes in a Tritium Report with limited scoping whose goals are fulfilled by the report of providing one plausible explanation for tritium (e.g., airplane EXIT signs, weapons’ scopes, watch time pieces, etc.). The report did not venture into other explanations, like involvement of nuclear devices.
Its sampling methodology and even rationale for stopping the sampling were adequate for the limited scope, but precludes the report from being the authoritative comprehensive story on tritium at the WTC. Furthermore, it juked the definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than normal. Between this and the small, selective, delayed, tritium sampling [and other issues], the data in this report should not be trusted at face-value.
But this is precisely what Mr. Rogue does.
//
Understanding that a nanocurie (nCi), is one billionth of a curie (Ci) will allow the reader to quickly gauge the relative difference in magnitude, thus the utter insignificance of 3 nCi compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
However Mr Once does not grasp the significance of this. Even 55 times the amount of 3 nCi, is still insignificant compared to the 25 billion nCi contained within a single tritium EXIT sign.
Tritium is a non-issue, it is a manufactured argument that has no link to nuclear weapons whatsoever.
As I have explained in my article on controlled demolition on HR1Blog, the positive beyond reasonable doubt proof that the towers were destroyed by explosive demolition, excludes any other mechanism by these facts alone.
Mr Once will not address these issues honestly, because these facts overwhelm and destroy his arguments.
His 4th generation nukes argument is just another red herring to steer the readership to Woowoo Land. The fact that nuclear weapons exist in no way proves their use on 9/11. I don’t argue that such weapons don’t exist. My argument is that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were not used to destroy the World Trade Center.
Mr Once claims that I am “science challenged”, this is not so. But what is so, is that Mr Once is challenged as far as critical thinking is concerned. He takes assumptions, presumption and supposition as if they are facts, and then builds castles of flatulence high in the stratosphere.
If Mr Once wishes to prove nuclear DEW, he must first disprove all the points of controlled demolition. This is an impossible task, for they have been proven for the last ten years or more.
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
\\][//
Lack of Tritium Exit Signs Control and Contamination of Landfill Leachate
FINAL JULY 2009
ASTSWMO Radiation Focus Group
Federal Facilities Research Center
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 315
Washington, D.C. 20001
Introduction
The Radiation Focus Group of ASTSWMO’s Federal Facilities Research Center began
researching tritium issues in 2003. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) began conducting product stewardship activities concerning tritium
containing devices; specifically self-luminescent tritium exit signs.
In 2003, the California Water Board evaluated 50 landfills for the presence of radioactive
materials in landfill leachate. Above-background levels of tritium were found in leachate
at 10 of these facilities.[1]
In 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began conducting
a comprehensive two-year evaluation of 54 landfills that tested for the presence of
radioactive materials in landfill leachate.[2]
The study was conducted as a follow up to Pennsylvania’s new requirements for radiation monitoring at solid waste management facilities and to confirm findings of the 2003 California study. In the Pennsylvania evaluation, above-background levels of tritium were noted in leachate at most facilities.
Pennsylvania has done quarterly sampling for the past two years with similar findings.
Studies in New York and New Jersey also have shown similar results.[3]
The source of higher-than-background levels of tritium found in landfill leachate samples is presumed to originate from the improper disposal of self-luminescent tritium exit signs found in construction and demolition (C&D) waste and other solid waste streams, as there are no other known sources of tritium in industrial or consumer products that would cause elevated levels of tritium in landfill leachate.
A tritium exit sign is distributed as a GL device and may contain up to 25 curies (or
25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium sealed in all the small glass tubes. The manufacturers of generally licensed self-luminous tritium exit signs are specifically licensed and must meet the safety criteria in 10 CFR 32 and in the table of dose limits in 10 CFR 32.24. A general licensee who receives a self-luminous tritium exit sign must appoint a “responsible individual” who is knowledgeable with the regulations and requirements for reporting events, transfer, and disposal of the device.[8]
http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Policies_and_Publications/Federal_Facilities/2009.07_Final-Tritium-white-paper.pdf
“It is apparent that tritium exit signs are entering landfills via municipal or residual waste streams. When new, tritium exit signs may contain up to 25 curies (or 25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium. The 2004 Pennsylvania studies indicate that over 90% of landfills had tritium above the 150 pCi/L normal background level, with over 50% above EPA’s MCL for drinking water. Pennsylvania studies also show leachate tritium levels in 2004 and 2005 ranged from hundreds of pCi/L up to 200,000 pCi/L. A single tritium exit sign has the potential to cause the tritium levels observed.” -Ibid
Follow-up quarterly sampling in 2007, 2008 and 2009 has noted levels as high as 350,000 pCi/L.” – Ibid
“From numerous reports of lost or stolen tritium exit signs by Agreement States and NRC, one can conclude that tritium exit signs are being disposed of in the normal solid waste stream.[19] This is supported by the States that sample landfill leachate and find levels of tritium well above natural background. In addition to the 2004 and 2005 Pennsylvania studies, ongoing quarterly sampling and analysis of landfill leachate has yielded several landfills with concentrations in the 100,000 to 350,000 pCi/L range. As noted above, other surveys in the States of California, New York, and New Jersey have found similar levels.” – Ibid
350,000 nCi/L at the worst landfill out of 40 in Pennsylvania.
What is the assumption of the word “previously”? The assumption is that previous to the event that the Tritium levels were actually at or lower than EPA standards. This is a presumption that has no data to back it up, it is simply supposed to be so. And the fact is practically all municipal industrial environments are polluted beyond guideline limits as a general rule. Enforcement is lax and ‘politically influenced’ by the very industries that are supposed to be monitored and held in check.
Now I have already addressed the issue of landfill leachate systems are entirely ineffective for Tritium. This being the case it is most reasonable to assume that previous to 9/11 the Tritium levels were already higher than allowed by EPA standards. They may, and likely are higher yet today.
And these points go beyond the fact of how trivial the infinitesimal amount of tritium 55 times the the EPA standard actually is, in fact billions of times less than even the most attenuated nuclear device would produce. Which is a damn-well good enough reason to discontinue testing.
\\][//
Mr. Rogue was not invited to discuss my hobby-horse, Neu Nookiedoo, because he forfeited the right to have his words trusted. These themes seem to exasperate glitches to his programming, because it always seems to lead to pathalogical lying, cheating, and weaseling.
The discussion in the source paper was not about just any run-of-the-mill EXIT signs. No. They were “airplane EXIT signs.” This is an important distinction for two reasons.
(1) Pilotless, droned aircraft may not even need EXIT signs. And even if the aircraft had them, their total numbers were small, the pathway to the few drainage sampling points speculative, and passage of time before measurement permitted much dilution of tritium.
(2) Despite what levels of tritium such EXIT signs contained, the report found it challenging to attribute the measured tritium and its alleged seepage pathways to the haphazard & few sampling points to the aircraft exit signs. Which is why the report then found it necessary to speculate about other sources of tritium in the WTC content, like weapons’ sights, time-pieces. More substantiation.
Mr. Rogue writes the following bold-face lie:
Mr. Rogue should school himself on the fusion process. Neutron devices, which are variants of fusion, require tritium as well. I’d wager that most of the fourth generation nuclear devices are deriviatives of neutron devices, and hence fusion based requiring tritium.
Mr. Rogue has set up a filter for me such that all comments from me go directly into moderation. By Mr. Rogue’s own words, my comments will never be published on Mr. Rogue’s blog. It isn’t a question of “Mr Once will not address these issues honestly”, it is an that cheating “Mr. Rogue will not allow honest debate from me.”
Moreover, nothing in the “10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition” excludes nuclear mechanisms.
Mr. Rogue writes the above as if fourth generation nuclear devices do not exist. They do, as the link proves. If they don’t exist, Mr. Rogue should take it up with the authors of the paper (Andre Gsponer) and its publishing website (Cornell University Library.)
Mr. Rogue consistently fails to offer up links to his proof. All hypnotic suggestion by an over-acting clown.
Writes the man who accepts the Tritium Report unchallenged, who accepts Dr. Jones “no nukes” paper unchallenged, who assumes that everything they wrote and published is golden, honest, truth. Ergo, the above piece of “critical thinking” is the pot calling the kettle black.
The above straw-man is a demonstration of a cheat by Mr. Rogue.
First of all, destruction by nuclear means fits within the definition of “controlled demolition.” Ergo, I’m not about to disprove all the points of controlled demolition. Not in my best interest.
Secondly, maybe Mr. Rogue meant to write “controlled demolition with chemical-based explosives and incendiaries including nano-thermite.” I’m not about to disprove this, because I’ve always held that they “threw everything including the kitchen-sink at the WTC.” To argue mutual exclusivity of demolition mechanisms is to play the disinformation game, right, Mr. Rogue?
We’ve all seen the clever drawings that trick the eye into seeing a young woman in one instance and then a old, hooked-nose woman in the next. Or the drawing that goes from a picture of Einstein to Marilyn.
Mr. Rogue does not grasp the analogy of 9/11 Tetris, similar to the video game called “Tetris”. In the video game, odd shaped figures with square corners fall down; the user must orient the figures such that when they hit the stack at the bottom, they leave the fewest gaps.
In 9/11 Tetris, the evidence blocks fall down and can be oriented in multiple theory stacks. It is just that the theory stack with the fewest gaps is most likely the one that was the primary mechanism of discussion.
… And wouldn’t you know it? Before this entry could be completed and published, Mr. Rogue has made a second, two-fold copy-and-paste response to me. “Two-fold copy-and-paste” because it copies from another source, was published on his blog (looks familiar), and now gets re-published here. It was debunked before, so I’ll make short-work of it.
Here’s the skew that Mr. Rogue personally introduced (to give him the bonafides of a debunker), as I have seen it nowhere else. A quote from the report:
Mr. Rogue fails to understand the concept of water flowing under the force of gravity down, as if he didn’t know that shit rolls downhill.
The fabled tritium report makes a big deal about measuring tritium at certain drainage points. Meaning, the tritiated water drained off of the WTC. Nowhere do they speculate or make mention of tritiated water flowing backwards, uphill, from landfills. This is entirely Mr. Rogue’s ferkin funk. And had this flow-back from landfills been a plausible factor, you can bet your ass that the tritium report would have cycled through that nonsense — boosting background levels — before grasping at AIRPLANE exit signs and speculation into tritium from weapons sights and personal time-pieces.
Furthermore, tritium wasn’t just measured in the water at drainage points. It was measured in the dew of the leaves of trees downwind. Flowback from downhill landfills don’t answer that one.
Mr. Rogue writes:
Time and sample points. Mr. Rogue assumes that the number of samples points was adequate. It wasn’t, and pales in comparison to the number of dust samples that the USGS took (that report uranium and other heavy-metals). Mr. Rogue assumes that those select samples points are representative. They weren’t, either in location or time.
Mr. Rogue falls into the trap of conflating late sampling with early sampling, whereby the former afford much opportunity for dilution from the very water the firemen pumped onto the WTC. Of course it’ll be small weeks later.
Cheating Mr. Rogue wants us to conflate all of these diluted samples at different points in time as being representative of what was sampled immediately after 9/11. Cheating Mr. Rogue doesn’t even acknowledge that there were no tritium samples taken immediately after 9/11. The delay is 3 to 4 days (as I recall) for the first of the earliest samples.
Readers should be note that Mr. Rogue doesn’t want anything to do with me or my hobby-horse topics. Yet at the first opportunity he gets, he tries to bush-whack Neu Nookiedoo and gets his ass handed to him again, with a nice, U-shaped, hoof-print.
Facebook awaits Mr. Rogue’s participation!
//
For clarity, I do mean Controlled Chemical Explosive Demolition, as is made very clear on my blog page.
I have addressed the idea of the “kitchen sink” earlier in this thread and will not be repeating myself any further here.
I will note one further thing however; I need no “invitation” from the anonymous entity to make commentary on Truth and Shadows. Let us be absolutely clear on this matter once and for all.
Any further remarks here will be addressed to the overall readership of this forum.
\\][//
As far as “the first-responder ailments” that the nuclear advocates for WTC destruction claim is “Hiroshima like” and being related to “radiation”:
Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:
“*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts.”~RJ Lee report
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.
This also has bearing as to the anomalies to do with vehicles:
[1]”The RJ Lee Group performed an extensive study of the Banker’s Trust building at 130 Liberty Street to assess structural damage as well as dust contamination. The dust analysis this group performed is, as it is self-proclaimed in the reports, one of the most extensive dust studies performed costing 33 million dollars. Within one of the reports,vi they state:
“The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings’ mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker’s Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.”
“Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction. This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.
The already oxidized and exposed metal corroded at an accelerated rate after the fires subsided and the corrosive ambient dust resettled upon the vehicles. Fine dust is easily agitated becoming airborne.”~Study
[1] Pg. 4 -5 Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
\\][//
“No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin
ABSTRACT
There are ‘Signature Effects’ to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.
Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate and mimic these very specific signature characteristics.
10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition:
1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning “confluent rows of small explosions”;
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.
[+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.
Ultimate Fact
[=] The combined evidence of the destruction of the towers is shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition .
> NOTE: Any alternative theory as to the mechanisms of the destruction of WTC, will have to successfully dispute each and every one of these 10 points.
Particularly troublesome for such theories are points 6 – 10.
\\][//