Ignorance trumps ideas during annual 9/11 ‘discussions’: a reluctant rant


 

All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident.-Arthur Schoepenhauer

By Craig McKee

Why is it that ignorance and unjustified pride seem to go so well together?

Over the past two days, I’ve been knocking a few ideas around with some fellow Facebook enthusiasts concerning the 11th anniversary of everyone’s favorite fake terrorist attack. From the brilliant quote above, I got the ridicule and the violent opposition, but that was it.

Thanks to the wonderful anonymity of this “social” media site, I had the chance to trade insults with people I have never even met! Talk about progress. When you know people, it’s harder to dislike them. But when you only know them from their moronic put-downs on Facebook, there’s nothing standing in the way of your feeling unmitigated contempt for them!

In fairness to the Facebook throngs, people are usually pretty consistent and fair when it comes to informing us about their pets or what they had for dinner or how swell a sunset is. But, when it comes to being open and showing respect for the views of others when it isn’t easy to do – not so much.

I was asked by a Montreal Gazette journalist what I’m smoking to reach the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. He departed quickly after that bit of wit. Another journalist of local alt-weekly fame was challenged to show one thing I’d written that was factually wrong after he had repeatedly ridiculed my statements. I’m still waiting. I mentioned Building 7 and he informed me that this had been debunked more than a decade ago. I hadn’t realized that.

The discussions in question actually weren’t provoked by comments I posted on my own wall. They were from comments I and others made in response to the suitably sombre tones of those offering a more traditional take on this anniversary.

First of all, I hate being told that I should focus on the victims on the anniversary of 9/11. That’s code for, “Can’t you stop your 9/11 truth shit for one day and be human?”

Last year I wrote about a friend telling me that maybe I should “spend the weekend thinking about the 3,000 victims.” This year, another friend was more subtle as he wished me a good day and said he was going to spend the day thinking about the victims. Hint, hint. Much more polite but the same message: going on about the whole “inside job” thing is disrespectful to the victims who we should all be thinking on this day.

I responded that I think of the victims EVERY day; that’s why I’ve devoted myself to this cause. I think it’s disrespectful to them and their families not to demand the truth about what really happened on 9/11.

Other really nasty discussions led to me and a friend being compared to Holocaust deniers. After all, “those people are just as sure of their beliefs as you are,” I was told.

It was also suggested that perhaps I don’t believe the Titanic really sank or that a tsunami really hit Japan. Another wondered whether it was my view that 9/11 never happened. Predictably, he had the 9/11 victims’ families all set to disagree with me despite the fact that I’d said nothing of the kind.

One friend posted a graphic of the twin towers draped with American flags. Below were the words, “United We Stand.” In other words we’re all united against the evil-doers from the sandy part of the world.

Horseshit. We’re not united because Muslims from the Middle East didn’t commit this atrocity. People much closer to home did. But our media keep ignoring the important questions and dutifully reporting what their corporate masters want them to. But I digress.

Once a year around this time, people who don’t usually lower themselves to interact with lunatic “conspiracy theorists” deign to throw a comment on Facebook to straighten out people like me. They do this without any facts at all. The truth is that in several dozen snarky exchanges with friends and friends of friends I wasn’t hit with even one fact. Not one shred of information that might illuminate their logic: circular, convoluted, or otherwise.

Instead, people posted messages like, “Never forget.” Forget what, they didn’t say. I know they meant it as a tribute to the victims, and, I don’t fault them for that. But it isn’t enough. This tragedy didn’t happen 11 years ago, it started 11 years ago. It’s not 3,000 who died, it’s a couple of million or more. And they’re still dying.

You want to know if I think about the victims? I’m working on a story that I’ll post soon about Ellen Mariani, a 9/11 widow who has been fighting for 11 years to bring the truth out about her husband’s death. She has been abused and betrayed repeatedly by a legal system that wants her to go away. She could have gone for a big settlement and lived comfortably, but she wants the truth more than she wants money. By the way, she is on Social Security and barely getting by.

I think about her.

204 thoughts on “Ignorance trumps ideas during annual 9/11 ‘discussions’: a reluctant rant

  1. Craig,

    You’ve got my support – 100%. The S*** our film crew has endured and that the OKBIC (www.okcbombing.net) has endured is beyond comprehension of those ‘snarky commenting’ FB contacts of yours; and mine.

    I resort to the sound rationalization that (1), I consider the source of the inappropriate if not unfounded comments. And (2), just because they choose to ignore the scientific facts of 9/11 doesn’t mean those facts do not exist. Correct?

    If they choose to keep their heads firmly placed up their rear-ends, that’s their choice. I just figure that it’s very hard to communicate with someone that chooses to do just that.

    Keep up the great work you do my friend.

    C.

    • Chris,

      Thanks for the support as always. I know you and lot of others who read this site can relate. I don’t want to dwell on the subject overly, but it just blows me away how supposedly intelligent people don’t even seem to realize that they’re reacting irrationally. I try the “turn the other cheek” thing quite a bit but around the 9/11 anniversary I can’t stomach this crap. So we move on…

  2. The obstacles and frustrations you describe ring a clear bell of familiarity to many of us I’m sure. Apparently, televised PSYOPS are next to impossible to undo with mere facts and logic, despite the passage of so much time – thanks to relentless media reinforcement. As someone who never really examined the events of 9/11 until 2006, I often wonder what exactly is it that allows only a fraction of us to escape the grip of mass propaganda? I don’t think it is necessarily intelligence. I often reference “The Truth Is Not Enough” by Ken Jenkins: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090506155958670

    • Thank you for the lead to the article sherifshaalan,

      . . . . . . . . .

      “Admission of Gullibility: Anyone we are introducing 9/11 Truth to now has believed the official story for years. To accept 9/11 Truth they have to admit they were duped, deceived, and manipulated for all that time. That brings up questions of gullibility, naïveté, lack of perceptiveness, obliviousness, etc. Most of us have resistance to admitting such shortcomings. Astronomer Carl Sagan sums it up nicely:

      “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous [i.e. gullible].” — The Truth Is Not Enough
      . . . . . . . .

      And this aspect gets very complex when it is taken to account that the Sunstein double agents are in the mix. The ‘New Wave 9/11 Truth” agenteur__parsing THAT swirling gyre is a double-helix mindfuck to be approached with extreme caution.

      \\][//

  3. THE PLAIN TRUTH can be said in many ways, Craig.

    Here’s one way, and i’m sure you’ll nod in agreement to most, if not to all of it!

    Cheers

  4. Educating skeptics on 9/11 is not difficult once activists understand what they are up against, which is the remarkably effective global, permanent and cross-disciplinary censorship of 9/11 by all the principal leaders whose vested interests would call them to blow the 9/11 whistle. Liberal/socialist/union/green/Muslim/”enemy”/terrorist leaders have largely treated the “Osama bin Laden’s fanatics did it all” myth as an absolute truth. Instead of forming a unified front to promote 9/11 Truth, they have sent their gullible followers on wild goose chases after the open-ended U.S. warmongering and the other numerous nefarious 9/11-inspired activities.

    Under these conditions, skeptics cannot be blamed for unconsciously preferring the cognitive dissonance of labeling Craig “a dude who looks really wise but who has been indoctrinated by a mindless and dangerous cult I ought to stay away from” over the acceptance of the fact that their worldview has been fundamentally incorrect.

    Accordingly, 9/11 is best taught by very small and innocuous steps that force the skeptic to accept some little discomfort over the 9/11 myth. A good way to start is to ask that person why it is that so few people remember Building 7′s spectacular disintegration from the day it happened, but learnt of it only years later. (S)he has the choice of acknowledging the problem or of making a fool of her/himself.

    Love,

    • I agree with you, and I try most of the time to follow this course. But even in the exchanges I describe, I try to offer unemotional points of fact. The anger comes back from others. Then I tell them they’re full of crap. I’m just not sure I want to spend the next 20 years convincing 20 or 30 people. We must find a faster way!

    • Quote Daniel Noel
      “A good way to start is to ask that person why it is that so few people remember Building 7′s spectacular disintegration from the day it happened, but learnt of it only years later. (S)he has the choice of acknowledging the problem or of making a fool of her/himself.”
      If people don’t remember the collapse of building 7 from the day it would be in spite of the concerted efforts of the media to show it’s collapse live on tv, with news reporters talking about it and saying how much it looked like a controlled demolition. These are the videos that the 911 truth movement show constantly and talk about as if they somehow unearthed this secret hidden information , in spite of some concerted effort by the media to cover it up. What the problem is or why anyone would be making a fool of themselves, I can’t understand, unless they are given some distorted version of events.

      • A.Wright says, September 15, 2012 at 6:09 pm:

        “These are the videos that the 911 truth movement show constantly and talk about as if they somehow unearthed this secret hidden information , in spite of some concerted effort by the media to cover it up. What the problem is or why anyone would be making a fool of themselves…”
        . . . . . . . . . . .

        No, it is NOT that the truth movement is claiming to have, “unearthed this secret hidden information..”
        It is that the truth movement is REMINDING that building 7 collapsed on 9/11, and yet goes UNMENTIONED since the first day’s broadcast. No mention in the 9/11 Commission Report. No mention on MSM beyond the day of the event, etc.

        In other words it is a living example of Orwell’s ‘Memory Hole’. The average TVZombie is STILL unaware that a third skyscraper was demolished on 9/11.

        The NIST Report on Bldg 7 was certainly not headline news on any major media. Only on 9/11 concerned Internet blogs.

        For you to assert that Bldg 7 has in some way been ‘highlighted’ or ‘headlined’ in the MSM is simply disingenuous.

        Furthermore, you fail to address the facts of the Number 7 demolition and absolute absurdity of the NIST explanation. This report has been proven by countless angles to be a scientific fraud, a political document and a cover-up.

        \\][//

  5. Sentimentality…

    I recall an article I read long ago about why certain books and stories sell. The article was focused mainly on the “Manly Adventure Tales” that were and remain a popular genre.

    The author, a woman as I recall, explained through some very telling examples drawn from some very popular best sellers, that it wasn’t the ‘blood and guts’, the racy sex, the high adventure and heroism that was the key to the most popular works; it is sappy sentimentality: Mom and Apple Pie.

    That is the key to the most effective PR as well.

    Some may remember the giftware line PRECIOUS MOMENTS..? It made the designer fabulously wealthy…sappy little sculptures of CUTE little figures portraying scenes of sentimental nostalgia.

    At any rate, I suppose most here can see what I am getting at:

    EMOTIONS are the key to psychological manipulation. It works for selling anything.

    At the heart of it, Rambo is a crybaby two year old who wants his mommy.

    The “Victims of 9/11″ is of course a powerful psychological ploy – it works, it is efficient.
    Try explaining this to a brainwashed Amerikan…it will make them want to vomit, they will be so disgusted in you. These are natural triggers that have been massaged by scientific techniques of mass persuasion. Yes, even grandma can be programmed to be a raging psycho on cue, given the right programming.

    The culture is just the scum grown in a petri dish in a technological dictatorship.

    It is dangerous to be among the awake in a land of TVZombies.

    Be careful.

    \\][//

  6. Dear Mr. McKee,

    If you felt like poking at their emotional wound, the response to “think about the 3000 victims” becomes:

    Yeah, let’s! Did 3,000 victims really die? I mean, they can’t prove that commercial airplanes even took off. And it has been sure disproven that some special aircraft other than a commercial airliner hit the towers, so the “victims” attributed to them reduces the 3,000 number. The Pentagon aircraft also wasn’t a commercial one, and even if it were, that aircraft flew over the building. The Shanksville aircraft crash had no seats, no luggage, and no body parts. Where are the victims from the planes?

    Now if we go into the towers to tally their numbers, they were under-occupied with an exodus starting with their 1993 bombing, plus several floors had doors govt front companies with prominent nameplates and employees in name only. Certainly people died, but the numbers only add up to 3,000 in funny ways.

    One of the funny ways is seen by the wiped out division of the Office of Naval Intelligence, its agents, and its records that dealt with the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD budget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld spoke of the day before 9/11 to the media. Another funny one are the SEC records that were killed when WTC-7 went down with one of its demolition stages having 100 feet of observable free-fall. Another funny way are the instances of simVictims.

    Think about the victims, because the lives that stoked “USA patriotism” took in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan each exceed the proven facticious 3,000 number from 9/11.

  7. Denial is a deep and almost mysterious. As Bertrand Russell said: “People would rather die than think.” And they do die — mentally, emotionally and even physically — because they refuse to think. Another time Russell said (he’s quoted in today’s Globe and Mail on this): “Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.” And of course as one of the previous posters observed, we not only have “someone” discouraging thinking, we have the vast intermeshed global system of the media, officialdom and even academia, all in the service of global monopoly capitalism, discouraging thinking while simultaneously distracting and confusing the sheeple just in case someone might think a stray thought now and then.

    • @ Barrie Zwicker
      As a media critic who has analysed the mainstream media, both print and TV etc. have you ever thought to actually analyse the medium through which the 911 truth movement basically started and which has sustained it, and without which, I think most people would agree , it would not exist today , i.e. the internet?
      I always wonder how people who say how ‘brainwashed’ the ‘sheeple’ are because of their daily exposure to Fox news , newspaper articles and documentaries et al, can’t seem to imagine that the same may be true of peoples exposure 24 hour a day, 7 days a week , 365 days a year -for the last 11 years – to sites, blogs, forums, Youtube videos all putting out the same ‘inside job’ theories about 911, linking to each other and reinforcing over and over a one-sided biased view of the event. And then there are presentations and conferences where the same one-sided interpretations of the evidence are put forward- a prosecution case – without anyone presenting a contrary or even an objective assessment. The Toronto Hearingsgives is a case in point , where the stated aim was to present only evidence that contradicted ‘the official story’ ( which makes it all the more surprising that one of the panel members said that he hadn’t heard any evidence that would change his mind that 911 was an inside job). The contrary view of the event , the defence case, is referred to , in disparaging contemptuous tones, as ‘the official story’ as in ‘the official story is a lie’, ‘the official story is false’ etc., by the same people presenting the prosecution case. What would be the conviction rate in court if the prosecution were the only ones to present evidence to the jury?
      I’ve heard you talk about ‘thought stoppers’ such as ‘conspiracy theorist’ – do you think the term ‘official story’ might be a ‘thought stopper’ too?
      You talk and write a lot about human psychology and denial and cognitive dissonace etc, quoting from various books on the subject- are these traits that are common to people in general or are people in the 911 truth movement immune from them? Do 911 truthers have a world view? Do you have a world view and do your conclusions about 911 coincide with that world view?
      When you present that quote from Bertrand Russell , I presume you don’t think that what he says might apply to you. (I would imagine Bertrand Russell didn’t think they applied to him either).

      • @ A.Wright,

        I see you have decided that the forum must have forgotten your last appearance, and the challenges made to yourself that went unanswered.

        So again, we find you here with your “seemingly reasonable” rhetorical questioning.

        Before we get into answering any of yours, let’s have something from you. Something substantive and specific.

        What specific aspect of the official story do you think is true? Are you prepared to defend that aspect?

        Are you willing to stay the course and not simply disappear this time when you have obviously been shown to be full of the proverbial “it”?

        Chose a point – any one you wish. What is the most powerful point of proof the government has offered that their position is true?

        \\][//

  8. Craig, You say:

    >”I’m just not sure I want to spend the next 20 years convincing 20 or 30 people.”
    . . . . . . . . . .

    In my experience, 20 or 30 people would be a resounding success.

    Have you ever ‘convinced’ anyone who wasn’t at least curious and already willing to talk about it?

    I have only convinced one person, that wasn’t already part way there. She is my mom’s best friend. An extremely intelligent woman, with a photographic memory. I have seen her open a page look at it for a moment, hand me back the book, and recite verbatim every word on the page [in this instance a sci fi novel I was reading].

    But it was her background in psychology that gave me an inside track on how to approach it with her. I began talking about media and the psychological PR, and referred to her some of the works I have studied on it. Like I said, she is a quick study..Lol

    After a long discussion of a month or so, we began talking about the wars, which she is already opposed to. That was a doorway to explaining how it was 9/11, the “New Pearl Harbor” that got Amerika over the “Vietnam Syndrome” — the aversion to another “quagmire”…the whole psychodrama that we all understand.

    Within a couple of weeks of that, she had learned enough with my tutoring to reach the conclusion on her own that 9/11 was a systemic false flag psychological operation.

    But Carol is of a rare breed here in the “good-ol’Ussah”…she was able to grasp her own emotionally driven resistance to accepting these truths, because she was a therapist herself when she had an independent career.

    I have lost some of my best friends over this topic. No one in my family will even think about it. Almost all of my email pen-pals are “Truthers” as that is how we came to know one another.

    ———————————-

    It seems to me that at this stage, it must come about as a personal epiphany – some “Aha Moment” that hits them from an unexpected moment, the realization of some fact that acts as a falling domino and a sequence runs in their head and ends at the obvious and undeniable conclusion….that was an internal self accepted sequence of thinking, that outran the old triggers from the trauma induced trance of 9/11.

    Of course this is why there is the constant media hype of the “war on terror” — Booster shots of trauma induction.

    I have expressed the ‘cynical’ point of view, that history proves that the general population never learns the lessons of history. It is simply a constant. This is why the race has lived under despotic rule for almost it’s whole existence on this planet.
    The few exceptions seem to go far far back to the ‘hunter-gatherer’ epochs, and that varied according to tribal leadership and environment.

    I think what most people want is an exciting tale, a story, a myth they can play a part they identify with. The standard mythic cast of characters has quite a variety, and a self chosen role, or an imposed role will do, depending on individual personality traits.

    Most appear to be Homo Vishnu Gullibleus, one percent psychopathic, about one percent visionary [in the sense of really seeing the present as it is] – about five percent un-distracted artist, the rest impressed into the system,mind and soul.

    \\][//

  9. I don’t think it’s quite as bleak as made out here. Polls indicate that we’re gaining, that a declining portion believe the OCT is credible. Which would mean that millions are what we might call closet Truthers. True, few are activists, but that takes a certain mind-set that, unfortunately, most aren’t fully equipped with. Ask people at random today about the JFK assassination, and 8 of 10 will tell you it was a conspiracy. Through continued hard work, we can reach numbers like that, too — because the OCT is just too preposterous to survive even our limited assault. I think our biggest drawback is that concession to 911 Truth almost demands a moral commitment to a long battle against powerful (and, on this issue, I think overestimated) forces. People aren’t necessarily stupid. They’re just programmed to respond a certain way. But, their intellects CAN see through the thin veil of the irrational and preposterous with our continued help and the continued and increased presence of our fact-based message.

    • I didn’t really mean this to be a survey of how well the Truth movement is doing. It was more intended to look at ways people who are otherwise intelligent can lose all rationality when they talk about 9/11. And there are so many people who react this way. It’s important for us to understand why.

    • “Ask people at random today about the JFK assassination, and 8 of 10 will tell you it was a conspiracy.”~James Hufferd

      Not to be confrontational, but to ask a pertinent question; Say that some large percentage of the population think that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, what difference has it made to the system that killed a president in a blatant coup d’etat?

      It is sublimated culturally, it has had no practical effect whatsoever. This means that those 8 out of 10 still do not grasp the implications of the fact they may have come to accept.

      I would dispute that there are actually that many in proportion, but that is of little consequence one way or the other as to the results – which are nil.

      What we deal with is a system of scientifically calibrated mind control that has successfully created a goonland security state based in fear and loathing.

      One thing that should have put the final nail in the coffin of naïveté is the Obama “Hope and Change” neuromarketing success. Yet the idiot Amerikans are still out there at their political rallies fighting a faux Hegelian battle.

      The only thing to recognize is when false hope is crushed, and that ‘changing the world’ is a delusion – the Consolation Prize is likely much more Valuable when all is considered; and that is your own Personal Sanity is still intact – you are still Human, you still Care.

      \\][//

      • ww,

        agreed: “what difference has it made to the system that killed a president in a blatant coup d’etat?” none, to answer your rhetorical question, but as you say later on, “the Consolation Prize is likely much more Valuable when all is considered; and that is your own Personal Sanity is still intact – you are still Human, you still Care.” and you know the jfk lone nut theory is total b.s. and maybe you’ll keep your kid or neice or nephew from joining the u.s. military, because amerikan patriotism is for suckers..

        re: “This means that those 8 out of 10 still do not grasp the implications of the fact they may have come to accept.” maybe. certainly true for some percentage, i would guess. but for (a percentage of) the others, maybe they just realize how powerless we all are, and so get back into finding a little happiness in [fill in the blank]. for all our “activism,” what have we accomplished?

        loved this take: “What we deal with is a system of scientifically calibrated mind control that has successfully created a goonland security state based in fear and loathing.”

        re: “One thing that should have put the final nail in the coffin of naïveté is the Obama “Hope and Change” neuromarketing success. Yet the idiot Amerikans are still out there at their political rallies fighting a faux Hegelian battle.” LOL. true for most, but not for all. some have woken up to what a horse’s ass O’bombscare is, at least in my cirlcles. (i keep pressing the point.)

        re: “changing the world’ is a delusion” not so sure about that one, but then again i am just back from a couple of workshops with john perkins on how to go about changing the world shamanistically, i.e., change the dream. the ancients tell us this is possible. i like to believe it is, but recognize there is little evidence in support. nevertheless, i’m working at it…better than following the NY Mets.

      • Dennis,

        Thanks for your comments, I always enjoy your take on things.

        Believe or Not — Ripley? No just a standard intro to what may be a surprise:

        I too have a magical mystical side, and can very much identify with the shamanistic view…

        It is a matter of keeping our bardo’s in order though. “Even though I can go walking in circles doubting the ground beneath my feet” {Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence – Ryuichi Sakamoto}…

        If one is to change bardo perspective…one must be very clear as to that change of channel, when communicating with others. This is one of the criticisms I have of Tamborina’s flutterdances here. Walking through both rooms at the same time is schizo, not enlightened. It imposes a double image, like a photo from film that failed to advance {in the ancient world of analog photography}

        That sort of thinking may be well and good, sorted out properly in ones own epistemic structure – but when dealing with others on the material plain…asserting cosmic or divine knowledge isn’t going to pass muster in the practical sense of things.

        I think you made good points at other junctures as well…but I am often said to ‘dominate’ the threads, and I will leave this here.

        \\][//

      • ww,

        thanks for the kind words.

        re: “Believe or Not — Ripley?…I too have a magical mystical side.” i believe it because that side of you has come thru now and again.

        re: “Walking through both rooms at the same time is schizo.” yes it’s important to distinguish the materail world from the spiritual realm, and know where you are at any given juncture. adept shamans navigate both with ease.

        agreed when the topic is 9/11 truth (among other things): “when dealing with others on the material plain…asserting cosmic or divine knowledge isn’t going to pass muster in the practical sense of things.” i would point out, however, that it is this very approch that keeps so many organized religions going (e.g., via “the bible is the word of God”).

        –d

      • Dennis,

        This is from an email exchange I had today. It fits in with what we speak to in this section:

        “Their biggest mistake was allowing the internet to get away from them, says to me, their not on their game as well as they’d have us believe.”~Email Exchange 9/15/2012
        . . . . . . . . . .

        Absolutely, this is why I argue against this all powerful Manichean Devil concept …that they are somehow “genius” beyond measure. That they can even keep up with the incredible data flow that is this panopticon system. Let alone account for every twist and turn of future probabilities, regardless of their supercomputers and predictive gaming software.

        We are dealing with technologies designed by fallible human minds. I say our human intuition is still far beyond any ‘artificial intelligence’ – no matter the boast put to it. That intuition is after all a portion of Source, ta panta nous….it has no peer.

        \\][//

        • ww,
          yes, thanks. i had heard of some past prophesy that alluded to this, i.e., that an unprecedented way for people around the world to connect to each other, and see the world for what it is, would come into existence. sorry i don’t recall what the prophesy was specifically, but i think it may have had something to do with 2012 being a time for great potential change. in any event, it IS what is happening now, i agree.
          –d

      • Dennis,

        You say, ” i had heard of some past prophesy that alluded to this..”

        Perhaps you allude to Terrance McKenna and his Timewave Zero theory based on both the Mayan calendar and the ancient I-Cing…{?}.

        I have had a couple of versions of the TIMEWAVE ZERO predictive software. The best version was DOS, which had all of the sympathetic wave forms available to compare historical dates to. The new Windows platform is a pale version, just fancy colors and fast loading – but the guts of it are really missing.

        The END DATE: is December 21, 2012 according to this theory. That doesn’t mean “The End of the World”…it means something as to the likes of which you are saying, some ‘grand awakening’ of humankind.

        Does that mean ALL of us? Is it some sort of analogy to THE RAPTURE?

        Who knows? I just know that these are extraordinary times, that seem to sympathize with the stories of the Vedas in ways, the Hopi Prophesies in ways, and all manner of tales told throughout the ages throughout history and pre.

        As it is said, “we’ll see”.

        \\][//

        • WW,

          I don’t think it was Terrance McKenna. I looked up his Time-Wave Zero and came up with the article here http://www.december212012.com/articles/I-Ching/Time-Wave-Zero.htm , which (especially in the last paragraph) seemingly puts him in sync with what we are talking about, i.e., “some ‘grand awakening’ of humankind.” I do see 9/11 Truth as being a trigger for that.

          re: “Does that mean ALL of us? Is it some sort of analogy to THE RAPTURE? Who knows?”
          About ten years ago, at a John Perkins’ “Gathering of Shamans,” I asked a Mayan Elder, Mercedes Barrios Longfellow, about 2012, and noted her take as follows.

          There will be many huge changes, Mercedes said, but they will be gradual. She explained that in 1992, a cycle of light began, which will continue until the year 2012, when light will prevail over darkness. “Spiritual progress is gradual,” she stated knowingly. “Unless we reconnect, we cannot heal. Before we can heal, we need to wake up!” If we align ourselves, we will see and be aware of the shift. The physical body will be lighter, and we will be living on a “lighter vibration.” Some will not be able to change, so “the body will make its way out,” which I took to mean that some will die as a result of the changes that are destined to occur in 2012.

          Yes, “We’ll see” soon enough. 2012 is here! And yes, I too plan to be around for the next Christmas, which is just around the corner.

          –d

      • Actually “Resonance” is a better word than “Sympathetic” in what I am trying to describe in my TIMEWAVE ZERO explanation.

        One such Resonance point is that of the Battle of Hastings, and the waveform in an exponential miniature in 2008 with the Banking Crisis. The Battle of Hastings was a paradigm changing event in the history of Britain, Europe, and effected the entire global structure eventually.

        As we see; the events of the cusp of 2007/2008 have led to the global economic crisis – which as of yet has not come to its final repercussions. It does seem to be driving some sort of unveiling- or apocalypse as a tension rod in the consciousness of those so deeply effected.

        I have a TWZ chart – from 12/22/2007 to 12/21/2012 as a background to my opening window at boot-up. The waveform does seem to coincide with the flow of Novelty and Routine as we have moved through the last few years. But like reading the Yarrow Sticks, or the toss of the coins in the I-Ching, intuition has the greatest bearing on ones understanding of such an oracle.

        \\][//

      • One more thing Dennis,

        Unlike the unfortunate Sergeant Hara, of ‘Mr Lawrence’ – I fully expect to wake up on Christmas Morning this year {grin}.

        \\][//

      • To grasp the real sense of humor of The Source, check this out:

        LOLLIPOP HISTORY – THE BORN SUCKER MACHINE

        Samuel Born and the Born Sucker Machine

        Samuel Born was a Russian immigrant who invented a lollipop making machine. In 1916, San Francisco gave the ingenious candy maker the keys to the city for inventing the Born Sucker Machine. The machine mechanically inserted sticks into lollipops.
        http://inventors.about.com/od/lstartinventions/a/lollipops.htm

        Popular history, that taught in schools, academia, propagated in the media and entertainment; is a myth.

        I refer to this myth as “Lollipop History” because it’s for suckers. The real ‘Born Sucker Machine’ is the Public Relations Regime, built on Edward Bernays’ scientific dictatorship model…
        . . . . . . . . . . . .

        I discovered this confection history on line while I was looking to see if anyone had used the phrase, ‘Born Sucker Machine’, as I was starting an essay with the title above…and I wanted to be original in my title. Lol, finding that there really was such a machine…well, rolling on the floor laughing…that there was literally such a thing.

        \\][//

  10. Craig,

    You’re right. The hospitals are full of people who are less than healthy. The bankruptcy courts all full of people with insufficient balance sheets. Traffic courts with people who have failed to comply with traffic laws. Criminal courts likewise. Schools are rife with academic failures. And criminologists, medical scientists and pathologists, personal finance gurus, learning specialists, etc., study diligently why segments of the population suffer these maladies and shortcomings. And, in so far as our work is to convince all to accept facts and reality, we, too, concern ourselves with remediation. Personally, I think we might well devote more of our energies to society-wide, and not merely indiviuated, remediation and message effectiveness to cut through the palaver that plagues the whole.

    • James Hufferd says:

      “Criminal courts likewise. Schools are rife with academic failures. And criminologists, medical scientists and pathologists, personal finance gurus, learning specialists, etc., study diligently why segments of the population suffer these maladies and shortcomings.”
      . . . . . . . .

      This is thus ‘SYSTEMIC’…these “failures”__Yes?

      As one who studies this particular system, and the architecture of, and the core architects, I would say that ‘systemically’ the ‘failure’ is in fact a success.

      Just as in the microcosm that is 9/11 – the “failure” of the NORAD response, the “failure” of NIST, the “failure” of the Commission__ALL were by DESIGN.

      A ‘Police State’ is impossible without the ‘criminal’, the militarized police are only necessary with a militarized and organized criminal cabal {Fast and Furious, anyone?} — industrialized prison system are only possible with industrial scale criminality. A ‘national security state’ is only possible with a manufactured insecurity.

      The ‘outside enemy’ – the ‘divide and conquer’ of Machiavelli. “The most dangerous potential enemy of the state is the domestic population. The most dangerous enemy of the domestic population is the state” {THE PRINCE}.

      Do you seriously believe this system has developed by happenstance? By mere muddling along?

      NO, Design masquerades as Diagnosis in this system.

      All of these social maladies are by design. The system carrying this on is a burlesque, staged theater.

      Who benefits?

      \\][//

      • hybridrogue1, I agree with everything you say here, EXCEPT — the particular failure I was talking about, that I thought was our whole topic, wasn’t the story of of all the systemic failures alluded to, but the failure of individuals to comprehend that events must occur according to rationality, be subject to explanation by facts and evidence, and follow scientific laws. So, your response, while not untrue in itself, was, at least as you presented it, sort of a non-sequitor departure from what we’d been discussing in this thread.

      • Thanks for your reply Mr Hufferd,

        I am often apt to pull back for the panoramic view. In my opinion there is a certain entanglement of both of these issues, that is explained by the systemic analysis.

        Thank you for your general agreement.

        \\][//

    • I find that sometimes I need to look at things on a smaller scale – more personal than scientific. I realize it’s anecdotal, but it’s my journalistic take on what I observe. I think it has its place just as research-based writing does.

      • “I think it has its place just as research-based writing does.”~Craig McKee

        I couldn’t agree more Craig. That is what makes this such an interesting site, the varied perspectives…and the combinations thereof.

        As you may note, I have a personalized point of view as well, very dependent on my intuition. I have been fortunate enough to have had the time to study the technical issues as well, but this is always predicated on what my Muse leads me to find out.

        It is always in the back of my mind as well that; Certainty is a harsh mistress and can walk out on you at the worst moments__like in the thick of battle, having your shield split by a battle ax.

        \\][//

  11. First of all, I hate being told that I should focus on the victims on the anniversary of 9/11. That’s code for, “Can’t you stop your 9/11 truth shit for one day and be human?”

    I was applauding out loud when I read that, Craig. A member of my own family looked on me with disdain for actually having the chutzpah to hand out Experts Speak Out on the streets ON 9/11, God forbid. The one day of the year when people are actually thinking about the event anymore. This particular member of my family is idiotic, also suggesting in 2009 that “all of this ‘investigate 9/11′ stuff is old hat since we’ve got the young charismatic black Democrat in office now.”

    This relative of mine told me that “today is a day for grieving.” Yes, as if the many townspeople who were busily walking past the intersection we were located were going to stop at that exact intersection, bow their heads and grieve. Fortunately, we mainly got honks and thumbs up. No angry anti-truthers around, just the odd cold shoulder from people who walked busily past and declined the DVD offer.

    Meantime, while my group and I were handing out hundreds of ESO dvds on the street, the fake truthers at truthaction (Snowcrash, Albanese, truthmover, jimd3100, Hill, Gold) spent the anniversary bashing Dr. Steven Jones…

    • “the fake truthers at truthaction (Snowcrash, Albanese, truthmover, jimd3100, Hill, Gold) spent the anniversary bashing Dr. Steven Jones…”~Adam Syed

      Tell me more Adam__where can I find this? Do you have a URL?

      Thanks, Willy

      • I’d rather not increase their page ranking with a link, but just go to their “news and discussion” (lol) forum and check out the last couple pages of the “Pros and Cons of calling out alleged infiltrators” and “Steven Jones complains” thread.

        Wasn’t trying to derail this thread though. ;-)

      • below, ww observed, “…cognitive dissonance becomes a more complex issue when Sunstein is put into the calculations. This is obviously a ‘Full Spectrum’ counter intelligence operation involving ‘hidden teams’ of infiltrators into the truth movement.
        It is my opinion, and yours to trump, that leaving this hidden team portion off the table leaves us in a halfway sort of twilight zone.” i agree. maybe we can get into this a bit here (or elsewhere if more appropriate)–with a focus on the “attackers” of steven jones.

        as indicated in this thread, “fake truthers” are bashing jones now, but so have “real truthers” in the past, such as scott creighton, aka willyloman, who (at this link: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/steven-jones-continues-to-demo-truth-movement/) concludes that “[F]rom the start, Dr. Jones was in fact helping Dick Cheney and George W. Bush by distracting the Truth movement away from the valuable evidence exposed in the RJ Lee Group report…”

        i have very much learned from and enjoyed much (tho not all) of willyloman’s work. in my view, his take on jones adds up in a way, but is not fully convincing. meanwhile, i am left to wonder, why is it that people (seemingly) on opposite sides of the 9/11 spectrum have taken point-blank aim at the very same person (jones)? wtf is going on here?

        spy vs spy. who vs whom?

        –d

      • Dennis,

        I am of the same mind – WTF is going on here??

        Lowman’s works in particular are baffling, and particularly weak. His defamation of Jones for not going far enough in finding “other” materials in the dust samples is really a long and low shot.

        Anyone familiar with the sequence of Jones’ discovery chain, knows exactly why the evidence led to the thermite probability.

        On top of this Jones never claimed that it had to be thermite alone that did the whole job…mentioning RDX and others as possibly -even likely added explosives.

        He also explains that these other explosives do not necessarily leave the tell tale residues that the nano-gels would. That is why tagants are used in commercial manufacture of these high explosives. IF these explosives – such as PETN were used, they would NOT be commercial ‘tagant-signature’ products – they would obviously be military industrial specialty product, sans tagant.

        Anyway, some of the Jones bashing is manufactured cointel, some of it is bandwagon. All of it is resulting in the SMOKING GUN evidence put in question…
        in my view that is the whole agenda.

        \\][//

      • Dear Mr. Rogue,

        I’ve got one eye shut and my head tilted by 15 degrees as I look funny at your posting:

        [Willy Loman's] defamation of Jones for not going far enough in finding “other” materials in the dust samples is really a long and low shot. Anyone familiar with the sequence of Jones’ discovery chain, knows exactly why the evidence led to the thermite probability. On top of this Jones never claimed that it had to be thermite alone that did the whole job… mentioning RDX and others as possibly -even likely added explosives. … Anyway, some of the Jones bashing is manufactured cointel, some of it is bandwagon. All of it is resulting in the SMOKING GUN evidence put in question… in my view that is the whole agenda.

        Hmmm. Tsk, tsk, Mr. Rogue. This is a bit narrow-minded of you. And also a bit pre-mature, given that the Prager tabulation and highlighting of evidence originally presented by USGS data should have pointed in another nuclear direction: both for your conclusions and Dr. Jones. How far along are you in your reading there?

        Where you see “some of the Jones bashing being manufactured cointel”, I see how “some of the Jones defense being manufactured cointel” (… tsk, tsk, after a great run of legend establishment against Fetzer.) Keep us away from nuclear thoughts.

        Face it. Dr. Jones and A&E9/11Truth did not scientifically study the dust samples for all that they might contain. Gregg Roberts came up with a lame reason — passed the “sell-by-date” — for not doing it even late and after the fact. They didn’t look for RDX or anything else after they found their red flakes of super-duper-nano-thermite. They stopped there! How scientific is that? Not very. And as Prager points out, Dr. Jones didn’t look for Uranium and other trace elements either that TOGETHER and correlated TOGETHER over many systematic measuring locations would be signature — oh, I don’t know, maybe — to the very nuclear themes that Dr. Jones spent many fruitful years researching and studying.

        Oh, and on a tangent theme.

        You made all sorts of innuendo about Dr. Fetzer keeping his academic position, getting the McKnight promotion, and retiring with honors. In other words, he suffered no financial down-side from being a government shill. “I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Fetzer is a False Flag PSYOP.”

        You claim:

        [Jones] lost his teaching career, was stabbed in the back by associates, and has been raked over the coals by toadyboy pricks like James Fetzer and his F-trooper goon-squads.

        Really? Lost his teaching career? Like Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Jones never suffered any financial down-side. He was on paid administrative leave (while a peer-review-posse was formed) when he himself decided to retire (which shelved the peer-review-posse), getting in the process the emeritus title and never having to vacate his BYU office or his retirement benefits.

        Guess what? The Prager re-publishing of the true USGS findings would prove that the peer-review-posse would have legitimately twisted that back-stabbing-knife.

        You went on with your Dr. Jones defense:

        I am fairly convinced that a great deal, if not most of this alternative 9/11 truth movement has focused on the ruination of Professor Jones, and his chemical controlled demolition evidence; which by the way, never held nanothermite as the exclusive explosive used in said demolition.

        True enough: Dr. Jones never held nanothermite as the exclusive explosive used in said demolition. But Dr. Jones also never properly identified all of the possible additives, when the dust was at his fingertips. Worse, he purposely missed those pesky traces of nuclear hijinx in the dust, that he, as a nuclear physicists and right up his alley of nuking research, should have spotted and expounded upon extraneously and extensively.

        The performances here give new meaning to that Helgian Dialect and who might be working what side of the disinfo pincer.

        //

      • Señor El Once says, September 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm

        “Dear Mr. Rogue,

        I’ve got one eye shut and my head tilted by 15 degrees as I look funny at your posting:”
        . . . . . . . . . .

        Perhaps opening both of your eyes will help Señor.

        All that glitters is not gold….you might have figured that out by now.

        You chase the Wild Goose, and report back when you’ve bagged it.

        \\][//

    • Dear Mr. Syed, you wrote:

      Meantime, while my group and I were handing out hundreds of ESO dvds on the street, the fake truthers at truthaction (Snowcrash, Albanese, truthmover, jimd3100, Hill, Gold) spent the anniversary bashing Dr. Steven Jones…

      I commend you for getting out on the street to promote 9/11 insider job awareness.

      Without seeing examples of how these fake truthers were bashing Dr. Jones, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on their actions. Maybe it depends on how they were bashing him and what topics they could bash him on.

      Disclaimer: I’ve been bashing Dr. Steven Jones for quite some time here on Truth & Shadows. I apologize that the following refresher isn’t comprehensive and gets a bit repetitive.

      2012-06-06

      Need I remind you of nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones stepping into the picture, accepting that govt report “hook, line, and sinker” with no backtalking or contesting, and then tweaking it further in at least two scientific-slights of hand? How quickly you forget! What would have been the purpose of these juking efforts if the radiation wasn’t substantial (e.g., enough to consider a nuclear component)? Even with the juked numbers, they were 55 times greater than previous background levels! Dr. Jones put his damn reputation on the line to steer us away from even considering the levels that the report mentions which we have no reason to believe were the actual levels.

      2012-06-15

      But what I do have is Dr. Jones swallowing this govt report unchallenged. And then the good Dr. Jones makes some unscientific logic errors to conclude “no nukes were involved,” re-defines trace levels of radiation to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11, and offers no explanation for what might have been the source for even the (juked?) amounts of the deeply flawed govt report.

      2012-06-17

      The logic error from Dr. Jones is saying (paraphrased according to an Odell’s Double Pilsner on Father’s Day): Three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures respectively A, B, and C. Becaused we measured D, not only were these exact three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z not used, but no friggin’ nuclear weapons were used of any sort or manner. As long as you are swallowing this bunk, I won’t entertain any speculation into what could cause radiation levels D. And you will believe me, because I am a friggin’ Bee Why You nuclear physicist who was involved with cold fusion in a nefarious way in 1989.

      And now, it seems, I have more beef in the form of Mr. Prager’s efforts to back-up what my well-founded suspicions were getting at.

      From Page 52 of “1 – 162 • 911 America Nuked.pdf” [Part 1: 86MB]

      The reasoning by Dr. Jones and others used to explain the high levels of tritium are scientific frauds… Although Dr. Jones addressed the following issues partially, loosely, imperfectly in a fragmented manner using poor science that is just good enough to fool most people, he failed to adequately and properly address the increased uranium, thorium (two elements found only in radioactive form) tritium and the high levels of zinc, barium, strontium, vanadium, and especially potassium and sodium (these 2 are crucial) among other elements found in the dust as the levels increase and decrease together across 35 sampled locations by the USGS. Dr. Jones failed to use the Product Momentum Correlation and the ‘t’ test statistic, formulas he’s intimately familiar with, to discuss the various levels of these elements as they are seen in the dust, “together”. Dr. Stephen Jones himself studied Muon Catalyzed Fusion for the US Department of Energy in critical detail and is intimately knowledgeable in this area. … Dr. Jones’ studies in muon catalyzed fusion involved deuterium, uranium and tritium which produce uranium and tritium as a by-product of fission and fusion and were both found in high amounts in NYC. … Dr. Jones should be fully aware of the nuclear component to the events of 911… Since he’s obviously not and further seeks to hide the nculear component the only logical explanation is that he’s been tasked with covering it up.

      Funny how it works that if a production is too shoddy or too slick, it will gather suspicion of being propaganda. Mr. Prager’s efforts are on the slick side. At least they are a pleasure on the eyes for now [if you can get over the zig-zag reading style of multiple columns in a PDF.]

      If Mr. Prager is disinformation, I haven’t found what it is just yet. Don’t worry. Duped useful idiot that I am, I said the same thing about Mr. Shack’s September Clues, NPT, Dr. Wood’s new textbook,… but I have come around in thought on these to just protect the nuggets of truth that I found in these disinformation sources that others were purposely ignoring — by design. The analysis of the dust is a nugget of truth. Until it is refuted with properly applied science and analysis, it becomes a dusty gun damning a whole bunch of leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement including and not limited to Dr. Jones.

      //

      • “I can prove this and don’t need peer reviewed to confirm the science.”~Prager

        I can recall another 9/11 “researcher” using a very similar line…hmmm?

        \\][//

      • Mr. Rogue writes:

        I can recall another 9/11 “researcher” using a very similar line…hmmm?

        [The line in question: "I can prove this and don’t need peer reviewed to confirm the science.”~Prager]

        “Hmmm?” indeed, because you’ve had all summer to read and review a gift copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook to discover what was relevant and what wasn’t. Where’s my chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly review? It made you sick, you said, not realizing that this could have been valid criticism if you put some meat behind it.

        I brought up more than just several times [ad nauseam] the issues I had with Dr. Jones work, highlights above. The Jones errors are rather blatant, yet I’ve never read any capitulation on your part, or even a back-handed agreement… “Well, yeah, I guess Dr. Jones did do all of those unscientific things in his Public Relations tour, but…”

        I sent you links to Mr. Prager’s work in advance of posting things here, thereby exposing my game plan and giving you a leg up. And all we get is this guilt by weak-ass association ploy?

        “Hmmm?” indeed.

        Go to the library, my retired friend. Use their network to download Prager’s big files to a flash drive. Inform yourself. You won’t really have much meaningful to say until you start disputing levels of [name an element] found in correlated amounts at different locations to [name an element] that both have correlation to advanced nuclear weapons as per reports by the government that Dr. Jones conspiciously ignored.

        • I just want to make clear to everyone that I’m allowing some leeway on the topic of this new thread, including references to Dr. Jones and Jeff Prager, but I do not want the thread to be taken over by a scientific discussion concerning their work. I very well may write a piece about nuclear hypotheses of Prager and Dwain Deets so there will be a full discussion on that.

      • Dear Mr. McKee,

        If the Prager/Deets/Fox article is coming, I’ll back down and try to keep my pollution of this thread with technical battles to the minimum already posted.

        Mr. Rogue has the shot across his bow and forewarning where I will go when the opportune article is available in the hopes that it will improve the merits of both of our technical points.

        And Mr. Syed has the notification that Dr. Jones is no innocent or pure angel in his 9/11 participation. He is guilty of omissions — blatant ones in the realm of nuclear physics — that are now coming back to haunt him like bad Karma. Some criticism of Dr. Jones’ efforts is valid, so we can get at the truth.

        Let’s all put on our thinking caps when evaluating the newer nuclear links.

      • Señor El Once,

        As I recall the “gift” had a clause in the fine print…hmmm?

        Be that as it may, it is difficult to find a single thing therein that is in anyway different than that which was already on her website, which I became intimately familiar with during our discussion. The only thing new is, she has dropped reference to “space beams”.

        As we won’t be discussing the science aspect of this here, I will give you my initial take on this nuclear issue involving Prager, and the previous promoters of this idea:

        The Dust Data Deal:

        It is hardly bold to challenge Jones, who has made it absolutely clear that he has retired the 9/11 squabble game. He lost his teaching career, was stabbed in the back by associates, and has been raked over the coals by toadyboy pricks like James Fetzer and his F-trooper goon-squads.

        As one can tell, Fetzer always has his recruitment program on going. We have experienced a couple of novices on Truth and Shadows who were given trial runs there {CK and Dwil}. We also have a couple of Fetzer’s lieutenants, who are apparently on permanent duty on that blog {Tamborine and Onebornfree – 9 and 11 letters to their names respectively}.

        I am fairly convinced that a great deal, if not most of this alternative 9/11 truth movement has focused on the ruination of Professor Jones, and his chemical controlled demolition evidence; which by the way, never held nanothermite as the exclusive explosive used in said demolition.

        I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Fetzer is a False Flag PSYOP. I would posit that Fetzer was inducted into Intelligence while still in the Marines, was grandfathered into the university system and promoted by fiat.

        This would explain his cardboard-cutout rote scripted routines. Everything about him was designed for a part in the Public Relations Regime. His prolific output of academic publications may well be the work of teams of ghost writers. {It would be interesting to research whether Prager has had editorial or publishing involvement history on this head}.

        Note: Prager claims that he is a retired publisher.

        This is what my informed intuition tells me.

        \\][//

      • Craig,

        I understand we are specifically on the topic of why the general population is under enchantment and is delusional as per the 9/11 PSYOP.

        But as alluded to earlier, cognitive dissonance becomes a more complex issue when Sunstein is put into the calculations. This is obviously a ‘Full Spectrum’ counter intelligence operation involving ‘hidden teams’ of infiltrators into the truth movement.

        It is my opinion, and yours to trump, that leaving this hidden team portion off the table leaves us in a halfway sort of twilight zone.

        I am pretty sure you are cognizant of this by your post that I am answering, but I wanted to make sure.

        ~Willy

        • Yes, I agree to a point. But we could squeeze pretty much anything into that definition, don’t you think?

          When a new post goes up I enjoy reading a wide range of views from a number of people even if they’re not all exactly on topic. But often within three of four days (or less) we end up on familiar ground debating familiar topics and hearing familiar fights. If we can find a way to stay constructive and less repetitive, then I’d be more flexible on defining the topic.

  12. Meantime, while my group and I were handing out hundreds of ESO dvds on the street, the fake truthers at truthaction (Snowcrash, Albanese, truthmover, jimd3100, Hill, Gold) spent the anniversary bashing Dr. Steven Jones…

    Yeah, I noticed that too.

    Here’s a screenshot of what started the jackals off

    http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/tajones.jpg

    Maybe he was informed of this info through my thread at 911Oz?
    I find it hard to believe that Jones only found out this past few days.

    And Jeff Shure Hill’s thread the day after

    Yet the story of who may have facilitated the 19 hijackers and the infrastructure that supported the attacks — a crucial element of the narrative — has not been told. The pieces we do have underscore how much more remains unknown.

    Did the hijackers execute the plot alone, or did they have the support of forces other than the known leaders of al-Qaeda — a network even — that provided funds, assistance, and cover?

    It is not merely a question of the need to complete the historical record. It is a matter of national security today.

    And 911Blogger’s beaut for the anniversary

    Neoconservatives Ignored CIA Because They Had Other Priorities

    It has been thoroughly documented that 9/11 was entirely foreseeable … including Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

    The above was posted alongside the “Experts Speak Out” PBS appeal.

    Now if there are indeed “closet truthers”, how confusing would those two contradictory posts be? One is a LIHOP/OCT spin while the other promotes CD in Manhattan. It’s like a whiskey and Fanta cocktail. They don’t mix.

    • OSS,

      Yea – utterly confounding that anyone can still be discussing “hijackers” after all this time {?}

      One thing I cannot agree with in Jones’ note you post, is his “respect for Frank Legge”. ..but, as Jones has tried his best to retire and untangle himself from the whole 9/11 scrabble game, I can understand that he is trying to spend more time on his further pursuits and may not be as well informed and up to date as us “fanatics” may be {grin}

      \\][//

    • I shot Dr. Jones a private message several days back after he left his first comment calling out truthaction on that blogger thread. I said:

      Dr. Jones,

      You said on 911blogger:

      “A friend of mine has told me about how the truthaction group has gone over to the side of vehemently attacking co-workers in the 9/11 truth-seeking movement in ad hominem fashion.”

      These people at truthaction have been attacking legitimate activists for a long time. If you think this has only just recently started, you’re a bit late to the party.

      First, the site was founded by a person now proven to be a fraud. “Cosmos” claimed to have lost an “uncle” on 9/11. This was later proven false when his story fell apart under scrutiny. Anyway, the very existence of that site is on quicksandy ground.

      The same cast of characters, JohnA, Snowcrash, etc. went after Pilots and CIT the way they’re now going after you. They also made a 40+ page thread devoted to attacking Kevin Barrett. In the case of P4T/CIT, the attacks were not just at truthaction, but 911blogger as well. But fortunately for you, 911blogger hasn’t gone the whole way, i.e. anti-controlled demolition. But because we don’t have clear video of what happened at the Pentagon, the Snowcrashes etc. were able to deride and marginalize legitimate researchers as being “speculative” and “damaging the movement.” They put you now in the same category they’ve put Ranke/Balsamo/Barrett in several years ago: a “fraud.”

      “First they came out for the Communists, but I did not speak out because I was not a Communist…”

      You know how the saying goes.

      Cognitive infiltration, my friend, cognitive infiltration. Not a figment of David Griffin’s imagination.

      His response:

      THANKS for the heads-up, Adam.

      I’m finding you are correct. Truthaction seems to be JREF-2 pretty much…

      Steve

      I shot him back one final message (to which he didn’t reply, at least yet) informing him that Chandler and Legge cite Snowcrash as a legitimate expert/authority on the Pentagon. I also let him know that I’ve watched several documentaries lately on Nikola Tesla.

      • Ah so Mr Syed ,

        You decided to throw your own little jab in for good measure:

        >”I also let him know that I’ve watched several documentaries lately on Nikola Tesla.”
        . . . . . . . . . .

        Really? You are__just now_ looking into Nikola Tesla?

        Very curious…

        \\][//

    • HR: “Really? You are__just now_ looking into Nikola Tesla?”

      Oh, I didn’t get the memo that I was late to the Tesla party. ;) Yes, I tend to go from being ignorant to quite enlightened overnight sometimes. If at this time three months ago you mentioned his name to me I would have given you a blank stare. Of course, no such blank stare would have occurred if the name mentioned had been Thomas Edison.

      I thought it appropriate to mention it to Dr. Jones in my email because he said this within one of his 9/13 posts on 911blogger:

      Snowcrash continues: ” I would also like to ask how prof. Jones’ joule thief overunity device is coming along. Why hasn’t prof. Jones published about this revolutionary device for a long while now? Where is the revolutionary breakthrough, upending physics as we know it? We all know the answer.”

      But do you know the correct answer? I think not, because I’m staring at the energy data (not just from joule-thief-based designs) and it is profound, contrary to your childish and non-scientific jibes.

      But there has been opposition from the beginning; google “Tesla energy JP Morgan”, for example. But you don’t believe in opposition from such banksters and international corporationalists, do you? if not, you have some major surprises ahead of you IMO.

      Tesla is credited with saying to JP Morgan, ““Power will belong to everyone, like the air we breathe”. That is why this energy is sometimes called “free energy” — but not because it is extracted from nothingness — nothing could be further from the truth. JP Morgan saw a loss of profits and cut off all funding to Nikola Tesla, and asked his big-business cronies to NOT support Tesla either. We must exercise some caution in releasing data, we have learned. Tesla did not want his invention to get into the hands of war-mongers.

      I have never called it a “perpetual motion device”; Tesla reportedly despised that term — and so do I. There is another source of energy, that evidently you are not aware of….
      Edit: I include in the list of non-conventional energy sources of interest the LENR and electroweak interactions, as I have for years now.

      I need to get back to research now.

      Speaking of J. P. Morgan and the lengths to which corrupt financiers will go, I’ve also been giving the time of day to an interesting theory. I am not, repeat NOT, saying I’m sold on this theory… I’m already discovering a couple problems with it, but I can see a clear financial motive. Check it out:

      • Adam,

        I’m sorry about my incredulity about you’re knowledge – or lack there of, on the issue of Tesla.

        My mistake for taking something for granted, he is after all the man who promoted alternating current – trumping Edison’s idiotic plan, and clear lack of scientific understanding, plus Edison’s psychotic and brutal ‘showmanship’ with his cross country tour electrocuting animals, even an elephant on stage. A maniac indeed.

        Have you ever heard of the Real McCoy?

        McCoy, a black man, was the real genius behind many of Edison’s productions. Edison was a PR guy and a Manager more than anything else. A situation that STILL plagues creativity and inventiveness in the corporatist paradigm of the industrial and post industrial eras.

        Yes, I have been deeply into Tesla for many years, and it was unfair of me to simply assume that most people have become aware of him now that the Internet has come into being.

        \\][//

      • Oh yea Adam,

        The whole inside scoop on the Titanic as a hit on the more humane industrialists is an amazing story isn’t it?

        The rabbit hole is deeper and deeper — Wonderland is really up here…Lol

        The Red Queen, the Red Shield, the Crimson King…21st Century Schizoid Man.
        Morgan and the House of Mordor…

        \\][//

  13. Craig,

    Here’s that “3000 people died” line again…imagine that.

    “But it’s not true anyway, so who cares. 3000 people died on 9/11, nanothermite research is dead. It’s not funny.”~Snowcrash – Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:38 am

    “Must be the season of the witch” — what witch? the Sandwitch…sand for the eyes…

    \\][//

  14. Craig,

    This rant is spectacular my friend. Well said. I will chime in when I get some time to do so. For now I will just say that 9/11 truth conflicts with the world view of many people and they are acting the way they do in a desperate attempt to protect that world view from a serious threat, in this case 9/11 truth. Sometimes people will go to extreme lengths to deny a painful truth. For example the mothers of admitted serial killers will often say they don’t believe he did it and what a “good boy” he was. Cognitive dissonance in action my friend.

  15. Craig McKee says: “I’m working on a story that I’ll post soon about Ellen Mariani, a 9/11 widow who has been fighting for 11 years to bring the truth out about her husband’s death.”

    Since Fl. 175 never flew into WTC2, and could have therefor carried no passengers, and since Ellen Mariani’s husband, Louis Neil Mariani was allegedly a passenger on that fictitious flight : http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/Story.aspx?PersonID=91702 , it stands to reason that the Ms Mariani entity may well be nothing more than a paid actor mourning for a fictitious”husband”.

    At worst, an idea worth considering, perhaps, Mr McKee?

    Regards, onebornfree

    • You’d better have more than that to make that accusation. If she’s an actor, hers is the most elaborate acting performance in history. She has been stomped on for 11 years by corrupt lawyers and judges. Do you have ANY evidence that she isn’t legit other than your belief about Flight 175? Most people don’t believe Flight 175 hit the WTC, but that doesn’t mean people didn’t die. If you don’t have something concrete to back this up, you should drop it.

      • As to the Mariani case.

        There is that buried information about flights landing at the Cleveland Airport and the passengers being taken to a NASA hanger facility for questioning…and no one knows for certain what happened to these people after that.

        There has always been a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that the passengers from all the planes were herded onto 93 or stand-in, and shot down or blown up over Shanksville….there IS all of that miles of debris including suitcases and plane parts spread – besides the staged site at the old mine shaft.

        The ‘Simulated Victim’ rag that accompanies the ‘video fakery’ rag, has always hit a sour note in my mind….at least as far as a wholesale deal.

        I still think there were real passengers and crews…and the mystery of what really happened to these people is great. And the answers may vary quite a bit, some may be safely re-ID’d, living new lives – but most are likely dead.

        \\][//

      • Mr. Rogue writes correctly:

        The ‘Simulated Victim’ rag that accompanies the ‘video fakery’ rag, has always hit a sour note in my mind… at least as far as a wholesale deal.

        “Right you are, Mader.” By design. By design simVictims sours the notes in your mind.

        The Public Relation gambit placed upon simVictim by their main champions (Clues Forum and Let’s Roll Forums) is purposely overplayed to purposely eventually get it discredited and taken off of the table. Doesn’t mean that the victim rolls weren’t enhanced a bit with the help of photoshop and social media. Don’t buy it in wholesale bulk quantities. Smaller quantities at retail prices don’t go bad as fast.

        I think the Ohioian airport was Columbus and not Cleveland, but agreed, it was involved in “processing” a portion of the real people listed as plane victims. Being on the ground would also assist purported cellphone calls.

        All four planes were so under-occupied, they all could have fit into one plane and could have been made to believe just about anything: “Your original aircraft had mechanical problems. You are being put on this flight (from Columbus) that will fly you to [Atlanta] where we will put you in 1st class on the connecting flight to where you think you should be going.”

        The debris spread for miles verus the staged site at the old mine shaft? My, my. That is somewhat of a pickle to explain. If there was going to be the one, then why the other? Maybe because they were hedging their bets between:

        (A) A fictional story of passenger’s daring-do that put a plane nose down in a mine shaft… I mean, “field”. No bad karma aired in public for having shot the plane down.

        (B) A fictional story of a (Vice-) President finally showing some leadership by blowing out of the sky the last “aircraft missile.” If spun right, bad karma for killing our own becomes manly & decisive leadership to sacrafice a few in order to save many [in the nation's capital.]

        They ran their Nielson polls on the matter and obviously opted for A as the official story for the media talking heads. Whether or not a real commercial aircraft was shotdown and whether or not it would have contained real people (much less the reported people) are pure speculation. Of the wider path of debris, I do not recall even that having bodies or body parts, when it should have.

        The two fictional stories (A) and (B), however, end up being a stop-gap fairy tale with the govt deceit at the ready to be exposed. Dick Cheney fantasy speech: “Yes, you damn sonofabitches! I gave the god-damn order to shoot down that fucking plane before more innocent lives on the ground were lost, and I’m damn proud of it. And I’m guilty of lying about it and ordering the Shanksville crash site be created to distract and cover over this deed, because I didn’t want any of you weak-dick-liberal media hacks bemoaning me acting like a leader sworn to protect this nation from its enemies by sacrificing a few citizens for the greater good. Get over it, assholes, and look at the complex bigger picture: we were fucking attacked by foreign terrorists, and my orders protected us.”

        Once this circus made its rounds,… Just another spin.

        //

    • Disgusting attempt to AGAIN hijack a thread with video fakery crap OBF. Disinformationists such as yourself are relentless, just f’ing relentless. Are you pathologically unable to focus on anything other than video fakery? We debunked it, and debunked it, and debunked it again, and again, and again. Oh did I mention yet that we have decisively debunked that crap already, multiple times? Yes we did.

      • Yes OSS,

        It is blatant in your face clear that Unbornfreak has no interest in dialog, no interest in sorting things out, he has only one purpose here – PR for this garbage distraction of V-Fakery…

        No matter how many times he is reminded he is busted, he keeps the toe of his boot wedged in the door and keeps up his sales pitch. You notice the other two of this team have zip to say unless they can put up their kiosk and blare the loud speakers.

        \\][//

  16. Craig. Thanks for this. I get the feeling you are tired, which is understandable, but way more patient than I am. Yet I am patient compared with any number of truther friends, who write painfully of their families’ and friends’ refusal to see what is so clear to us. On the 10th anniversary, I took the bus to NYC from Cincinnati. I had lived with the truth for so long, I felt the need to be where it all began. I had made a 2′x3′ sign back home, folded it into thirds and packed it. When I got to the place where they let folks gather a few blocks from Ground Zero, I unfolded the sign.It said: “We honor the victims by learning the truth.” Our hope is that more and more and more and more folks will honor the 2 million (and counting) victims by acknowledging the self-evident truth.

    • I think your sign couldn’t have carried a more apt message. I’m not so much tired as I am incredibly frustrated by people’s – I know I shouldn’t say this – STUPIDITY! Er, I mean their difficulty in accepting the… yada yada.

      • “I know shouldn’t say this – STUPIDITY!”~Craig

        Well I think the word is appropriate. They ARE ‘stupefied’…and self imposed ignorance is indeed a mode of stupidity.

        I have to admit that I am more than tired, more than a bit frustrated….

        I am pissed off at idiot Amerika, lolling in this bullshit ‘American Exceptionalism’, falling to their knees in supplication to the goonland security state, ‘conveniently’ looking the other way as millions are murdered in far away lands by the standard of the red, white, and blue that these mindless jingo psychopaths wave, while gorging on hot dogs and sparklers every Fourth of July…or in their quack Party Conventions, like the preposterous displays just put on for the dear leader post of, el Presidente.

        No, I am not tired at all__this kind of lunacy recharges my dissident batteries.

        \\][//

      • I continue to encounter very well-educated people who know little or nothing about 911 truth. As an example, a week ago, in Seattle, I sat at a dinner table with a cool, thirty-ish architect, very liberal, who had never before heard the “inside job” meme, He listened to a short list of “realities, shook his head, and told those gathered that he simply could not handle the information, that he “couldn’t bear to live in a world where we (the US) would commit such a crime.” His father-in-law and I talked about it later. “What kind of world does he think we live in?” my friend said.
        My way of dealing with this problem is to try to go under the radar, by writing a funny screenplay (Photo-Op) and a serious play (Special Eddy) which deal with ithe evidence in an indirect manner. This, in the hope that–should these scripts find their way into production–members of the audience would be coaxed into seeing things they would reject if they were “sermonized.” I think it was Mencken who said, “You can’t talk somebody out of something they were never talked into to begin with.”

      • “..very liberal, who had never before heard the “inside job” meme,”

        Wow what an incredibly sheltered existence this guy must be living…

        Can that really be called “LIVING”?

        More like Ken and Barbie Doll plastic existence.

        Reminds me of, THE DAYS OF PERKY PAT.

        \\][//

      • Reference:

        The Days of Perky Pat is a science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick, first published in 1963 in Amazing magazine.

        Perky Pat Layout by Philip K. Dick: A very special playset into which adults could project their very being.

        \\][//

    • thanks, it was good to review this 2006 drg piece. i wonder, however, if drg would still say this today: “In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this essay—as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed in my books—I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11.” in my view, you might as well ask the CIA to take the lead in revealing the truth about 9/11.

      • yea Dennis,

        I think DRG is STILL to this day somewhat naive…Jones too….they are both academics that went from 0 to 60 in seconds flat….neither one actually had any idea about the real architecture of political power. Just that the story doesn’t jive about 9/11 – that this is part of a long – centuries long, agenda cannot be grasped in a matter of days. Accepting that the whole paradigm is as phony as the 9/11 story is as exponential a leap as accepting that the 9/11 story is absurd.

        This is why everything boils down to the central core…and why I keep stressing the panoramic perspective.

        The perpetrators are not just one administration, like so many seem to want to prosecute….not simply “Mossade/Israel”…if this case is to be broken we have to open up the whole enchilada to see all the ingredients making it up.

        Oh man o’man…are people not ready to give up EVERYTHING they ever held to be true….

        It’s just not going to happen – only a deluge changes something as huge as this.

        Kali with a Luger baby…bang bang

        \\][//

  17. In just the last few days I think I lost a dear friend from high school and fellow musician when what started out as a very productive 9/11 FB discussion got derailed by the related topic of the ‘Holohoax’.

    On his own, he had begun discovering the numerous anomalies with the official story of 9/11 and was becoming increasingly uncomfortable by them. He began asking me all the right and obligatory questions, just as I was asking myself 5-6 years ago – many from a basic structural engineering/physics stand point. I could almost see his healthy skepticism growing with each exchange.

    He was about half way through a video I recommended; “Missing Links”, when he asked me if I “believe” in the Holocaust.

    My reluctant response angered him; (in short) that both events are cloaked in secrecy and surrounded in deliberate mythology that require us to suspend reason, the laws of science, forensics, math and probability, ALL in favor of the emotion of FEAR – that in turn specifically favors the Zionist demographic . . . as long as we accept their fantastically incredible stories and never raise our voices above a whisper when referring to them.

    I had no prior knowledge that his faith in the mythology of the Holocaust was above reproach and so sacrosanct to him.

    He is open to the WHAT of 9/11, but not the WHO – only that it was perpetrated by anyone BUT the immune Zionist perpetrators themselves. Clearly, immunity through victimology has worked exceedingly well for this tiny demographic over this past century.

    I’m saddened that he is currently contemplating never speaking to me again, and feel guilty of being hasty and clumsy in giving him too much, too soon.

    Perhaps, I should have referred him to a step-by-step pedagogy like Dan Noel’s: http://www.911babystep.com/ Clearly, how and when we say something is as important as what we say. Great teachers do that instinctively.

    Often we have so much to lose and little to gain by attempting to share our unpopular insights, which one would think is testimony to the sincerity of that insight.

    After all, we are told that there where many who spat on Jesus.

    • I also lost a musician friend on facebook when I posted a Holocaust revisionism video. It was actually about how Obama liked (oops, “misspoke) during the 2008 campaign about having had an “uncle” (you reading this Cosmos?) who was part of the team that liberated Auschwitz. Guess what. Unless this uncle was member of the Red army, he could have done no such thing. Right wingers picked up on this and called him out on it, so he modified it to Buchenwald. It may indeed be true that Obama’s uncle was part of the Buchenwald liberation team, but (1) that camp’s name isn’t as well known as Auschwitz and doesn’t strike that same shudder of death through people and (2) Buchenwald, and ALL camps on Germany proper, were not death camps, even orthodox historians agree on that.

      So anyway, this FB friend commented saying “Do you have nothing better to do with your life Adam?” and immediately unfriended me.

  18. If we can figure out how to break through the cognitive dissonance wall we will have this battle won. This is the single most important blockade to our victory. How do we get through to people who do not want to be gotten through to? Well it is simple, we redefine the problem. The problem we have to solve is not getting through to people who don’t want to know. The real challenge for us is figuring out how to make those same people actually want to know the truth. To do that we have to offer something better on the other side of this than the false reality they are protecting so fiercely.

    So what is on the other side of 9/11 truth? Think about it, what will change, what will the world be like when the truth about 9/11 is accepted by all?

    I don’t know about you folks but I see a great new world on the other side. A world where leaders are held to the highest possible standards and placed under the most stringent restrictions and checks and balaces, and they are scrutinized constantly by a population that has awakened.

    • This is a great point. Perhaps we could put more focus on the up side of awakening rather than on the dark side of tyranny. Especially when most people don’t even see the tyranny. It is a challenge, though. To tell people how wonderful the world could be if things changed requires them to begin seeing the problem at some point. Quite a task but worth embarking upon.

  19. @Adam R

    Great post.

    The problem is that the potential to open eyes is almost negated by the manufactured global crises (monetary, global war and IMO the real reason behind government involvement in many of the “lone nut” shooting sprees discussed in the previous blog).

    People are worried about the here and now. The mortgage. The crime ridden streets of working class areas stoked by a policy of containment and abandonment. An unstable, insecure middle class. And a 1% leeching off of this politically created abscess. A 1% which runs the show and will do anything to stay within this elite group.

    I believe that the way forward is to select and publicize instances of admitted false flag events, admitted involvement in psychological experiments (MKUltra), the documented history of CIA involvement in world affairs from Operation Paperclip to manufactured, state sponsored wars costing millions of lives.

    I think that trying to convince somebody of the events of 9/11 without first pointing them to information and the history leading up to 9/11 only results in these same people putting up their mental barriers. Maintain the integrity of the fuzzy bubble they’ve placed themselves in that is already under incredible strain.

    A major foundation of cognitive dissonance is the need for authority to reassure and help us make up our minds through carefully choreographed fearmongering through the whore media and politicians.

    The exposure of the powers that be and their propaganda puppets as being, and always having been undeniable perpetual liars has to be the first step.

    • I agree with you OSS,

      It is a really BIG story with a long preamble…

      And just accepting that 9/11 was an inside job accomplishes nothing at any rate, unless it leads to an understanding of what ALL of it means and the dire situation ahead unless sorted out.

      Fruition is a terrible situation when it means, New World Order – the global gulag.

      It’s on [FFWD >>] now….zooooooooooooooom

      All this “don’t let the Jones’ out-Smith you” needs to put to the dustbin of history.

      \\][//

  20. Craig,

    Time is really of the essence now.

    I hope you can work up a good article in support of a very worthy cause. I refer to the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund which can be viewed at http://www.marianilawsuit.com. Ellen stands out as the lone 9/11 widow litigant still courageously battling it out for truth and justice in a bastard judicial system. Her cause should be the cause of all true American patriots

    James Phillips, J.D.
    Vice President of the Committee for the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund.

    • James,

      Thanks for pointing this out. I have an article in progress and hope to get it done in the next two days (I couldn’t get it done in time for the 11th anniversary so I went with another topic). I understand time is short.

    • James Phillips,

      So just what are the options when the corrupt judicial system, connected to the corrupt legislative system, connected to the corrupt executive system, connected to the corrupt financial system, powered by the corrupt Public Relations Regime holds the population in the enchantment of a false paradigm?

      It is a complex question, this I know…But it is ONE question at the heart of it.

      Is it not?

      How can it be answered within the system as it stands?

      \\][//

  21. Some very very good posts made in this thread so far. I especially like the recent comments by Ruff and OSS.

    I think that trying to convince somebody of the events of 9/11 without first pointing them to information and the history leading up to 9/11 only results in these same people putting up their mental barriers. Maintain the integrity of the fuzzy bubble they’ve placed themselves in that is already under incredible strain.

    I especially agree with this. Unfortunately, back in 2006 when I was showing colleagues “Loose Change” and they were impressed by it, a lack of historical awareness on their part can leave them with the impression that 9/11 was an isolated conspiracy, that it was purely a Bush administration thing, that the country was healthy, open and transparent pre 9/11, etc. But when you show them something like Alex Jones “Terrorstorm,” it does more to enlighten them and snap them out of their original world view than a film that focuses exclusively on 9/11.

    By the way, I know I’ve mentioned a couple other topics in my earlier comments on this thread. I am about to mention one again, only for the purposes of analogizing. It is not meant to be bait to derail the thread.

    SherrifShaalan mentioned the holocaust in this thread, about how he lost a friend on facebook for airing an alternative view, and I responded that I also had a parallel experience.

    Coincidentally, on the same Dr. Jones thread over at blogger, the topic has crept up. How the thread went off topic is neither here nor there; but a poster “Poseidon” made several very valid claims about the specifics of the gas chambers, and was admonished by credibility cop, er, I mean, Responsible Truther “rm.” His admonishment concludes with this:

    And bear in mind, there are passionate and articulate critics of Zionism and Israel, and advocates for Palestinian rights, who are not in the least bit revisionists where the Nazis or the Holocaust are concerned. Such noxious revisionism is not a prerequisite (thank goodness) for critiquing Zionism and Israeli policy.

    Basically, nothing that Poseidon said was actually refuted; it was the whole argument of “DAMN IT, EVEN IF TRUE, it only serves to make you look crazy!!” (or in this case, “racist.”)

    Let’s see how RM’s quote could be altered by someone like Arianna Huffington or Amy Goodman to dismiss 9/11 Truth:

    And bear in mind, there are passionate and articulate critics of the USA and its militarism, and advocates for non-interventionism, who are not in the least bit “truthers” where Bush, Cheney, the US Military etc are concerned. Such noxious revisionism is not a prerequisite (thank goodness) for critiquing American foreign policy.

    See how easy that was?

    I also tried, about a year and a half ago, to get an extremely prominent, and publicly visible, member of the 9/11 truth movement to endorse CIT’s National Security Alert. This person asked me to keep his identity confidential. So I will. I will, however, without revealing his name, share you his response to me:

    Confidentially…

    Yeah Adam I think the CIT research is as convincing as any other of the main 911 “smoking guns”, but the divisiveness and controversy surrounding the pentagon and CIT within the movement is too strong of a deterrent for me to go to bat, I’m afraid. Wherever it comes up, It seems to build more schisms than bridges for whatever reason. Considering that even without CITs body of work there is plenty of less controversial yet nonetheless damning evidence to focus on, I’ve chosen to steer clear. Call it prudence. Call it cowardice. But that’s my stance, brother.

    Now, let’s see how that quote can be modified to dismiss 9/11 truth evidence as a whole.

    “Confidentially…

    Yeah, Mr. [XXXXXXX], I think the evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement is as convincing as any other of the main “smoking guns” against the Bush administration, but the divisiveness and controversy surrounding the “truther movement” within the mainstream progressive/anti-war movement is too strong of a deterrent for me to go to bat, I’m afraid. You have people like Bill Maher who are vehemently opposed to the truthers. Wherever it comes up, It seems to build more schisms than bridges for whatever reason. Considering that even without the 9/11 truth movement’s body of work suggesting “inside job” or “false flag,” there is plenty of less controversial yet nonetheless damning evidence to focus on, such as the WMD lies and the use of torture, which even the mainstream media have acknowledged without controversy, which would be enough to get Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al behind bars, I’ve chosen to steer clear of “9/11 truth” “inside job.” Call it prudence. Call it cowardice. But that’s my stance, brother.”

    • “Call it prudence. Call it cowardice. But that’s my stance, brother.”~anonymous correspondent to Adam S.

      Now this position is first of all, the very definition of “disingenuous.”

      Any person that claims to be in a situation where the candid expression of what their true views are, can be said to be in an “Unfortunate Situation” – that is a COMPROMISED situation. As such, calling that position prudent, is obviously trouser gas. Thus “cowardice” is indeed the proper characterization of said individual. There is no doubting his ‘reasoning’ to remain anonymous, as this person reveals that they are, a ‘Disingenuous Coward’…a Moral Coward.

      Thanks for the example Mr Syed.

      \\][//

  22. @ Craig McKee

    So what’s the story Craig, did my reply [posted 17 hours ago] to your “drop it” comment concerning Ellen Mariani simply not make it , or was it not published by yourself on purpose , as may have well been the case with my previous non-appearing comment regarding your strange contention that threads repeatedly dominated by one particular person involving a “face off” of some description, are both readable and informative [when to me they are about as interesting as watching paint dry]?

    Or was that entire “paint dry” post deleted because of the “ph” word , which by the way, had been previously used and posted by the same aforesaid individual in that very same thread, if I recall correctly.

    If so, why couldn’t you have just “starred” the [selectively] offensive word, e.g. : ” ****”

    Enquiring minds want to know :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • I wasn’t able to respond to you yesterday because I was away from my computer for the bulk of the day. However, I don’t know what you’re referring to. I don’t have any comments awaiting approval from Friday night and I certainly did not knowingly decline to approve anything. Is it possible you didn’t send it? Either way, I’ll respond to it if you try again.

      • @ Craig McKee:

        Craig, I again sent a post to you this Sunday night 7 pm Eastern, concerning the Mariani issue.

        On checking both the main page and the rss feed at 7 am Monday, the post had not appeared, so I then attempted to resend the exact same post [ as I had saved it].

        However, on attempting to send it again, your site told me : ” Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”- which obviously means that my original comment was received your end, despite the fact that it is not there, even now almost 24 hours later.

        What’s going on?

        Regards, onebornfree

        • I don’t know what happened. I don’t have the comment. I can tell you I have not censored any of your comments. Perhaps it ended up going into the spam folder by mistake (this happened a couple of times to Jim Fetzer). All I can suggest is that you send it again now and I’ll check for it.

  23. As I hope that Mr Zwicker will take the time to answer A. Wright’s comment above at September 15, 2012 at 6:03 am, I am moving this commentary down here to give space for such.

    As part of Mr Wright’s commentary he asks this, as if it were a ‘rhetorical’ question, and not applicable to current US jurisprudence:

    >”What would be the conviction rate in court if the prosecution were the only ones to present evidence to the jury?”~Wright
    . . . . . .

    However, as a result of the changes in law DUE TO 9/11, this is no longer a hypothetical question. Those who have followed the changes in law due to the passages of the PATRIOT Act. The Military Commissions Act, and further technical adjustments of, in various legislation and judicial rulings, we find that due to these changes; the “prosecution [are] the only ones to present evidence to the jury,” AND this evidence is kept SECRET from the defense counsel, and cannot be challenged due to “national security concerns”.

    The Writ of Habeus Corpus has been totally disparaged by post 9/11 “jurisprudence”. In fact as per cases deemed to be under the head of “Terrorism” the laws are clearly changed to “Guilty until proven Innocent”.

    These cases and issues are too well known to demand that I cite specific examples. However, I will give one that is current news today:

    Feds Seek Stay of Anti-Terrorism Law Ruling in NYC 15 Sep 2012

    “The federal government asked a judge on Friday to suspend a ruling that bars enforcement of an anti-terrorism law that she called unconstitutional in its provisions for indefinite military detention. The law allows detention of people suspected of “substantially” or “directly” providing support to groups such as al-Qaida [al-CIAduh] or the Taliban.

    Some journalists, scholars and political activists sued over the law, saying they feared they could end up being held for exercising First Amendment rights. Government lawyers called such concerns unfounded, but U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said in her ruling Wednesday that she found them legitimate. In court papers filed Friday, the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan asked for a stay of the decision while the government appeals.”
    . . . . . . .

    Does Mr Wright understand the term: “indefinite military detention”?

    Is Mr Wright cognizant of the language in ‘The Bill of Rights’?

    \\][//

  24. It’s pretty easy really, if you think it was an inside job, or not. Have an independent investigation, what could be simpler? But no, according to these people it isn’t necessary, we know who did it. But if they want to stop what they call “disrespect”, this is the only way. If they actually bothered to consider just one simple fact, they may see where we are coming from: Why don’t the government WANT an independent investigation?

  25. @Wright

    — Wow, I had to do some digging through the mini convos I was unaware of going on above (thanks Willy)

    If people don’t remember the collapse of building 7 from the day it would be in spite of the concerted efforts of the media to show it’s collapse live on tv, with news reporters talking about it and saying how much it looked like a controlled demolition. These are the videos that the 911 truth movement show constantly and talk about as if they somehow unearthed this secret hidden information , in spite of some concerted effort by the media to cover it up. What the problem is or why anyone would be making a fool of themselves, I can’t understand, unless they are given some distorted version of events.

    Wright

    How long after people started to actually question 9/11 did this footage begin to disappear? How much footage, documentation and testimony is still under wraps if not completely destroyed? Why does NIST have to tweak the numbers and exaggerate fires to create a computer simulation that looks nothing like the collapse we all saw? How was the collapse announced prematurely to within minutes? What are the odds that a BBC live feed of WTC7 still standing in the background (while its collapse was announced) would have “expired” mid interview? Why was the same footage temporarlily “lost”/”misplaced”?

    I think people’s stimuli were overloaded with the repeated twin towers footage to take in WTC7. To take anything in.

    I know that these questions (of many) are only worthy of a shrug of the shoulders from you “Wright”.

    It’s times like this that I’d love to hear government loyalists like Wright comment on the likes of the “Vietnam Holocaust” video posted above. Just to see if there’s blood running through their veins. To maybe give him a glimpse of why “twoofers” like me and others on this blog take any “official story” based mainly on their “word” alone with a very large pinch of salt.

    • OSS,

      I somehow doubt that this government collaborator, “Wright” has the cajones to do another jingo fan-dance here…he seems to have the same ‘BB’ sized rocks as Unbornfreak, who cannot even bear to mention my gravitar-name without breaking out in a heebeejeebee sweat {grin}.

      \\][//

  26. Here is something for the “Rah Rah Amerika” Jingo Boosters to consider:

    Since 1945, the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of them democratically elected. It has attempted to suppress a populist or national movement in 20 countries. It has grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries. It has dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries. And it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
    ~Historian William Blum

    \\][//

    • ..but amazingly have made no enemies, so much so that they have to go and create false enemies and plan false attacks on themselves and blame it on pretend enemies who are really your friends. I mean you overthrow 50 governments , supress populist movements, bomb more than 30 countries, attempted to assasinate 50 foreign leaders, and what thanks do you get? You would think maybe someone would have the common decency to be your enemy and want to strike back. The ungrateful b***tards!

      • So, let’s see if we got that straight A. Wright,

        You are then agreeing that Amerika is a warmongering maniacal imperialist system that SHOULD BE DESPISED by the people of the world because of it. Right?

        And of course this automatically translates into the Intel, prime number-one limited hangout modifier: BLOWBACK, by a group of fanatics that it is proven were designed by that Intelligence system….
        ..who were able to overcome the most powerful and sophisticated military state in the history of the planet by a simple plan that “nobody could ever imagine,” such as using airplanes as kamakazi missiles flying them into high profile targets…
        {Keep us rolling monkeyboy}

        And THIS regardless of the FACT that you cannot articulate a single argument of proof that the official story must be true. Right Wright?

        Are you again going to dick around with stupid, shallow rhetorical bullshit games here Mr Wright? Is that your shtick and your shticking to it?

        I would wager it is, you’ve never come up with anything else here.

        So now why don’t you go lobby your warmongering sonsofbitch masters to bomb some more of those, “Ungrateful b**tards” simply for being so ungrateful? That must be a primal sin to such a jingo jango dipstick as yourself.

        \\][//

      • Willy

        Better still, going by Wright’s logic, the US is hated 10 fold compared to pre 9/11.
        Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, to name but a few.

        So why in the past 11 years since 9/11 haven’t there been any similar “Jihadi” operations bar the dozen or so FBI “stings” where impressionable young idiots were nurtured, manipulated and coaxed into dummy “attacks” that the FBI had rigged themselves?

        It’s not so difficult now is it? Boxcutters..

        Why the need for this little campaign when the highly trained multiple cells throughout Europe, Africa and the US could just as easily pull a low-risk, non-weaponized event or with readily available over the counter explosive components. An under the counter automatic weapon. Boxcutters…

        I mean, never mind a hijacked airliner. A suicide bomber? A carbomb? Anthrax?

        Nothing.

        Boxcutters….

      • Wright,

        Where your nerve endings are sticking out raw like that__vibrating with fear and terror, Truth is felt as pain.

        You are “thinking” with your emotions. You are a victim of mind control and programming. It is so easily seen from without. You are impressed into a tiny little box subconsciously, with guards at every exit…these guards are emotional cues, points of implanted traumas. It takes courage to face these regardless of the pain it brings.

        Where is your courage Mr Wright? They have made you hide it away in some dark closet in your mind. Only you can retrieve it.

        \\][//

  27. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/ 

    Al Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset

    Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
    Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular.

    With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

    “Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

    ”The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Perhaps Mr Wright will get a clue why I hold him and his ilk in such contempt, and have no problem making that absolutely clear here.

    These are not “National Security secrets” – they are published in the mainstream press. And as with the Bldg7 fiasco – it is a matter of “Spin and Forget”.

    I would advise all you jingoberry bootlickers not to wait for that nuclear flash in the sky to “see the light”…

    \\][//

    • Willy, I think that link is broken (I’d like to read it).

      In my earlier post, “Why the need for this little campaign when the highly trained multiple cells throughout Europe, Africa and the US..” should have contained the phrase alleged highly trained…

      Cheers!

      • OSS,

        I get email alerts to the Global Research articles I read it in my email. I did go to the URL to save the essay to file. I found that it loaded, but with the right margin cut off – new format…wide screen bs….upgrade or die wanko…pisses me off…anyway__I don’t know why other’s would have other problems..

        I think it is a form of low intensity warfare – a strategy of tension, in that they are putzing with the web just enough to make it a frustrating hassle—maybe we’ll all give up and go draw pictures in chalk on the sidewalks and play jax, pay tax and die.

        \\][//

      • Hey OSS,

        I found that Prof. Michael Chossudovsky article from this index of GlobalResearch.ca:

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/theme/9-11-war-on-terrorism/

        I’ll try posting the link a few different ways (you may need to copy/paste into your browser to get it to work):

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/
        “http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/”
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/

        NOTE: All 3 methods worked for me just now when copy/pasted, but the 2nd one (with the “quotation marks”) took me to a Google search that linked that article from several sources.

        Cheers,
        mrboz

        P.S. Sorry to read of your recent bannings, but I’m far from surprised those 2 gatekeepers finally ‘dropped the hammer’ as it were. I myself was “post-banned” at ATS without ANY warnings for using the term “dick” twice while I was discussing the Mavi Mara piracy incident and other UN-sanctioned acts of Israeli aggression/war crimes with one of their ubiquitously-trolling Hasbarites (likely posting from Haifa IMHO). That wasn’t even on the 9/11 sub-forum where I got banned from that pro-OCT troll-infested shit-hole of a “moderated forum!” Don’t feel too bad- truth be known you are probably in better (and better informed) company here..

        Peace.

      • Craig, I don’t understand how obf’s “complaints” are getting through but his posts aren’t. Is he flaffing about??

        @ Willy

        Cheers!

      • Craig McKee : “It is clearly not getting through for some reason. Can’t you create a new comment with some difference from the other one so it is not taken as a repeated comment?”

        The post has not been rejected as a repost the last two times I sent it – I have not got the message “duplicate comment detected etc.” the last two times. That happened one time only.

        Besides, the last attempted send included an entirely different preamble concerning the problem [ my attempt to try and fool the system], plus the time sent, then the main body of the original post, but that obviously did not work either.

        I am starting to suspect your site has been hacked and my posts concerning Ellen Mariani are being deliberately deleted by someone who does not want the issue raised here. Despite my [unproven] suspicions, immediately after posting this I will try my 5th resend.

        Regards onbornfree.

      • Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

        I have experienced problems with posting in the past just as you described. Because I compose & save off-list, it was not a problem for me to try posting again. In order to get around the duplicate posting checking, as well as being nice to Mr. McKee for making sense of what is happening, kindly type “2nd Attempt” or appropriate on your next tries.

        I suspect the problem is a WordPress credentials issues and the validation of cookies that might have expired, etc. Killing all instances of the browser and restarting ought to help.

        When it happened to me, it was very suspicious. A posting would work on a different thread; sometimes it would work in a different part of the culprit thread. But to make a reply at the exact spot where desired got trapped into something and would not make it into an approval queue. Subsequent attempts were flagged as duplicates.

        Yes, for the conspiracy minded, it seemed as if the topic was taboo.

        //

  28. Background checks on the article, ‘Al Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset’

    1] Pervez Hoodbhoy: Easy enough, he has his own wikipage. He is a nuclear scientist from Pakistan. {Just drop his name in your browser}.

    2] Kathryn Stratos, M.P.Aff. Project Manager A.I.D. Office of Development Resources, Bureau for Europe, Washington, D.C. {See: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK558.pdf }

    \\][//

  29. Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA
    18 Sep 2012 A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

    \\][//

    • Dear Mr. Rogue,

      There could be another spin to the situation.

      NDAA Detention Provisions Struck Down By Obama Appointed Judge
      By Nathaniel Downes

      What we are looking at here is a strategic maneuver by the President to strip away these provisions. The USA PATRIOT act put them where the courts could not easily touch them, so he worked hard to make sure that they were attached to the NDAA in just the right way to open up the door. He cut a deal to get certain judges in on certain dates, which put a judge he selected in to the correct court at just the right time for the NDAA signature. Then, he gave a strong enough defense to make sure that Congress could not go after him for failing to do his job as President, but not strong enough to drag out the case. Then the administration prematurely executed their appeal, ensuring that getting another appeal opportunity would be more difficult, and even then it would not be in the hands of any successor.

      This is playing political chess. Without ever exposing himself to liability, the President, a constitutional lawyer before entering into politics, used the system in order to overturn one of the most easily abusive and abhorrent provisions which has ever been signed into law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

      • Señor El Once,

        Only someone still suffering under that “Hopey Changey” delusion would consider such a comical “interpretation” as that.

        Obama, the closeted hero for human rights….surely you jest.

        \\][//

  30. Craig McKee says: “You’d better have more than that to make that accusation. If she’s an actor, hers is the most elaborate acting performance in history. She has been stomped on for 11 years by corrupt lawyers and judges. Do you have ANY evidence that she isn’t legit other than your belief about Flight 175? Most people don’t believe Flight 175 hit the WTC, but that doesn’t mean people didn’t die. If you don’t have something concrete to back this up, you should drop it.”

    “Drop it” ? What is that exactly, a not so subtle “recommendation”?

    What are you implying- that posts questioning the authenticity of this person will not be allowed here? Please elucidate.

    My question derives from my working assumption[s], which, as you know, are that Fl. 175 did not hit WTC2, [because the network and "amateur" live videos showing a plane- Fl.175- are all fake computer generated imagery], and that therefor there could have been no passengers on that plane [or any other of the 4 alleged flights] that day.

    Since Ms Mariani claims to be the wife of a Fl.175 passenger, is that not enough by itself to question the authenticity of Ms. Mariani?

    What could be more “concrete” than that? What possibly could raise a bigger red flag than _that_, fer chrissakes? :-)

    On the other hand, if you are saying that you believe that Fl.175 _did_ hit WTC2 , and _did_ carry real passengers, please come right out and say that, because that would make your position and logic more understandable, at least to myself.

    Other than that belief [assuming you believe it], I can see absolutely no good reason why you would wish to limit this line of questioning here via suggestions to “drop it”. ‘Does not compute.

    As to extra evidence on top of the fact that Fl. 175 never even existed or carried passengers that day [since there is no "concrete" evidence to support that myth], how about the fact that ,[ although these sort of sites are not perfect], at least according to “Lookupanyone.com”, Louis Neil Mariani seems to be alive and well, age 69 (11 years older than in 2001) and still married to his wife Ellen in New Hampshire: http://www.lookupanyone.com/results.php … cusfirst=1

    Then there is the matter of the extremely fake sounding obituary of this alleged victim, which , [if you take the time to read a few others], is every bit as sappy and fake sounding as most of the other 3000 odd alleged victims:
    http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/Story.aspx?PersonID=91702

    Although perceptions about this sort of thing [9/11 victim obits.] _are_ ultimately subjective[obviously], I guess I’d be surprised if this obit. does not seem more than a little “off” to you personally, Craig.

    Regards onebornfree.

    • I found this comment among a couple of hundred in my spam folder. I had been sure I checked that when this comment first went missing but I don’t think I checked there each time. Perhaps I should have found it sooner. Sorry for the inconvenience. As I believe I pointed out before, Jim Fetzer also had this problem. I don’t know why in either case.

    • I do not believe that Flight 175 hit any building. In fact, I don’t believe that any of the four original flights ended up where they were claimed to have ended up. That doesn’t mean all the passengers were fake, however. You can make a case that they were, but don’t you think there should be more meat to your argument than just the fact that the flight didn’t crash? And to be clear, I’m not saying there were no aircraft that hit the towers, just not flights 11 and 175.

  31. OBF doesn’t look at situations from an “either/or” perspective.

    He’s assuming that because a proven fraudulent forensics lab system (Waco, OKC, Pentagon/Manhattan/Shankesville 9/11), under pressure from military and political ghouls allegedly identified Mr. Mariani’s remains that it’s his wife who must be looked upon with suspicion.

    It’s completely illogical that yet another “insider” with specific and incriminating information about the 9/11 op is added to the scores of witnesses, photographers and videographers who saw and/or captured an aircraft impacting the south tower

    I could give multiple examples of where lies were told about alleged victims’ remains in all three areas on 9/11 but I’m not going to waste my time on this guy. If others want specifics I’ll gladly supply them but I refuse to play OBF’s childish games on these blogs.

    • I will adjust my last post agreeing with OSS about OBFreak and his “childish games”…they only appear childish, when in fact it is an insidious agenda with a goal of wiping out all of the visual evidence pertaining to 9/11 – this evidence is in many cases, ‘Best Evidence’.

      Again, it is my assertion that this ‘New Wave 9/11movement’, composed of ‘No-Planes’, ‘Video Fakery’, ‘Holograms’, Nukes at WTC, DEW – is all a counter intelligence operation.

      What is childish, is falling for any of this squat dribble.

      \\][//

      • Dear Mr. Rogue swipes with a very broad brush:

        Again, it is my assertion that this ‘New Wave 9/11movement’, composed of ‘No-Planes’, ‘Video Fakery’, ‘Holograms’, Nukes at WTC, DEW – is all a counter intelligence operation.

        Two out of the five don’t belong in that list (Nukes and DEW). The nukes themselves were directional and designed for specific forms of energy output and low radiation, thus putting them into the class of DEW.

        A third one of the five (video fakery) is right on the fence. Indeed, insufficient video fakery has been proven to merit discounting videos as evidence. Indeed on the other hand, valid instances of video fakery attempts [e.g., the orb] proves that this was a technique at their disposal that they at least toyed with.

        I’m surprised that you included “Nukes at WTC and DEW” in your list, given the information known to be at your disposal from Mr. Prager and Dr. Wood that you’ve fluffed out one excuse after another for not having completely objectively reviewed for the good, the bad, and the ugly. You, like me, can even enter the subject with a bad and ugly bent, but those good nuggets of truth ought to be irresistable and scooped up into our bucket of nuggets of truth slated for preservation and re-purposing.

        It is ironic that good is so much apart of your other research endeavors and reasoning into macro cause-and-effect, but not in the nuclear DEW realm. It stands out, really. More than a tick of personality or intellect.

        I agree that “[It]… is all a counter intelligence operation.” As with many counter intelligence operations, it can be difficult and even counter-intuitive to reason why the efforts of such an operation is expended on one side versus the other. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

        Clarifying snippets from a much delayed email:
        Dr. Wood’s book is yours, and I’m not going to add to your financial stress by asking it be sent anywhere.

        I never asked for your 100% agreement with the book. I asked for an objective review and preservation of nuggets of truth. That is the one thing that still is lacking from your comments. You dismiss too easily the whole work based on perceived flaws here and there. This is certainly by design of the disinfo vehicle, but it can’t be the techniques used by truth seekers.

        The overlap from the book and her website was stated at the onset. Nothing new.

        The text itself isn’t bullshit (100%). What is bullshit is the innuendo (e.g., free-energy from space, Hutchison) and the omissions (e.g., nuclear evidence). And where she got things wrong, she also got other things right in presenting evidence that needs explanations. The explanations that you’ve defended — pyroclastic clouds, etc. — do not address adequately the damning evidence, from the anomalous vehicle damage to the unquenchable under-rubble fires to the “Jones tritium dog-and-pony show” to the first responder ailments. [And when you start looking at the dust, the asbestos that you attributed to their ill health was found in the lowest quantities at the WTC as compared to what was blown throughout the city.]

        It turns out, however, that some of Prager’s and the Anonymous Physicist’s work have overlap with Dr. Wood. And what is interesting is that Dr. Wood’s chapter on Jumpers, that I assessed as “throw-away”, is coming back into my thinking when considering Prager’s work. Specifically, she writes about how there was seeming little fire near them, but lots of smoke; survivors were at the windows and had oxygen. What then compelled people to jump when death by smoke or fire wasn’t a foregone conclusion, when they would have just had to wait it out at the windows? The nature of those “baseball nukes” and ones that might have prematurely gone-off or fizzled can explain their motivation to jump.

        The book is serving quite well its purpose as one of my rhetorical tools to knock you upside the head in debate. But I would really prefer having us objectively agree on the good, the bad, and the ugly — or most of it — because the “good” are clues to the truth. Her evidence on WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 is woefully under-explained.

        I’ve been giving you my playbook in advance on nukes and whatnot.

        I remind you that I also gave you my playbook on Dr. Wood’s book very early. Anything short of an objective review of the good, bad, and ugly I was going to make hay with. As it turns out, nuclear hay. Dr. Wood rightfully raises questions of energies required but avoids nukes, and Dr. Jones with nano-thermite avoids nukes.

        As demonstrated with your comments and defense of Dr. Jones, evidently nuclear topics are still part of your agenda to keep serious researchers from exploring.

      • Dear Señor El Once,

        I do hope you won’t be too disgruntled to learn that I am not interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear, or even comment on the V-fakery thing again for the thousandth time.

        As I said, I read Prager’s first ebook. I will say flat out, it is bunk. I looked into his assertions carefully. His argumentation is mortally flawed. And this can be addressed from numerous angles – so….when the time comes to do so, I will address them.

        \\][//

      • Señor El Once,

        I will address this publicly the same way I did in my return email to you.

        You end with:
        >”As demonstrated with your comments and defense of Dr. Jones, evidently nuclear topics are still part of your agenda to keep serious researchers from exploring.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        No. This is not so Señor, I want serious researchers to do their own research as to their own judgement. I want any to make their case in a reasonable manner, and to be able to defend in such a manner any counter arguments.

        I still do not agree that you are making reasonable counter arguments. So, there seem to be loggerheads here, that I doubt we will be able to overcome. For instance, everyone of the ‘anomalies’ of the metal, cars and steel from the towers can be explained with one term: EUTECTIC.
        Super quick rusting of cars? Eutectic. Swiss-cheese warped and twisted steel; eutectic.

        The “line of site” argument is synthetic, it does not have any validity, these cars were found in the radius of the whole complex. Others were towed into other sites and left in great numbers together. The whole ‘toasted cars’ trip is bouncing bunkaroos.

        But, I don’t know where to go with you? So I go my own way…

        \\][//

      • Dear Mr. Rogue,

        You seem eager to “go your own way”, like into “EUTECTIC”. More power to you.

        You are “not interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear.”

        Then kindly refrain from making Public Relation statements as hyponotic definitive directives to the readers:

        I read Prager’s first ebook. I will say flat out, it is bunk. I looked into his assertions carefully. His argumentation is mortally flawed. And this can be addressed from numerous angles.

        Your “careful look into his assertions” involved only one eBook out of at least four download links provided by me. I’m not even sure which one it was, but one of them was pretty short and concise (and appears in whole or in part within at least one other download). It simply talks about the elements found in dust samples, and what finding them in correlated (e.g., proportional) quantities at different measuring points signifies. The data comes from the USGS. Not that this in itself means it should be trusted.

        Your quick draw labeling “bunk” and “mortally flawed” from “numerous angles” should be reserved for after you have read all the books, for when you are “interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear”, and for when you can address your assertion from at least a couple angles of the “numerous”. Otherwise, it comes off as premature and resembling what I accuse you of:

        … evidently nuclear topics are still part of your agenda to keep serious researchers from exploring.

        Maybe you lacked the time to find more appropriate words when you used the adjective “reasonable.”

        I still do not agree that you are making reasonable counter arguments.

        I’ve provided my sources. Recently, the links were given. I’ve spent my own money to get a book into your hands. I’ve stated what I’m preserving as nuggets of truth, and flagging what might be dubious, lest there be confusion. I’m eager to have my views changed when new information and analysis becomes available.

        What could be more reasonable?

        I will tell you what hasn’t been more reasonable: your efforts to dissuade me from nuclear DEW.

        Unlike the numerous and wide gaps in every conventional and non-conventional (e.g., thermite, thermabaric) demolition method that you have ardently defended, nuclear DEW has fewer and tighter gaps. It can explain the energy of pulverization, the unquenchable hot-spots, the tritium reports, the fast-dissipating radiation, the anomalous vehicle torching, the first-responder ailments, the ease in logistics, the elements in dust pile, the government’s disinformation song-and-dance away from nuclear topics…

        I want serious researchers to do their own research as to their own judgement. I want any to make their case in a reasonable manner, and to be able to defend in such a manner any counter arguments.

        Yeah, well, the counter arguments have to be presented in a reasonable manner as well, and not simply have crass (agenda-toting) judgments projected at readers in a PR manuever that by design lacks substantiation.

        //

      • I said, Señor El Once, that I was not going to address these issues of DEW/Nukes
        AT THIS TIME, meaning on this thread. That is NOT to say I will not address the issues in detail when the proper time arrives.

        If you are so eager and biting at the bit…go for it. I said, I am not doing it here and now. Bounce your party head against any wall you choose Señor.

        When you have a thread here based on this assertion, you will have a head start in the grounding of whatever article it is. Stop panting, cool yer jets buckaroo, you remind me of the young mechanic in NATURAL BORN KILLERS…if you remember the scene. She was willing to ball, but he got “too anxious” and she shot him dead….

        Okay…that is anecdotal anticlerical and movie trivial of me. Huh…serves ya right monkeyboy just wait ’till them junkyard spaceships show up in December with “Halajalooloo” blaring from their bluebeam loudspeakers in your voice to skull transmission….

        Better have some Advil on hand.

        \\][//

  32. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, N.H. Courageous 9-11 widow Ellen Mariani has often lamented that she has “no body to bury,” since her deceased husband Louis Neil Mariani’s body was never recovered when he died during the 9-11-01 attacks

    AFP

    So, on top of the accusations levelled by OBF, there was no body actually “found”.

  33. “No matter how many wars one has witnessed, the brutality
    violence that is occurring in the former Yugoslavia is shocking
    Unlike many conflict regions, the former Yugoslavia enjoyed a
    high level of economic development. Prior to the war, many
    people identified themselves in the most recent census as
    Yugoslav, not by the various ethnic and religious identities
    are now dividing them. The outbreak of the war reminded the
    international community…”~USAID Report

    It is obvious from a deeper reading of the history of the war, that the Western powers, under the umbrella of NATO were the instigators behind the scenes, that had an agenda to tear apart Yugoslavia for preparation of the New World Order in that region – just like what is happening in the Middle East and Africa at this time.

    That most of the participants in USAID are likely people of good will, they would not, can not conceive of the role they play in such incidents. This is the double blind-of the Western character. It never occurs to the western mind what hubris it is to see to ‘International Development’ not only playing a constabulary role globally, but doing the “Father Knows Best” act in the clean-up operations. As it is said, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

    \\][//

    • Don’t know if anybody has seen this before. Any ideas that the media engraved into our psyche about Yugoslavia and NATO is blown away in this film. Starts off a bit slow but the evidence and censored info in it are well worth the watch Willy.

    • Thanks for posting the video OSS.

      Yes, what happened to Yugoslavia is a nightmare. The situation is still hyper neo-medieval. The criminal Trafficking in Human Organs, and the murder for those organs is on an industrial scale there, actually run by the so-called ‘government’.

      “Hell is empty, the devils are here”~Shakespeare

      \\][//

  34. Craig McKee : “I found this comment among a couple of hundred in my spam folder. I had been sure I checked that when this comment first went missing but I don’t think I checked there each time. Perhaps I should have found it sooner. Sorry for the inconvenience. As I believe I pointed out before, Jim Fetzer also had this problem. I don’t know why in either case.”

    Thank you for checking Craig. 6th time lucky? [I was already prepared to send it for the 7th time.] Logically speaking you should have found another 5 copies with mostly the same text.
    Regards, onebornfree.

  35. @ Craig McKee:

    Craig I see my post as printed, does not give the complete link to the Lookupanyone.com info for Louis Mariani, so clicking on the partial link printed does not take you to the info.

    Here it is again[ if the link is again truncated on being published on your blog then instead of clicking on the link, just copy and past the entire link as given, including the characters "... cusfirst=1 " into your browser. ]

    Louis Mariani info link : http://www.lookupanyone.com/results.php … cusfirst=1

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • Holy smizzlepops Unbornfreako,

      Whatta tempest in a teapot over this…WTF?

      You are too bizarre for regular words…new ones need to be coined.

      \\][//

  36. A friend of mine, a defender of the common-knowledge story of 9/11, (who believes Arabs did it, and the US Government, et al. were mere criminally opportunistic AFTER the fact) revealed to me that what he thinks most people need to fully accept 9/11 truth (as I tried to explain it to him), is a completely airtight, irrefutably authoritative and conclusive replacement story – not merely evidence that the official story could not be true.

    What he really wants is an irrefutable, black & white, Adrian Monk, “Here’s what happened” moment from TV’s, “Monk”.

    Clearly, absent one forensic genius with absolute authority, the mechanism to independently investigate and prosecute such government complicity does not exist.

    Therefore, I think what is desperately needed is for an independent filmmaker/company to make a high-production value, semi-fictional ‘replacement story’ in the form of a dramatization based on as much existing evidence as possible; exposing WHO really did it, HOW they did it, and for what purposes – making the official version implanted in the viewing audience’s memories look completely ridiculous by comparison, without ever disproving it.

    Of course, it can not, nor does not have to be 100% factually accurate, just overwhelmingly more plausible than the official non-sense. I think of loosely based dramatizations such as “Titanic” (another can of worms.) or “All the President’s Men”.

    While this ‘replacement story’ movie would have to include all sorts of legal disclaimers and waivers, etc., imagine viewing re-created security cam footage of a plane flying OVER the Pentagon, or re-enacted high-level secret discussions, or how about passengers being diverted to some remote military base.

    The biggest challenge next to raising the millions of necessary dollars, would be to get the writers/producers et al. to choose only one ‘replacement story’ to use, from the variety of theories we discuss here.

    Considering who owns and controls the flow of information these days, this is all just a pipe dream anyway.

    What’s the lotto jackpot this week?

    • I did a check at People Search.

      Looking up my X-wife’s maiden name, knowing where she lives. I was able to locate and identify her – as MY name was in the box that said, “Relatives” and I know our former addresses.
      BUT – as this search is based on Public Records; this info is out of date and INCORRECT, because I know that she has remarried…and that was 5 years ago. So it this software search is this inaccurate, it would be silly to rely on it for anything of importance.

      Does anyone seriously think the courts and the lawyers on both sides of the Louis Mariani case haven’t at least gotten his being ‘missing’ straight – even though there is no body to confirm a death? A body is not a necessary integer in cases such as these, and anyone who is beyond puberty here probably already understands this.

      What is more mysterious than the Mariani case, is the Unbornfreak case…is this a real person? Are the photos purported to be this person on his website image-fakery? Are we really dealing with a character appearing to be a villain out of a James Bond film? Or is this person a teenager holed up in his or her’s mother’s basement? Maybe some feral street creature, working computers at city library?

      Or even perhaps a resident of Hotel Rubber-Room, working the breakroom computers when out on good behavior?

      And why o’why o’why do we have to deal with this inanity like listening to a reciting of “Wood Chuck” by a stutterer?

      The drag of it all…..

      \\][//

  37. Pictures of TERMINATOR come to mind…

    A new US Congress report on the proliferation of drones has confirmed a huge rise in the number of countries that now have military unmanned aerial systems. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published an unclassified version of its February 2012 report on the proliferation of UAVs. The report examines both the proliferation of UAVs, commonly known as drones, and examines US and multilateral controls on the export of drone technology.
    The report states that “the use of UAVs by foreign parties to gather information on U.S. military activities has already taken place” and “the significant growth in the number of countries that have acquired UAVs, including key countries of concern, has increased the threat to the United States.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    “..has increased the threat to the United States.” ___Really???

    What nation can actually threaten the United States? Where is there a threat to this nation that isn’t spawned in the fevered imaginings of the insane warmongers running this place? Fear and Loathing are generated for profit by the Military-Industrial-Complex.
    The stupid Amerikan public still don’t get it.

    They will say, “Look what happened on 9/11” even though they have NO IDEA WHAT REALLY HAPPENDED ON 9/11.

    The “threat” of bin Laden was no more real than the “threat” of Freddy Kruger. Both imaginary bogey-men. Amerikans are as silly as little children.

    \\][//

  38. For the first time, I have read this blog and the comments attached. For the most part, the exchange is cordial and rational. It made me feel more positive toward SEO and reinforced my concerns about rogue1. SEO is completely correct about the inadequacies of the Jones, Ryan, Harrit studies of the 9/11 dust, which were supposed to convey the impression that it had been subjected to serious, painstaking and careful scientific study, when nothing of the kind had taken place. See, for example, “911 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”, on Veterans Today. Their work appears to have been intended to cover up the use of mini or micro nukes, which has been revealed by bona-fide serious, scientific study of the dust. I am unable to discern a reasonable alternative interpretation.

    Anyone who says that Jones, Ryan, Harrit and others of their ilk never claimed that nano- thermite had been the principal cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers does not know what they are talking about. Not only did I bring Jones into Scholars as my co-chair when I founded the organization in December 2005, but during the American Scholars Conference in Los Angeles, which was organized by Alex Jones, I asked Steve in the hotel lobby on Saturday whether it was his position that nanothermite could perform the feats that he was attributing to it of pulverizing the concrete and decimating the steel. I ask him explicitly and he assured me that it could, which, of course, has been proven to be a complete fantasy. See, for example, “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”

    As comforting as I have found SEO’s comments here about the dust and such, I have been again appalled by the grotesque performance of rogue1, who, on the one hand, dismisses Jeff Prager’s exceptional work as though it were of no account and continues, on the other, with his relentless ad hominem attacks upon me, for which he likewise offers no evidence. I am now supposed to have been recruited into intel as a Marine Corps officer and have had my publications authored by committees. He seems to overlook that, not only have I authored/edited my 29 books and 150+ academic articles, but I have also authored or co-authored more than 40 on OpEdNews and 50 more on Veterans Today, as reflections of my educational and life experiences, including graduating magna cum laude from Princeton and earning my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science. And that does not include over 500 two-hour interviews on “The Real Deal”.

    Anyone who wants to review my academic accomplishments can visit my academic web site at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ For emphasis, please read about the University of Minnesota’s Distinguished McKnight University Professor Program, where I was one of the first ten to be selected for that honor, which included a $100,000 research grant. Not only have I been thoroughly vetted for every honor or distinction I have ever earned, but it dumbfounds me he would makes such crass insinuations when I have devoted so much of my life to exposing corrupt acts by the US government, which he feigns I am instead protecting. My collaborative work on the assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11 and the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone constitute a veritable encyclopedia of evidence, all of which contradicts the allegations for which he offers no evidence. That anyone should continue to take him seriously is an extremely disturbing indictment of human gullibility.

    Just go to “Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer”, and read any of my articles on JFK, 9/11, or Paul Wellstone. If anyone can find the least shred of evidence that I am covering-up rather than exposing governmental corruption, I challenge them to produce it. On JFK, see, for example, my presentation at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on 22 November 2011, “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”. On 9/11, begin with my most recent on Veterans Today, including especially my interview with IRAN REVIEW as an overview,
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/13/james-h-fetzer-911-iran-review-interview/ On Wellstone, try “The Sen. Wellstone Assassination” on YouTube and follow up with “THEY KILLED WELLSTONE” from snowshoefilms. I have encountered corruption before in my lifetime, but when it comes to despicable conduct, none have displayed more than rogue1.

    • Fetzer says:

      >”Anyone who wants to review my academic accomplishments can visit my academic web site.”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      So again we get these cheesy appeals to his own authority. And more of his self praising videos and web site connections. All of this meant to erase from our memory that he proved himself to be an utter charlatan just one thread ago.

      The “Professor” has no hypothesis, has no theory, he only has this persistent mantra of a sales-pitch, and the chutzpah of a hardened pro.

      \\][//

  39. You have made this statement before Fetzer:

    >”I asked Steve in the hotel lobby on Saturday whether it was his position that nanothermite could perform the feats that he was attributing to it of pulverizing the concrete and decimating the steel. I ask him explicitly and he assured me that it could, which, of course, has been proven to be a complete fantasy.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    And it flies in the face of EVERY public statement Jones has ever made. He has always posited that there may well have been other explosives used.

    That Señor has fallen into your camp of defaming Jones should please you is no surprise.

    This assault on Jones and the thermite evidence is an obvious psychological operation. It is as obvious as the “video fakery” scam to erase all the visual evidence, which is in most instances BEST EVIDENCE. The same can be said for this totally crank bullshit about holograms.

    This fallacious charge of “hero worship” should be understood by what it is, another scripted ‘talking point’ of the op to destroy the sureness of the validity of the smoking gun thermite evidence. Whether nanothermite can or cannot be the entire energy source of the demolition of the towers is not the point. The point is that it’s existence proves the towers were packed with an explosive substance. It follows naturally from there, that the only way they could have entered the buildings was by a stand-down of security – an inside job.

    This is a full court press to defame Jones continuing at this very moment. It was began by Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds as far back as before the release of the Jones Harrit nanothermite Report. This campaign is multifaceted and coming from every direction now.

    “You know you are over the target when you get the flak.” They are throwing EVERYTHING at Jones.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    All that Prager proves in his long spaced out article, is that industry is dumping toxic waste into landfills despite the rules and laws against such practices. Every one of these substances mentioned are byproduct of industrial processes. Prager’s assertions are bunk.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Prager reinvents the wheel by presenting the argument of the toxicity of the dust having an unprecedented nature because to the very fine particles the dust was composed of, and the extreme toxicity of the materials making up these microscopic particles. His assertions that there is a radioactive aspect to this toxicity is not proven. He merely piggybacks it onto the chemical toxicity by rhetorical intertwining.

    \\][//

  40. What is so screwy about this nuclear assertion is that on the one hand the boosters are claiming that there was ‘radiation sickness’ among the first responders…that there was continued fission in the pile causing the “hot-spots” – but then {and this comes from Señor} there is the countervailing assertion that these were almost radiationless ‘new age’ devices that don’t have the radiation signatures…

    On top of this everyone of these substances found in the WTC Dust is a product of industry, every single one, and their presence in the water table is do to illicit landfill dumping by these industries that have obviously been placed beyond the reach of law by the corporatist state.

    The ONLY thing that made this dust so lethal is it’s microscopic size in its make-up…there is NO detectable radiation in these samples. The chemical tables are not qualified as per whether these products are isotopic. And the trace amounts described have no relevance as to radioactivity.

    Anyone who has read and rejected Professor Jones’, September 26, 2006 Letter on this matter, is rejecting the empirical evidence and lost in the chimerical squirming shadowland of PR and pseudoscience.

    \\][//

  41. An academician’s CV has the standing of a legal document within the academy and in this case provides obvious refutation of some of his absurd claims, which have no foundation at all. So he is making this up in ignorance or grossly distorting easily verifiable facts. Either way he is an embarrassment, not just to “Truth and Shadows” but to the pursuit of truth!

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/21/262846/israel-plans-a-false-flag-attack-on-iran/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/20/steve-pieczenik-world-war-iii-starts-25-september-2012/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/18/innocence-of-muslims-the-gop-and-world-war-iii/

  42. James H. Fetzer Says:
    >”An academician’s CV has the standing of a legal document within the academy and in this case provides obvious refutation of some of his absurd claims..”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    So, are we really to be held as so utterly naïve as to believe that “the academy” has remained immune to the corruption that has brought the rest of the system to ruin?
    Hahahahaha…Obama is held up as a “constitutional scholar”, he is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize….all with “legal standing”…{grin}.

    I tell you Fetzer, these appeals to authority are worse than worthless to a sane and lucid mind – such appeals become indictments; because you cannot hold conversation without all of your special pleadings. Regardless of content, these are indicators that you are a con. But then to add the details of your Sales-Pitch…it is ludicrous, you are a pitiful, rank charlatan.

    And whatever these new self praising URLs have to do with our current argument is only known by your personal demons.

    At any rate, The matter of a WTC Nuclear event has been settled for six years now:

    –IT DID NOT HAPPEN–

    You boys are playing hopscotch for lollipops.

    \\][//

    • Typically, rogue1′s conceptual confusions display themselves, again and again. There are both FALLACIOUS and NON-FALLACIOUS appeals to authority. Citing Einstein on physics is clearly NON-FALLACIOUS. Citing him on polio vaccines would be FALLACIOUS. Citing me on my academic history is obviously NON-FALLACIOUS. Yet that is the best this guy can do. He appears to be operating in concert with Wikipedia, which just trashed my entry:

      “James Henry Fetzer — Wikipedia NOT”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/07/30/james-henry-fetzer-wikipedia-not/

      Where I previously called out Wikipedia for its conduct as a 9/11 disinformation operation:

      “Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op”
      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html

      just as I have repeatedly called out rogue1 as an obvious 9/11 disinformation op! He even pretends that he does not know that the entries on my curriculum vitae are verifiable or as if they could be made-up at whim, as thought I had not been vetted and hired by a series of institutions of higher-learning, such as Kentucky, Virginia (twice), Cincinnati, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New College of the University of North Carolina, and Minnesota at Duluth.

      • Fetzer fizzes:

        “He appears to be operating in concert with Wikipedia, which just trashed my entry”
        . . . . . . . . . . . .
        Quasi moto….AS IF, I have anything to do with Wikipedia, which I agree is not the place to go for truth on 9/11.

        I do not argue that Fetzer’s curriculum vitae are not verifiable nor that they could be made-up at whim; I argue that all of academia is putrid with corruption, that someone with his displayed scientific ignorance having such prestige within this corrupted system is but one point of evidence to that fact.

        The entirety of Western “Civilization” is a pathological system predicated on war. War is simply rape, pillage and murder, sanctified by an obscene psychotic power structure.

        Fetzer has made clear enough his jingoist nationalistic position on this, in his simper fried pride in being a hired gun for “The Marines”.

        That he is such a dunce in the sciences is the reason I think he was ‘grandfathered’ into ‘academia’ for a special project in infiltration and propagandizing. Anyone who cannot imagine such as possible is lacking in not only imagination, but in the study of the “National Security State”.

        \\][//

  43. “Dr. Pieczenik says the specific date of the strike on Iran is Sept. 25th or 26th, Yom Kippur—the Jewish holiday, which commences in the year 2012 at sundown on the 25th, and ends at nightfall, the following day.”~Fetzer

    As this “attack on Iran” alert has been running for at least five years now…to happen “AT ANY MOMENT”….

    I see this as a Strategy of Tension.

    Of course, that is not to say that it is impossible for this to actually happen at some point. But if it does, I think it will be due to miscalculation.
    A crispy black planet certainly isn’t a prize to be coveted by the elite financial class that has worked so many centuries to bring fruition to their plan of total tyranny over the entire globe.

    So…now we have but a few short days to see if Pieczenik is another in a series of false prophets as far as the start of a nuclear WWIII.

    I say the odds are slim. But if it does come to pass, the Zionoodles are even dumber than I had imagined.

    \\][//

  44. >”Underground fires, whether fed by nanothermite or other incendiaries, require oxygen. There is only ONE source of igniting and maintaining a fire without a constant feed of oxygen.”~Prager
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Prager intimates that this “ONE Source” must be nuclear. But the fact is that nanothermite is itself an oxygen source.~ww
    . . . . . . . . . .
    >”We do know that even the most minimal exposure to radioactivity causes a measurable increase in the incidence of Multiple Myeloma.”~Prager
    . . . . . . . . . .
    What Are Other Risk Factors for Multiple Myeloma?
    Hazardous Chemicals. Farmers and petroleum workers exposed to certain CHEMICALS also seem to have a higher-than-average chance of getting multiple myeloma.

    It was the micro-fine quality of the WTC Dust that made it so lethal.
    There is ZERO evidence in the dust itself of radioactivity.
    ‘Settled Dust Aerosol From the Pulverized Towers’
    ~The Lioy et. al. Dust Study
    “We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides.”
    However, it fails to quantify how the levels of these radionuclides compare to background levels.
    [NOTE: Indian Point nuclear power plant is about 40 miles north of Manhattan.]
    . . . . . . . . . .
    >”The presence of Vanadium is very interesting. Cahills comment about Vanadium and Nickel being associated with the combustion of fuel oil, plastics or organic matter is completely incorrect and draws immediate attention to this incongruity. Sometimes people tell little white lies.”~Prager
    . . . . . . . . . .
    In other words, ‘I am going to use Cahill’s data and info as long as it boosts my theory, anything beyond that he is lying.’ Which is more of Prager’s rhetorical spinjive…

    SEE: EPA pollution URL below>>*
    The main element alloyed with steel to create stainless steel is Chromium. Normally, between 9% and 12% of Stainless Steel is Chromium. Other major alloying elements include NICKEL, VANADIUM, Molybdenum and for specialized nuclear applications, Titanium and Zirconium. In fact, the single biggest industrial use of Nickel is in the manufacture of stainless steel.

    Around 72% of all BERYLLIUM – is used to produce beryllium-copper alloys (WHO 1990). While the alloy retains copper’s desirable properties (corrosion resistance and thermal and electrical conductivity), addition of beryllium signicantly increases the strength of the alloy. Few, if any, other types of copper alloy exhibit as great an increase in strength as beryllium-copper alloy. Because of the strength of this alloy, it can be used in many demanding applications, from military and commercial landing gear to oil field drill collars and drilling bit friction bushings (Rossman et al. 1991). Beryllium-copper alloys do not spark and are nonmagnetic.
    Beryllium is the 44th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust (IARC 1993). Beryllium concentrations in the Earth’s crust are estimated at 2.6 ppm.

    {1A}* http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/pollinf2.html
    Nickel is found in the outside air as a result of releases from utility oil and coal combustion, residential heating, nickel metal refining, lead smelting, sewage sludge incineration, manufacturing facilities, mobile sources, and other sources.

    {1B} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium
    Vanadium occurs naturally in about 65 different minerals and in fossil fuel deposits.
    It is mainly used to produce specialty steel alloys such as high speed tool steels. The most important industrial vanadium compound, vanadium pentoxide, is used as a catalyst for the production of sulfuric acid.
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    Again: Prager proves nothing but ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION by corporatist – “beyond the law” US Industry, which has polluted the landfills, water table and air quality by illicit dumping, burning and spillage for generations.

    \\][//

  45. >”This energetic compound allegedly found by Dr. Jones is incapable of turning either steel or concrete into the micron sized particles found by Dr. Cahill.”~Prager

    However, even thermite can CUT and SLICE steel {See Jon Cole experiments}. And PETN or RDX is certainly capable of blowing the concrete and some of that steel into the micron sized particles found by Dr. Cahill and others. Most of the steel was found in perfectly cut pieces of 30 ft or less ready for loading onto excavation transports.

    The majority of the debris and dust was NOT the super-fine variety that is focused upon here. So these ‘equations’ by Harrit are inapplicable.

    “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam)
    particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μmdiam) particles that are typically measured.”~Jones, Sept. 2006

    \\][//

  46. http://reinep.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/national-geographics-kiss-ass-theory-on-911-is-debunked/

    – Jon Cole thermite experiments

    “Engineer Jonathan Cole tries several different configurations, including one that would fit completely inside the bolt-access holes of WTC perimeter columns, and a configuration that only destroyed the bolts between perimeter columns. Some exploded, or generated quick successions of small explosions, others only produced flows of molten iron. He put together simple devices himself using common, commercially-available materials, as he shows in the video. National Geographic made a TV program trying to bolster the official reports and debunk conspiracy theorists, where they used 175 pounds of thermite and concluded that no thermite “of any type” could cut through steel columns, giving the impression that it was impossible. Cole has not only successfully cut through steel with less than 5 pounds of a thermite compound as you can see in the above video, but in the process he’s reproduced several anomalous events at the WTC, from explosions, to expulsions of gray dust/debris, to white-hot flowing metal and melted steel with the appearance of swiss cheese.” – article

    \\][//

  47. {2nd attempt}
    Dear Mr. Rogue,

    Most clever. Sehr meisterhaft geschafft.

    Due to the length of Prager’s long eMagazines, I understand where you get some bent to your skew.

    Alas, your eagerness to dispense with this nuclear topic coupled with the techniques in which you attempt to achieve it tend to re-enforce old impressions I have of you, I’m afraid.

    Meanwhile, your one two three four five six posting(s) merits dissection, starting with:

    What is so screwy about this nuclear assertion is that on the one hand the boosters are claiming that there was ‘radiation sickness’ among the first responders…that there was continued fission in the pile causing the “hot-spots” – but then {and this comes from Señor} there is the countervailing assertion that these were almost radiationless ‘new age’ devices that don’t have the radiation signatures

    I bolded the error and italicized the skew.

    It is not an issue of a nuclear device being “radiationless”, nor is it a case of “not having radiation signatures.” It is a matter of what kind of radiation was prominent (e.g., neutron) and its duration; the radiation and it signature were non-standard. We should separate what was emitted in the initial demolition and what emitted by fizzling hot-spots under shielding rubble.

    From Mr. Prager’s eMagizine 1 [86MB] and his Part Two Conclusion regarding :

    1. Big Ivan left little radiation (reducing radioactive output by 97% in 1961). Forty years of technological advances could have easily produced a bomb with very, very little and very, very short-lived radioactive elements.

    2. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.

    3. Using ‘Big Ivan’ technology including advances made during 40 years of diligent study it’s not hard to imagine a micronuclear device the size of an apple. The demolition effect would then be scaled down to what we actually saw on 911. Two 1000+ foot structural steel towers destroyed with the majority of the elements turned to dust; micron sized “very small particles” that can only be formed by a fusion device, a fission device or a fusion/fission device.

    From Mr. Prager’s eMagizine 1 [86MB] and his Part Three Conclusion regarding :

    5. [A] variety of different types of nuclear explosive devices… produce different amounts and types of radiation and they all produce different disease patterns. One thing they all have in common is an increase in cancers in those exposed to the explosions.

    Mr. Rogue continues his lame brush off with:

    On top of this everyone of these substances found in the WTC Dust is a product of industry, every single one, and their presence in the water table is do to illicit landfill dumping by these industries that have obviously been placed beyond the reach of law by the corporatist state.

    “A product of industry”? Are you implying that the WTC had manufacturing facilities instead of the fact that most of the businesses were paper-pushers and bit-movers? Or are you saying that in the course of normal business, these companies would have purchased and put into use these “products of industry” containing questionable elements?

    What sort of “product of industry” has Uranium as was found in the dust? From a companion PDF for Jeff Prager’s presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]

    The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm.

    The real key phrase is “correlated quantities.”

    “Products of industry”, coming from different manufacturers and residing originally in different offices throughout the office complex, would not leave traces of their remnants in correlated percentages in the dust at so many different measuring points.

    Prager continues (paraphrased):

    - The quantities of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.

    - Barium and Strontium were present in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm and varied from place to place in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.

    - The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to other radionucleide daughter products.

    One way to sum this up:

    Although the trace elements varied in quantity from place to place, what did not vary from place to place was the correlation of paired elements, indicating the same common process of nuclear fusion was the source.

    From Mr. Prager’s eMagizine 1 [86MB] and his Part Two Conclusion regarding :

    8. Energetic compounds can not increase the dust content of uranium, thorium, tritium, nickel, lead, barium, strontium, potassium, sodium and other elements; all found at anomalous or high levels and all indicative of a nuclear event of some type.

    9. Particle size matters. The energy necessary to create the massive quantity of very fine and micron-sized particles is far, far greater than the energy output of an energetic compound with a velocity of 300 meters per second (Jones, Harrit). … Creating particles smaller than small, is a magic feat that energetic compounds can’t perform.

    Mr. Rogue writes:

    The ONLY thing that made this dust so lethal is it’s microscopic size in its make-up…there is NO detectable radiation in these samples. The chemical tables are not qualified as per whether these products are isotopic. And the trace amounts described have no relevance as to radioactivity.

    Indeed it is true that “trace amounts described have no relevance as to radioactivity.” They have relevance to the nuclear process that created them in proportional quantities.

    Shooting your argument in the foot with the capitalized word “ONLY.” Putting second hole in your food with “dust.”

    From Mr. Prager’s eMagizine 1 [86MB] and his Part Two Conclusion regarding :

    5. Very fine metals were routinely seen, but while most were at low concentrations, some metals (V, Ni, Cu, As, Se, Br, and Hg) occurred at unprecedented levels in the very fine size range. A person could, in a few hours, be subject to materials in amounts and composition that they would not have had to endure in years of typical ambient conditions.

    Mr. Rogue finds it necessary to defend Dr. Jones:

    Anyone who has read and rejected Professor Jones’, September 26, 2006 Letter on this matter, is rejecting the empirical evidence and lost in the chimerical squirming shadowland of PR and pseudoscience.

    It isn’t about rejecting empirical evidence. It is about recognizing that Professor Jones presented and addressed only a tiny sliver of that empirical evidence, so that he could spin “no-9/11-nukes” to the world.

    From Mr. Prager’s eMagizine 1 [86MB] and his Part Three Conclusion regarding :

    6. Because Dr. Jones studied muon catalyzed fusion and experimented with deuterium and tritium as well as uranium and other nuclear elements he has specific knowledge as regards the device(s) being discussed here yet he avoids discussing the USGS report or the Delta Group report.

    7. Dr. Jones has failed to properly address the anomalous levels of uranium, potassium, sodium, zinc, tritium, thorium and other elements of a nuclear reaction found in the dust from Ground Zero as they interact together.

    In postings from Mr. Rogue that came before the above could be posted, Mr. Rogue writes:

    Jones has always posited that there may well have been other explosives used. That Señor has fallen into your camp of defaming Jones should please you is no surprise. This assault on Jones and the thermite evidence is an obvious psychological operation.

    You say that I’m defaming Dr. Jones. Nasty little trick, Mr. Rogue. I’m not defaming the person; I’m defaming that person’s 9/11 work and how he let himself be used to squash all speculation into the nuclear evidence. The only “obvious psychological operation” I see at play… is you efforts at defending Dr. Jones’ despicable actions. You continue:

    … another scripted ‘talking point’ of the op to destroy the sureness of the validity of the smoking gun thermite evidence. Whether nanothermite can or cannot be the entire energy source of the demolition of the towers is not the point. The point is that its existence proves the towers were packed with an explosive substance. It follows naturally from there, that the only way they could have entered the buildings was by a stand-down of security – an inside job.

    Bullshit on many levels. I’m not doubting the thermite evidence. What I am doubting is that the “towers were packed with an explosive substance (e.g., thermite).” They weren’t. The proof of this is in the math that calculates the quantities that would be required to be packed into the towers; the proof continues with the additional quantities that would be required to account for the hot-spots; the proof is bolstered by the many pieces of evidence that such “packed explosives” cannot account for.

    This is a full court press to defame Jones continuing at this very moment. … This campaign is multifaceted and coming from every direction now.

    Mr. Rogue, stop your over-acting.

    All that Prager proves in his long spaced out article, is that industry is dumping toxic waste into landfills despite the rules and laws against such practices. Every one of these substances mentioned are byproduct of industrial processes. Prager’s assertions are bunk.

    I guess I was too late in telling you to stop over-acting.

    From math class, you might of heard the expression that “y is a function of x”, often written in the form y=f(x). As you go from measuring point to measuring point in your landfill, you are not going to see toxins x and y appearing in such correlated form as if one were a function of the other, because the toxin x was dumped in different places and in different quantities compared to y.

    In the event that you measure toxin y and at each measuring location its quantity is proportional to toxin x (y=f(x)), then the conclusion is that toxin x and y entered the system at the same time and in proportional quantities. This is the true smoking gun from the dust. Not thermite, but all of the other trace elements that were measured in proportional quantities everywhere, meaning they entered the system at the same time. Worse, they are trace elements of nuclear hijinx.

    Mr. Rogue is making things up:

    Prager reinvents the wheel by presenting the argument of the toxicity of the dust having an unprecedented nature because to the very fine particles the dust was composed of, and the extreme toxicity of the materials making up these microscopic particles. His assertions that there is a radioactive aspect to this toxicity is not proven. He merely piggybacks it onto the chemical toxicity by rhetorical intertwining.

    This is not the gist of his argument at all.

    Prager does not make up any correlation between toxicity and particle size. If anything, Prager rightly points out that the particle size is a massive energy sink, that the trace elements found in the dust in correlated quantities indicate a single source, and that these trace elements are bi-products of nuclear hijinx. It is just a re-affirming bonus that many of these trace elements are toxic and wouldn’t normally be found in “products of industry”.

    Mr. Rogue wrote the following to Dr. Fetzer:

    At any rate, The matter of a WTC Nuclear event has been settled for six years now: –IT DID NOT HAPPEN– … You boys are playing hopscotch for lollipops.

    Now, now, Mr. Rogue. The lollipop sticks in your throat as you make your “ludicrous sales pitch” in the form of an assertive PR-style hypnotic suggestion: “IT DID NOT HAPPEN.” Who’s the the “pitiful, rank charlatan?” (Who’s playing the pincer con with Dr. Fetzer?)

    What proof do you have that 9/11 was not a nuclear event? Primarily to probably 95% just the words of Dr. Jones, a nuclear physicist… who unscientifically did not test the dust in his possession for anything other than thermite (no other explosives), who unscientifically did not notice the correlation of the trace elements that were measured and them being right up his alley of interest and research, who unscientifically and illogically ruled out all types nukes because they didn’t match the nuclear signatures of three known types of nukes, and who unscientifically re-defined “trace” to be 55 times greater than it was before.

    Prager wrote:

    Underground fires, whether fed by nanothermite or other incendiaries, require oxygen. There is only ONE source of igniting and maintaining a fire without a constant feed of oxygen.

    Mr. Rogue responds:

    Prager intimates that this “ONE Source” must be nuclear. But the fact is that nanothermite is itself an oxygen source.

    Wrong on so many levels. Nanothermite is not a source of oxygen. The oxygen comes from thermite’s chemical reaction with steel.

    Were Mr. Rogue to employ high school chemistry to calculate how much thermite would be required to burn for weeks/months on just one hot-spot, he would trip over an imaginary garden hose packed with the substance that went on for hundreds of miles. Not very Occam Razor.

    Mr. Rogue knows this; he and I have been through it more than twice. I can’t tell you how much my impression of Mr. Rogue sours by his bringing it up, a sad and pitiful affair.

    Mr. Rogue writes:

    Again: Prager proves nothing but ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION by corporatist – “beyond the law” US Industry, which has polluted the landfills, water table and air quality by illicit dumping, burning and spillage for generations.

    First of all, the measurements weren’t taken at a landfill. They were taken by the USGS at various intersections all around the WTC. Secondly, finding in the dust samples so many pollutants is one thing. It is quite another (a) when the pollutants are found in correlated quantities indicating a single source and (b) when the those pollutants — particularly in correlated quantities — would also be expected from nuclear hijinx.

    From Prager’s companion PDF Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]

    The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear.
    We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. … Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship.

    Prager wrote:

    This energetic compound allegedly found by Dr. Jones is incapable of turning either steel or concrete into the micron sized particles found by Dr. Cahill.

    Mr. Rogue responds:

    However, even thermite can CUT and SLICE steel {See Jon Cole experiments}. And PETN or RDX is certainly capable of blowing the concrete and some of that steel into the micron sized particles found by Dr. Cahill and others. Most of the steel was found in perfectly cut pieces of 30 ft or less ready for loading onto excavation transports.
    The majority of the debris and dust was NOT the super-fine variety that is focused upon here. So these ‘equations’ by Harrit are inapplicable.

    Be even more specific. Most of the chunked steel came from the outer wall assemblies: 3 steel beams welded together with 3 spandrels, and then these assemblies bolted in a staggered fashion to neighboring assemblies.

    Sure, thermite could cut those bolts. However, there was much missing steel from within the structure having to do with central box columns, pans holding concrete, and the beam assemblies supporting these.

    You are totally messing up with your reference to Harrit’s equations. His equations had to do with accounting for the amount of tiny spherical iron balls found in the dust. If we assume thermite did it, his equations also calculate that it would be a massive quantity.

    ++++++++

    Mr. Rogue says he is “not playing a game” and that he “really thinks I am wrong.”

    As the duped useful idiot, I’m not so hubris as to believe that I have 9/11 completely explained. Certainly I could be wrong. The issue is that Mr. Rogue isn’t completely right in his counter-arguments. Worse, some of his counter-arguments lose him double and triple points because (a) they were addressed previously, (b) they are just dangling innuendo (e.g., thermite burns without oxygen), and (c) they cannot be extrapolated to explain all of the evidence. He wants nothing more than to park the discussion at thermite, and not address or speculate on any other destructive source, despite the fact that the hero he defends (Dr. Jones) even says that thermite wasn’t the sole mechanism.

    If I “score on the nookiedew later”, Mr. Rogue only jokingly seems concerned about “a mollification for poor yours-truly aye”.

    As I ponder why Mr. Rogue is “giving me a hard time… on purpose”, I am stumped.

    //

    • “The low energy of tritium’s radiation makes it difficult to detect tritium-labeled compounds except by using liquid scintillation counting.”~Wiki

      Alright, I will hand you that one…but still maintain there is already tritium in the environment because of the industrial dumping.

      \\\][///

  48. Señor El Once says:

    >”Alas, your eagerness to dispense with this nuclear topic coupled with the techniques in which you attempt to achieve it tend to re-enforce old impressions I have of you, I’m afraid.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    OH MY GAWD….I AM SO SOO DEVISTATED {grin}

    “The readings weren’t taken at a landfill…” you say….wow, no snit sherlox…

    Thanks for the lollipops Señor…but I’m not eating sweets anymore…bad for the teeth.

    \\][//

  49. Señor El Once,

    Let me put it like this Señor – I don’t believe you, nor Prager on any of this.

    You say a Geiger counter will not produce results for deuterium nor tritium radiation. I don’t believe it. Prove it.

    My point about the product in landfills means that these products are now in the environment, and cannot be considered as simply from the WTC.

    I have been troubled by your lack of judgement for some time. You know that. I think you love these wild goose chases just for the fun of it. I don’t consider any of this ‘serious research’ – but a reaching out for “new toys”.

    As I say, and continue to believe, all of these New Wave 9/11 products have ONE PURPOSE, to bury the conclusive evidences that were heretofore in the open record, to spoil them with disinformation and bunk.

    I thereby stand by my postings that you pretend to address with these Pragerisms and pseudo-scientific rags.

    Cuddle up to the disinfo agents as you will. I think you’re a chump.

    \\][//

  50. Señor El Once says:
    >”You are totally messing up with your reference to Harrit’s equations. His equations had to do with accounting for the amount of tiny spherical iron balls found in the dust. If we assume thermite did it, his equations also calculate that it would be a massive quantity.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    No Señor,
    It has to do with proportion, Harrit based his calculations on the assumption that all of the dust was of the micron level of the superfine variety, thus the preposterously large amounts of thermite postulated on the false assumption. As per the information given by Jones:

    “..that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μmdiam)
    particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μmdiam) particles that are typically measured.”~Jones, Sept. 2006
    If you don't get this, after how many times we've been through it, then fuck it Señor.

    Since you have a point in that we have argued this problem for months now, and neither of us will buy the other's arguments, I see this as a futile exercise. This point by point refutation is bouncing off your party head.

    \\][//

  51. Señor,

    One more thing about Harrit.
    If you recall, when he sent out that email with the dust calculations, he asked;
    “Where’s the mistake?”

    His calculations were good. Most all agree to that. So what is the mistake?

    The mistake is in the amount of fine dust put to the equations, as if all the materials had been so totally dissociated. Why would Harrit shoot his own work down like this, as the amounts proposed by these new calculations are preposterously large?

    Since the calculations are indeed based on a false premise. Since Harrit asked for the recipients to find the mistake, it is my assertion that Harrit was making an elaborate joke on his critics.

    Too bad you aren’t clever enough to see the punch line.

    \\][//

    • Fetzer,

      Since you can’t even make heads nor tails of simple Newtonian mechanics, taking your judgement on the much more complex issues of nuclear physics is a joke.

      On one hand you play Mr Academic and impress the importance of ‘scholarship’ and knowledge of a special field, and then you promote the efforts of a hack, that is not a credentialed nuclear physicist but merely a journalist and publisher, for your nuclear science.

      As far as who plays the “role as a hack and a shill” on these threads, there are months worth of examples of your ineptitude and disingenuous thorny bramblings.

      May I remind the forum that this “professor of the philosophy of science” actually argues that an object at rest possesses the quality of ‘vector’, just two threads back. This is evidence of someone who has zero comprehension of the mechanics of momentum.
      Now we are to take his recommendations on nuclear physics? Preposterous.
      . . . . . . . . . . . .
      el Once,

      You are right Señor, I am not taking this seriously, I am paying half attention to your arguments. Otherwise it would be like going around to used car lots and arguing with the salesmen “for the fun of it”. I don’t get my kicks from arguing against such blatant bullshit. I had my fill of that with Fezter. You guys can squat in a circle and do what comes natural.

      \\][//

  52. Dear Mr. Rogue,

    Your first reaction at 11:12 AM does not address the specifics but applies sarcasm. Your second reaction at 1:39 PM boistrously makes some PR-style projections along the lines: “I don’t believe you, nor Prager on any of this. You say a Geiger counter will not produce results for deuterium nor tritium radiation. I don’t believe it. Prove it.” Your third response at 1:58 PM has you backpeddle: “Alright, I will hand you that one [e.g., the low energy of tritium’s radiation makes it difficult to detect tritium-labeled compounds.]“ Your second response still has some ad hominem gems in, as does your 2:25 PM fourth response. [And late to the game comes your 3:46 PM fifth response that tries to address a mistake but makes greater ones itself.]

    For now, though, you clearly demonstrate your lack of objectivity. You steamroll into the discussion with your pre-conceived notions, and aren’t willing to “think twice before speaking once.” Your research into gathering the nuggets of truth of what I quoted from Prager came after the fact, when it really should have been done before and in lieu of your first sarcastic response.

    While you might be deserving of some kudos for giving a mea culpa before I could jump in to rub your nose in it, the fact of the matter is… Oh what the hell?! Here’s your words aped back at you, “OldMonkeyMan”:

    I have been troubled by your lack of judgement for some time.

    My goodness, you regularly have postings that hint to a large depth of understanding into unseen forces behind the scenes pulling strings for centuries. You drop more than hints about there being a bigger (and BIGGER) picture that can provide greater understanding of the true nature of the world.

    Yet even when your after-the-fact research efforts proves wrong one of your pre-conceived notions, is that enough to get you to re-evaluate your beliefs on other topics within the same area? Is it enough to shake you into realizing that other nuggets of truth exist within that which you wave off? Apparently not.

    You write:

    I think you love these wild goose chases just for the fun of it. I don’t consider any of this ‘serious research’ – but a reaching out for “new toys”.

    Not really. Certainly, I love the wild goose chases for the nuggets of truth I hope to obtain. And maybe I do act quite the duped useful idiot clown to egg others into “serious research” on the matter. Why? Because I’m not foolproof. Why? Because we are indeed beset with disinformation, and by its very design truth seekers can neither accept it at face value nor can they dismiss it and its savory nuggets of truth with a hand-wave. Why? Because your first two reactions demonstrate an un-objectivity and closed-mindedness that is all too common among the sheeple.

    As for the “new toys” charge? [*Patting myself on the back*] I recognized from the first YouTube video I saw of a tower’s decimation before noon (MST) on 9/11 (followed by the second tower) that the sudden and coincidental pulverization represented an exotic nuclear weapon. But sheeple that I am, I tried desperately to be like everyone else and believe what they believed… Only to be disappointed by the huge gaps and inconsistencies and pseudo-science. At various times, I did indeed jump through hoops like 19 hijackers, pods-on-planes, NPT, nano-thermite, nukes, DEW…

    My online-time during the first six to nine months after 9/11 was not spent harping about the glaring anomalies that deflated the official story. Instead, it was spent arguing in various (trade) forums [that were allowing some leeway after 9/11 regarding what constituted "on-topic"] about all of the sane, rational, and even Christian reasons why the USA shouldn’t “nuke Afghanistan into a parking lot,” which by design shifted into why the USA shouldn’t “nuke Iraq into a parking lot” and other such overly patriotic expressions from my flag-waving but ignorant discussion participants. Instead of bombs, I wanted us to invest money to build up the infrastructure of those countries so that the motivation in the general population to be a terrorist would go away. Despite 52 major scandals in his first term that would have brought down any (Democrat) Presidential Administration, Bush could do no wrong by those professional peers in “kicking some rag-head ass.” The root cause was always 9/11, and the errors in governance could not be fixed until the sheeple saw what 9/11 made them do, like a Derren Brown episode.

    But I digress. You wrote:

    My point about the product in landfills means that these products are now in the environment, and cannot be considered as simply from the WTC.

    True enough about what is in the landfill and environment, but completely false for considering the WTC dust. With deft and purpose you miss Prager’s point in what I think is purposeful skew.

    For the readers’ benefit, I’ll use yet other words to explain this. First of all, the USGS analysis in question was on the dust, not the soil, water, air, etc. The dust was a direct bi-product of the WTC decimation. This is what they maticulously sampled in a systematic fashion at many locations. Therefore, grasping for what elements might make it into the dust samples by way of the environment (e.g., water, air, soil) from the landfill doesn’t apply. The dust that they snagged was prestine and on top, and Prager discusses this.

    Your premise is that the WTC was full of computers and equipment etc. that may have contained those bad elements that the USGS was later measuring in the dust. So far so good, eh? The problems are (a) the computers and equipment were not equally composed of the exact same proportions of element A & B (as an example), and (b) the computers and equipment were not evenly distributed throughout the WTC. Therefore, when the WTC was decimated, it would have been totally impossible for elements A & B to appear in the dust at all the sample points in correlated and proportional quantities. The fact of the matter is that this is exactly what was measured. Therefore, it clearly indicates that elements A & B did not come from (primarily) computers and equipment; elements A & B were involved in correlated and proportional quantities in the decimation process; moreover, the elements A & B were associated with a nuclear process.

    By the way, if you have issues with Prager’s work, you can take it up with him directly at “911 Dust by Jeff Prager – Final Version” where he is actively participating. Word of caution though. Get your facts straight and the “pseudo” out of your “science” before you go there. Take this posting to heart.

    You write:

    As I say, and continue to believe, all of these New Wave 9/11 products have ONE PURPOSE, to bury the conclusive evidences that were heretofore in the open record, to spoil them with disinformation and bunk.

    In this instance, aren’t you the one being naive and gullible? Why is it that Dr. Jones’ efforts from the onset aren’t caste into this nefarious light? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the major failings in Dr. Jones’ work? Because the PTB did it with the hijackers, the nature of the planes, NPT, etc. (e.g., misled us), why do you assume that “the conclusive evidences” are so damn conclusive, when nano-thermite has been proven to not be? Why would the government not follow the edict — “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it” — and make Dr. Jones its hero? Oh, that’s right. They did.

    You write:

    I thereby stand by my postings that you pretend to address with these Pragerisms and pseudo-scientific rags.

    On more than one instance, I’ve proven your understanding to be pseudo-scientific. Gee, a classic example is right here with your back-peddling on what radiation a Geiger can and cannot measure that also rolls into your misframing of things within this very thread as “radiationless devices.” Nuclear fizzle and electromagnetic energy are two other areas. It adds up to gross ignorance, yet you participate here with your PR wording as if you were an authority.

    And your pseudo-scientific understanding continues with your discussion on Dr. Harrit (from two different postings):

    It has to do with proportion, Harrit based his calculations on the assumption that all of the dust was of the micron level of the superfine variety, thus the preposterously large amounts of thermite postulated on the false assumption.

    The mistake is in the amount of fine dust put to the equations, as if all the materials had been so totally dissociated.

    No, you are grossly mistaken, Mr. Rogue (again). The equations in question where Dr. Harrit was asking others to find his mistake (as a joke) had nothing to do with particle size in the dust. It also had nothing to do with the “amount of fine dust put to the equations.”

    It had to do with the percentage of iron spheres found in the dust in varous places. This should be fresh in your mind, because I already burned you and your pseudo-scientific understanding about where thermite obtains its oxygen to burn under the rubble: from the steel. The significance of iron spheres in the dust is that iron is a by-product of thermite reacting with steel.

    Paraphrased, Dr. Harrit said that the percentage of iron spheres in the dust came from someplace, from some reaction that is fairly well understood. If we assume that it came about as a natural by-product of thermite reacting with steel, we can “back-of-envelope” estimate the range of quantities of thermite required to achieve this. “Massive” and “ginormous” were two adjectives that I applied to this initial quantity required assuming 100% reaction. Quantities grow larger if <100% reaction. Quantities go way up and into imaginary hoses thousands of miles long if this mechanism also must account for under-rubble hot-spots.

    At this point, it becomes appropriate to re-direct your own verbiage back at you:

    If you don’t get this, after how many times we’ve been through it, then fuck it Señor (Rogue).

    You ask:

    Why would Harrit shoot his own work down like this, as the amounts proposed by these new calculations are preposterously large?

    Good question. Maybe Dr. Harrit wants to get the truth out and is gingerly doing it in a manner that doesn’t get him suicided. It isn’t a problem for him (or me) to say that nano-thermite was found in the dust and is a damning piece of evidence. But by doing the calculations that should have been made public years ago (by Dr. Jones) that show “preposterously large” quantities, he is nudging the pseudo-scientific sheeple into considering what other destructive mechanisms were at play. Maybe he’s not allowed to say, but he’s allowed to provide the hints for thinkers and truth seekers to come to different conclusions.

    You conclude one posting with:

    Cuddle up to the disinfo agents as you will. I think you’re a chump.

    And you are welcome to cuddle up with Dr. Jones and be chumped by him. How many years has it been? At least 50% longer than I was chumped by NPT and continues to this day.

    //

    • My apologies for failing to mention something. I wrote:

      The equations in question where Dr. Harrit was asking others to find his mistake (as a joke) had nothing to do with particle size in the dust. It also had nothing to do with the “amount of fine dust put to the equations.”

      It had to do with the percentage of iron spheres found in the dust in varous places. This should be fresh in your mind, because I already burned you and your pseudo-scientific understanding about where thermite obtains its oxygen to burn under the rubble: from the steel. The significance of iron spheres in the dust is that iron is a by-product of thermite reacting with steel.

      Paraphrased, Dr. Harrit said that the percentage of iron spheres in the dust came from someplace, from some reaction that is fairly well understood. If we assume that it came about as a natural by-product of thermite reacting with steel, we can “back-of-envelope” estimate the range of quantities of thermite required to achieve this. “Massive” and “ginormous” were two adjectives that I applied to this initial quantity required assuming 100% reaction. Quantities grow larger if <100% reaction. Quantities go way up and into imaginary hoses thousands of miles long if this mechanism also must account for under-rubble hot-spots.

      The above ends up being a lame-ass explanation for how thermite could have decimated the towers.

      The unspoken part is that the iron spheres could have been generated by another mechanism, yet Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit and Dr. Wood (and others) have been pretty disinfo sneaking in how they frame the research, frame the discussion, and keep though framed away from considering nuclear means.

      But, ah yes! Nuclear means.

      And although you claim:

      The mistake (of Dr. Harrit) is in the amount of fine dust put to the equations, as if all the materials had been so totally dissociated.

      Those are rather funny phrases you put out there: “as if all the materials had been so totally dissociated.”

      This is indeed what the multiple nuclear DEW devices did. They dissociated elements from their materials. Their very intense but short-lived heat created the iron spheres from steel and produced many other anomalies.

      Rather than bashing Mr. Prager, you should be mining his efforts for nuggets of truth. Relying on your pre-conceived notions doesn’t do it.

      • Tell ya what Señor, You go mining. Bring back the nuggets. We will see what you actually come up with.

        Like I said about visiting used car lots….

        \\][//

    • Dear Mr. Rogue,

      Your postings are not helping improve the impression of you that you make, particularly with respect to previous impressions. The games that you play…

      [Dr. Fetzer] you promote the efforts of a hack, that is not a credentialed nuclear physicist but merely a journalist and publisher, for your nuclear science.

      I take grave offense with this. Does the equation 2+9=11 lose its truth when uttered by a history teacher as opposed to a math teacher? Mr. Prager has done his homework and expresses ideas well. From his research, he has found the truths of “credentialed nuclear physicists” and re-purposed them into his layman’s language for scientifically-challenged sheeple to grasp.

      This is the first prong where your “attack the messenger instead of the message” ploy fails, deployed against both Mr. Prager and Dr. Fetzer. The second prong is indeed the “credentialed nuclear physicist” gambit. How far did that get us with Dr. Jones? Very uncharacteristic for a “credentialed nuclear physicist” in the very branch of nuclear fission/fusion/cold-fusion to not have analyzed the blatant correlations in elements tabulated by the USGS study of the 9/11 dust. “Merely a journalist and publisher” whose research hobby was nuclear physics had to step in and do the work we expected from the 9/11 “credentialed nuclear physicist”.

      You write:

      Preposterous. . . . . . . . . . . . . el Once, You are right Señor, I am not taking this seriously, I am paying half attention to your arguments. Otherwise it would be like going around to used car lots and arguing with the salesmen “for the fun of it”. I don’t get my kicks from arguing against such blatant bullshit. I had my fill of that with Fezter. You guys can squat in a circle and do what comes natural.

      To another poste he writes:

      Tell ya what Señor, You go mining. Bring back the nuggets. We will see what you actually come up with. Like I said about visiting used car lots

      El-Oh-El. The translation of this is that in order for Mr. Rogue to save face in not having the scientific intellectual chops to argue the details of nuclear dust, Mr. Rogue does this wonderful pitch-perfect ad hominem excuse in a Public Relations attempt to dissuade readers from taking a nuclear 9/11 seriously. While this has not stopped Mr. Rogue before, Mr. Rogue hopes to suggest to the readers that my lengthy extracts from Prager contained in this very thread are somehow not already nuggets of truth that I mined and brought back. Yes, let us see what I actually came up with”, which Mr. Rogue might if he was paying more than half attention.

      //

      • Señor El Once claims:
        >”The translation of this is that in order for Mr. Rogue to save face in not having the scientific intellectual chops to argue the details of nuclear dust, Mr. Rogue does this wonderful pitch-perfect ad hominem excuse in a Public Relations attempt to dissuade readers from taking a nuclear 9/11 seriously.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Bullshit Once, I already gave my analysis, that you may find inadequate in your fevered and feeble tendrils overextended reach into the entirely suppositional dreamland of science fantasy.

        As if I have the clout to dissuade readers in any fashion whatsoever. This delusion that I have such persuasive powers fits in nicely with your paranoid ravings and unhinged “analysis”…

        Such as taking my words to Fetzer backwards and twisted into your own meanings.
        I was not degrading the concept of autodidact learning, such as Prager may or may not have mastered ‘nuclear physics’ – but showing the dichotomy between Fetzer’s puffed up boasting of ‘academic credentials’ as so powerful on one hand, and then depending on the work of an “amateur physicist” for his analysis. If Fetzer is so well connected and respected by academia, why can he not find a few neutral physics professors to review Prager’s papers and give their critiques of them?

        I began here by addressing the issues. I move on to ignoring you and the Professor, when I find I am confronted with the same squattle I always get from you two.

        As I say, anyone who wants to buy into the towers being nuked and space beamed, and even that hologram airplanes crashed into digitally created fake towers is free to do so. Who am I to prevent such?

        But demanding that I go round’n’round on this frikking carousel again and again….
        I’m sick of you Señor. As sick of you as I am of Fetzer, and his F-troop.

        Go ahead and make your case for nukes and spacebeams, even use arguments I have made and flip them around to your own purposes. It doesn’t matter anyway.
        It doesn’t mean squat to me if you want to dribble your brain like a basketball. Maybe if you keep practicing your shots, you will eventually toss it back into your brainpan…

        \\][//

  53. My point about the super-fine dust percentage is, that this percentage is of a portion of a larger percentage that is not taken account of. The grit and gravel size debris, which is in fact the greater proportion.

    I have said before, this exchange is futile. I do not buy this junk. If I am missing something and finally “see the light”…{grin}…I will let you know, I have no commitment to this situation other than I find the nuke story to be bullshit.

    \\][//

    • Mr. Rogue writes:

      My point about the super-fine dust percentage is, that this percentage is of a portion of a larger percentage that is not taken account of. The grit and gravel size debris, which is in fact the greater proportion.

      Your point is a minor one, or “small percentage”, in the grand argument for or against nuclear 9/11. And your skew — without actual percentage numbers, mind you — is to deflect from the fact that some percentage of “super-fine dust” was even created and is a large energy sink that needs a mechanism of destruction that can supply it.

      I have said before, this exchange is futile.

      You are the one who makes it so. Proof of this assertion?

      One of my better investments to the search for 9/11 Truth was the purchase of a gift copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook that was sent to you for your objective, “good, bad, and ugly” (chapter-by-chapter) review. My, my, if this purchase doesn’t pay me back dividends and allow me to make some hay with it regularly.

      And it has nothing to do with the content of Dr. Wood’s textbook [yet], because the futile effort it seems centers around getting you onto the same physical page literally to assess goodness versus badness of each and every detail. You have issues with “good.”

      This trend continues with Mr. Prager’s work, which is even more important that Dr. Wood’s textbook, although they have many nuggets of truth that are very much companion.

      I do not buy this junk.

      Right you are. I bought it for you, or directed you were you could get it for free.

      If I am missing something and finally “see the light”…{grin}…I will let you know,

      Those who work your light switch also seem to suppliment your retirement benefits.

      I have no commitment to this situation other than I find the nuke story to be bullshit.

      There you go again, making bold PR proclamations about the worthiness of the “nuke story” that you haven’t read fully, don’t comprehend when explained to you, apply copious amounts of skew to,… avoid at all costs with lame-o excuses and ad hominem. Silence would have been golden in your case, because at least then your agenda to dissuade all rational thinking into 9/11 being a nuclear event isn’t exposed.

      You, in fact, prove that you do not even know the meaning of the phrase you used: “I have no commitment to this situation…” If you truly had “no comment”, would it have been followed by the unsubstantiated word “bullshit?” No. [Borrowing from NPT...] “No comment” means “no comment.”

      //

  54. Señor El Once says:
    >”..is to deflect from the fact that some percentage of “super-fine dust” was even created and is a large energy sink that needs a mechanism of destruction that can supply it.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    As partial payment for the BOOK – I WILL continue with you for awhile Oncie Bouncy.
    A mechanism as simple as PETN, or RDX is sufficient.

    You are going to have to PROVE Nuclear and Doodah, beyond any attempted dismissal of chemical explosives, because they ARE ADEQUATE.

    If my style frustrates you so Señor, thank you very much…{grin}

    \\][//

    • *Groaning Sigh*

      I wrote: “super-fine dust … is a large energy sink that needs a mechanism of destruction that can supply it.”

      Mr. Rogue dings back his response:

      A mechanism as simple as PETN, or RDX is sufficient. You are going to have to PROVE Nuclear and Doodah, beyond any attempted dismissal of chemical explosives, because they ARE ADEQUATE.

      Only in a “blinders-on” sort of a way when only looking at ONE aspect and taking it out of context with the whole are your proposed mechanisms adequate.

      PETN or RDX are insufficent and inadequate to account for… [in no particular order]

      - duration and temperature of under-rubble fires that even Pyrocool could not extinguish.
      - unburned paper, flags, and other things during the decimination.
      - anomalous vehicle damange some distance away (e.g., Eddy currents).
      - calcine concrete.
      - cancer rates in first responders.
      - iron spheres in the dust.
      - correlated percentages of various elements in the dust (e.g., indicative of a single process and a nuclear one at that).
      - tritium measurements.
      - the dismissive nuclear song-and-dance of the tritium report and Dr. Jones “no nukes” efforts.
      - Occam Razor logistics. QUANTITIES! QUANTITIES! QUANTITIES! QUANTITIES of your PETN! For the dustification of content? For the duration of under-rubble fires?

      Here’s another nugget of truth from Prager Page 77 Part Two Conclusions.

      The dust PH was as high as caustic drain cleaner which, with concrete, would require incredible heat. It was reported over 12 on the Ph scale. In fact it requires more thermal energy to calcine concrete then to turn structural steel to dust. This is the signature of a nuclear event.

      Much proof of “nuclear and doodah” has been provided.

      Mr. Rogue writes:

      I began here by addressing the issues. I move on to ignoring you and the Professor, when I find I am confronted with the same squattle I always get from you two. … But demanding that I go round’n’round on this frikking carousel again and again…
      I’m sick of you Señor.

      *sigh* You make such grand promises of ignoring me that you can’t keep. [2012-06-27 Not expecting any further replies from Agent Rogue, but getting them anyway.]

      As for any demands for you to “go round’n’round on this frikking carousel again and again” is a frikking lie. How so? Your scholarly review of Dr. Wood and Mr. Prager — or lack thereof — proves that it isn’t “again and again” because it isn’t even once.

      *sigh* You are under no obligation to “confront my squattle”, particularly if it makes you “sick”, Mr. Rogue. Take a break, rest, and improve your health.

      “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” ~ Lawyer for OJ Simpson

      If your “squattle” (e.g., PETN or RDX or nano-thermite) don’t “fit” (because it can’t address all of the evidence in a cohesive manner), then you must you must “aquit” (or just plain “quit” promoting it exclusively.)

      2012-07-09:

      Read for yourself in the unfolding saga … whether … “agenthood A-List of the NSA Q-Group” applies to Señor Rogue. You be the judge. “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

      - 2012-06-25: Don’t wave-off the nuclear signatures.
      - 2012-06-26: I have my reasons for badgering you as “Agent Rogue”.
      - 2012-06-28: What constitutes a good solid bowel movement.

      *sigh* So when I consider the carousel …

      Alas, [Mr. Rogue's eagerness to dispense with this nuclear topic coupled with the techniques in which [he] attempts to achieve it tend to re-enforce old impressions I have of [him], I’m afraid. … I can’t tell you how much my impression of Mr. Rogue sours by his bringing it up, a sad and pitiful affair.

  55. One more comment about THE BOOK.

    I never wanted the flucking BOOK in the first place. Señor harangued, cajoled and badgered me for MONTHS about the BOOK – that I had no business critiquing Wood without it. I disagreed then, and I disagree now. I can find NOTHING in that book that wasn’t previously presented on her website.

    Nevertheless, I was talked into accepting this ‘offer to give me a copy’__which only gave the fine print AFTER an email exchange wherein I was informed that Señor would pay for the book’s price and delivery, but I would then pay him back at some point. Just like some of these situations where you get a ‘free trip to Hawaii’ but you have to spend a day being given a sales pitch by condominium salesmen…or sitting in a used car lot’s office signing the bottom line, and finding fine print at the bottom that hasn’t previously been mentioned.

    So NOW, I have to play the guilty party to Señor cute little sales scam.

    Fine Señor, as I said, for a time.

    By the end of this thread, my debt will be considered paid in full. That is the fine print I offer you now…as belated as yours was. So milk it daddio, this is the last conversation you have to lean on me about this.

    \\][//

    • Oh Agent Rogue!

      Are we seeing more instances of your faulty short-term memory, or are you just serving up examples of good old fashion plain outright lying?

      I was talked into accepting this ‘offer to give me a copy’__which only gave the fine print AFTER an email exchange wherein I was informed that Señor would pay for the book’s price and delivery, but I would then pay him back at some point.

      So easy, so easy. From an email from me to Mr. Rogue on 2012-06-07 before any book was purchased and seriously outing my playbook for what I was going to do… [and BCC'd precisely to cut you off at the pass at weaseling out of it at some later point in time, which turns out to be now]:

      The … offer … comes with conditions.

      And you can bet that if you accept it and default on the conditions, I’ll use it as well-spent cheap excuse to (figuratively) bloody your nose again and again on the theme of Dr. Wood. And even if you do not accept it with the conditions, I have every intention of making hay (and bloody noses) out of that situation as well. Win-win for me in getting at nuggets of truth.

      Conditions:
      - You will give Dr. Wood’s textbook an objective and thorough [cover-to-cover] reading.
      - You will share your good, bad, and ugly reviews. If the “good” is missing, I clobber you with your own copy.
      - If pressed in debate (e.g., on Truth & Shadows), the good, bad, and ugly reviews will extend down to the chapter level. Again, if the good is missing, I clobber you.
      - If the book is found worthy, you are to pay-it-forward (or loan/give your copy) to someone else influential in the 9/11 discussion (or leadership).
      - If the book is found totally unworthy at the end of your reading, then you should probably give it to someone who will appreciate it.

      Part of Mr. Rogue’s email response on the same day:

      I accept your conditions with the caveat that I am not holding off posting until I receive the book. When I do receive the book, I will attend to it right away as you ask.

      I gave him this advice in a 2012-06-14 email upon learning that he received Dr. Wood’s book:

      I assume you’ve got a fresh pad of yellow stickies to insert where you have questions or spotted issues. I’m sure you’ll have a pad of paper next to you making note of issues you find, or some other way to flag problems.

      Two pieces of advice. When I got my book, it contained with a laminated card with a reprint of a map that appears elsewhere in the book. I found it most helpful to keep this handy and to refer to it often.

      Second piece of advice, make sure you note the GOOD as well as the BAD (because that was part of the assignment.) Evidence might be GOOD, but her analysis of the same might be BAD for the very reasons pointed out on the blog..

      Also, you are under no obligation to find the BAD period, much less on just your first pass. So if you think you’ll be splitting hairs on tiny things in, say, the first three chapters and getting bogged down in detail, remember that you can plow ahead and let it digest. The bigger BAD things will eventually become clear. I don’t want you stalling in your objective reading of the entire book, because you are eager to find BAD things everywhere. After digestion, the BAD in early chapters or that you missed in the first pass might have a better chance of bubbling to the surface.

      Supposedly, Mr. Rogue was sincere in his efforts using this tried-and-true methodology (from his response email):

      I have a note taking regime of my own. I do use post-it style markers. And separate pads for note making. Lol…I have been doing research long before the digital age Señor.

      My game plan and purpose for the offer were revealed to you early on, Agent Rogue.

      You have been in default of the conditions for quite some time. The “good” has been missing from just about everything you’ve ever written about the book, except for this review from the same 2012-06-14 email:

      BTW, the book is quite solid, and a handsome publication indeed, very nice.
      Thanks for urging it on me. Whether I agree with her interpretations of evidence – some of it is very nicely presented therein, as far as I have seen so far. and yes the slip card will obviously come in very handy. Good touch.

      Three months time, and the sincerity in Agent Rogue’s good, bad, and ugly review of Dr. Wood is crystal clear. He has no specifics on any of the three [although "bad and ugly" do exist in Dr. Wood's book that I readily point out.]

      And this trend of Agent Rogue continues in his analysis of Jeff Prager as he promotes his agenda to get all thinking of rational 9/11 truth seekers from considering 9/11 as a nuclear event with “nookiedoo”.

      El-Oh-El! What is amazing is that I’ve moved on from most of Dr. Wood [except nuggets of truth], but I can still use her book (figuratively) to bloody some agency noses with my “cute little sales scam.” Woo hoo!

      El-Oh-El as Agent Rogue tries to change the conditions of the deal (which was intended to be urging him into a sincere search for truth):

      By the end of this thread, my debt will be considered paid in full. That is the fine print I offer you now…as belated as yours was.

      My conditions were not belated. Nice try to weasel out of it and change the deal. Your nose is bleeding on your keyboard.

      Agent Rogue squirms some more:

      So milk it daddio, this is the last conversation you have to lean on me about this.

      David Chandler wrote his first impressions of Dr. Wood’s book that included:

      Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.

      As long as Agent Rogue welches on the conditions, I am entitled to use this “Heavy book — Heavy pages — Extravagant use of color” to (figuratively) bloody his nose. If that’s what it takes.

      Agent Rogue, you have been played by Señor El Once in a major way!!! You failed. I apologize for this failure that will negatively affect your revenue and make tighter your already iffy financial situation.

      // [slash-slash] a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual MonkeyBoy… El-Oh-El

      • And just recently I emailed you and said I would send THE BOOK back on my dime if you were so anxious about the whole thing.

        You said no to keep it. And I never said ‘thanks’…whatta ungrateful so-and-so aye?

        Well Thank You So Much Señor El Once de Generouso

        So I will keep the BOOK, and you can do your slamdance from here to eternity…
        as if I give a glibshit.

        “// [slash-slash] a naive and gullible psuedo-intellectual MonkeyBoy”
        Indeed, I don’t see why you are so proud of it.

        \\][//

      • Agent Rogue posted:

        And just recently I emailed you and said I would send THE BOOK back on my dime if you were so anxious about the whole thing.

        The email in question from September 13 said:

        I have entered a new and more stressful financial situation in the last month and a half. Things are TIGHT. If you would prefer I can package the book up and send it to you [at my cost] rather than hang you up.

        You aren’t hanging me up in the least, Agent Rogue. I would certainly prefer receiving that which I commissioned — an objective review and the mining of nuggets of truth — because I want to be set straight with a bit more than gut responses: “It’s all bullshit! It’s all bunk! It’s all whackadoo nookiedoo!”

        But if I can’t have that, the money was still well spent and a stellar investment. I am rather enjoying seeing you squirm and weasel. Not hanging me up, you’re hanging yourself up. Don’t you wish you could send the book to me and be relieved from the obligation of having to objectively review it with an emphasis on the good, the nuggets of truth?

        … Although I do hope the “stressful financial situation” isn’t compounded by a reduction to your paid-to-post income resulting from your obvious failure in these forums to meet the objectives of your agenda: “dissuade all lurker readers of considering anything 9/11 nuclear.”

        My email response was posted above on September 19, 2012 – 5:35 PM under “Clarifying snippets from a much delayed email”

        Dr. Wood’s book is yours, and I’m not going to add to your financial stress by asking it be sent anywhere. I never asked for your 100% agreement with the book. I asked for an objective review and preservation of nuggets of truth. … You dismiss too easily the whole work based on perceived flaws here and there. This is certainly by design of the disinfo vehicle, but it can’t be the techniques used by truth seekers.

        I repeat: “The techniques used by truth seekers cannot be to dismiss the whole work on perceived flaws here and there.”

        I continued:

        The book is serving quite well its purpose as one of my rhetorical tools to knock you upside the head in debate. But I would really prefer having us objectively agree on the good, the bad, and the ugly — or most of it — because the “good” are clues to the truth.

        //

  56. “The dust PH was as high as caustic drain cleaner which, with concrete, would require incredible heat. It was reported over 12 on the Ph scale. In fact it requires more thermal energy to calcine concrete then to turn structural steel to dust. This is the signature of a nuclear event.”~Prager

    The process of calcination derives its name from the Latin calcinare (to burn lime)[1] due to its most common application, the decomposition of calcium carbonate (limestone) to calcium oxide (lime) and carbon dioxide, in order to produce cement.
    Examples of chemical decomposition reactions common in calcination processes, and their respective thermal decomposition temperatures include:
    CaCO3 → CaO + CO2; 848 °C

    PETN is the main ingredient in det cord which is the most widely used high explosive in the controlled demolition industry.

    PETN when ignited burns at approximately 8,100 deg F.
    The surface of the sun is around 9,800 which makes the blast wave of a det cord explosion nearly as hot as the surface of the sun…

    There is also the fact that concrete can be calcinated by vibration or blast wave: brisance

    I do not need to prove that nuclear devices were not used on 9/11. Those promoting this story need to prove that such devices were used. And no such proofs have been made.

    Gordan Duff says; “…radiation sickness/multiple myloma” – this is simply bullshit. As there are other indicators such as the exposure to certain chemicals, especially petroleum products and derivatives, coal and coke product, the claim that “radiation sickness” is automatically the cause of multiple myloma is spinning bullshit.

    \\][//

  57. Another thing the sleuth mind considers is personnel and their particular expertise.

    So it we look at the scientists chosen as heads to do the NIST WTC “analysis”….who were they and what was their expertise? They were for the most part from the national labs with specialties in the sol-gels, for weapons research and rocket fuel research.

    What does this indicate? It indicates a group with expertise in the field to be covered up – who would know better than they what evidences MUST be kept under wraps in their “study”?

    Now earlier in these discussions I discussed the hallmark signatures of explosives that are proven by all the evidence of the global destruction of the towers. This has been hand-waved without due consideration buy an immediate leapfrog into the nature of the rubble pile aftermath. I have explained this is an error in the sequence of a forensic investigation. This has been dismissed without proper explanation.

    And this is indeed just an outline, and I am leaving the larger specifics of this argument unstated, for the reason that they have been stated TOO MANY TIMES to repeat yet again one more time. If anyone is really interested, they are going to have to review the complete arguments made between Señor and myself. It is long and complex, and any digest is not going to do it justice.

    I want to let Señor know as well that, the thrill is gone…the sting has gone out of his stupid “Agent Rogue” dig…it is stale, limp, and ludicrous. And a slightly humorous thing for me now.

    I apologize if my effort here is less than enthusiastic. I am simply board with this issue after all this time. I will offer a few more shekels worth of posts here…for the sake of Señor’s temperament.

    \\][//

  58. {2nd attempt: running into duplicate posting issues}

    For the sake of discussion, let us consider one alternative that Mr. Rogue proposes:

    PETN is the main ingredient in det cord which is the most widely used high explosive in the controlled demolition industry. PETN when ignited burns at approximately 8,100 deg F.

    And it probably burns very fast, too, at a detonation rate that is known. Kindly calculate (a) how much PETN would be required to pulverize the towers, (b) how much PETN would be required to account for one hot-spot of duration four weeks, (c) how PETN generates the elements that the USGS documented in correlated quantities in the dust, and (d) how in the hell could any amount of PETN account for the measured tritium levels 55 times greater than background levels.

    If the glove don’t fit, you must quit it.

    Mr. Rogue continues with is deviant speculation:

    There is also the fact that concrete can be calcinated by vibration or blast wave: brisance

    Here we see demonstrated another painful example of Mr. Rogue’s faulty medium term memory. The discussion on brisance happened on 2012-07-20. The relevant part starts with Wiki’s definition of brisance:

    Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. It is a measure of the rapidity with which an explosive develops its maximum pressure. A brisant explosive is one that attains its maximum pressure so rapidly that a shock wave is formed.

    My comment followed:

    I’ve highlighted the nugget of truth: a shock wave is formed. Shock waves produce sounds… loud sounds… sounds measurable as high decibel levels. … Dr. Sunder — neither an actor nor a politician — said on camera with a straight face and no lying ticks paraphrased words to the effect: “We ruled out known conventional controlled demolition explosives and known military explosives, because the signature decibel levels were not present.”

    Mr. Rogue does his best Jack Nickelson impersonation:

    I do not need to prove that nuclear devices were not used on 9/11. Those promoting this story need to prove that such devices were used. And no such proofs have been made.

    Your third sentence is a Darren Brown-style PR ploy to plant a suggestion that is a lie easily exposed by postings of mine in this very thread.

    Your first two sentences are absolutely correct, Mr. Rogue, but this does not relieve you of the responsibility that you, as participant, owe to this rational discussion. You need to be open to the fact that valid individual pieces of evidence are adding up to a nuclear 9/11, while these same pieces of evidence taken in whole and not isolation (as you attempt) cannot be so easily explained by the speculative alternatives that you constantly promote despite of how the math clear demonstrates that the resulting imaginary garden hose is just too frikkin’ long for Occam Razor.

    Gordan Duff says; “…radiation sickness/multiple myloma” – this is simply bullshit. As there are other indicators such as the exposure to certain chemicals, especially petroleum products and derivatives, coal and coke product, the claim that “radiation sickness” is automatically the cause of multiple myloma is spinning bullshit.

    Yeah, well, Gordan Duff, like so many who peddle 9/11 conspiracy theories, has his own duped useful idiot issues to content with. The statistics on the sicknesses are there for interpretation. From Prager page 52 “1 – 162 • 911 America Nuked.pdf” [Part 1: 86MB]:

    1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.

    2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.

    [See: Robert W. Miller, M.D., and William J. Blot, Ph.D., and others, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Japanese National Institute Of Health Of The Ministry Of Health And Welfare, Atomic Radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also see Ionizing Radiation 911, parts 1, 2 and 3 linked on a previous page. Also see: CDC study of K25 workers linked previously]

    3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the ‘start date,’ specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.

    At this point, I’ve got to tip my Fedora to Mr. Rogue as I recall his email words to me:

    I am giving you a hard time on the current thread…on purpose.

    I speculate that the “hard time” refers to how Mr. Rogue presents seemingly rational but (in the grand scheme of things) technically flawed speculation whose “purpose” is to rouse me to hone my “nookiedoo” arguments. He walks a fine line between appeasing the rigors of his agenda and, without implicating his enabling hand, allowing “nookiedoo truth” just enough wiggle room to make major inroads in lurker reader thought when wielded by the deft hands of internet alter-ego Señor El Once // [slash-slash], duped useful idiot extraordinaire!

    … Ah crap. I thought I was done, but Mr. Rogue posts another one.

    Right away, one of those technically flawed speculation comes up:

    So if we look at the scientists chosen as heads to do the NIST WTC “analysis”… who were they and what was their expertise? They were for the most part from the national labs with specialties in the sol-gels, for weapons research and rocket fuel research. What does this indicate? It indicates a group with expertise in the field to be covered up – who would know better than they what evidences MUST be kept under wraps in their “study”?

    Or, because the WTC destruction was primarily “nookiedoo,” it could also be that NIST did not expect much evidence of any other secondary chemical weapon (e.g., sol-gel) to be found or survive. These scientists would be sent on a wild goose chase to find evidence of things near-and-dear to their weapons research and come up empty-handed. “Gravity did it!!! No evidence of my pet weapons doing it!!!”

    Might have been a different story if a “nookiedoo” (i.e., nuclear DEW scientist) were called into play by NIST, certainly in what they would have looked for and tried to correlate.

    The following passage from Mr. Rogue is noteworthy for many reasons:

    Now earlier in these discussions I discussed the hallmark signatures of explosives that are proven by all the evidence of the global destruction of the towers. This has been hand-waved without due consideration buy an immediate leapfrog into the nature of the rubble pile aftermath. I have explained this is an error in the sequence of a forensic investigation. This has been dismissed without proper explanation.

    It seems to accuse me of a hand-wave dismissal of his hallmark signatures of explosives without a proper explanation. The reality is that proper explanation and glove-fitting to 9/11 is lacking in his hallmark signatures, whose failure can be summed up with the single word: tritium.

    And this is indeed just an outline, and I am leaving the larger specifics of this argument unstated, for the reason that they have been stated TOO MANY TIMES to repeat yet again one more time. If anyone is really interested, they are going to have to review the complete arguments made between Señor and myself. It is long and complex, and any digest is not going to do it justice.

    Mr. Rogue is correct that he has instigated spins on the carousel too many times and been burned. Were this not the case, Mr. Rogue would be providing links.

    Here’s one I like to call Those trailing 000′s are not trivial [2012-07-10]. It has this great quote about “signatures”:

    As for your fluff “does not match the signature characteristics of the actual destruction.” As proven above, your alternative theory does not match the signature characteristics of the actual destruction. Where are the decibel readings? Tritium, tritium, tritium. Can you say “under-rubble hot-spot burning for weeks”? Give me estimates on quantities? What percentage of that massive quantity would have failed and been present in the dust? How come even Dr. Jones and A&E for 9/11 Truth didn’t even test the dust, and then to cover their asses, they come up with a lame PR excuse? Maybe they didn’t test, because they knew in advance it would be negative, which would then send objective thinkers into rejecting the “controlled” alternative theories and into more reasonable yet exotic realms.

    And when I look, I find this earlier one from 2012-06-21 that begins with me ranting about Mr. Rogue juking the comments by putting is posting in a thread where it didn’t belong. Here’s the “signature” quote:

    Mr. Rogue writes in his misplaced rant:

    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 these very specific signature characteristics.

    That may be.

    Further, it is your agency agenda and pure, unadulterated disinfo that has you purposely and oh so frequently ignoring and vocally dismissing major pieces of the evidence (e.g., specific signature characteristics of something nuclear in the form of radiation, unquenchable hot-spots, and 1st responder ailments), because it doesn’t fit in with the pretense and conjecture of super duper nano-thermite and thermabutic (sp?) mechanisms that you are paid to peddle to supplement your SS retirement. I do not chalk it up to stupidity but to your assignment that the boojie woojie high school science you avoided in favor of art disqualifies your pretense and conjecture as explaining anything beyond the initial pulverization [and even that is a stretch maybe too far], a fact that you don’t even acknowledge or use to modify your conclusions. If you don’t address all of the evidence in your pretense and conjecture, then the likelihood is greater that your pretense and conjecture is wrong.

    Shall I bore you with the blind men faced with the task of describing what was in the room (an elephant) while each had a hand on a different body part (e.g., trunk, ears, tail, legs, belly) and came to different conclusions as to the animal?

    Ah but back to the present moment, Mr. Rogue tries to save face in the nuclear discussion by *yawn* feigning boredom:

    I apologize if my effort here is less than enthusiastic. I am simply board with this issue after all this time. I will offer a few more shekels worth of posts here… for the sake of Señor’s temperament.

    Spare us the skekels of posts, Mr. Rogue.

    If you are really bored, then move on. You are under no obligation to reply to me. Unless, of course, you are taking orders.

    My orders about 9/11 were clear: “Feed my sheep!”

    //

  59. [Craig - I meant to include this in the above:]

    “It is important to recall that the Italian trials of those convicted for the 1980 Bologna bombing implicated not only Vinciguerra, SISMI, and Gladio, but also elements of the Italian mafia (the Banda della Magliana) and the Italian Masonic Lodge Propaganda-Due (P-2), with links to criminal bankers and the Vatican.11
    The John F. Kennedy assassination of 1963, or 11/22, which led to the CIA’s Operation Chaos against the anti-Vietnam War movement. (11/22 was clearly a deep event: many documents in the area of Lee Harvey Oswald’s relations to CIA operations are still being withheld, despite statutory and court orders to release them.13

    The Robert Kennedy assassination of 1968, followed immediately by emergency legislation which led to state-sponsored violence at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention.

    The 1993 first World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

    9/11 and the subsequent false flag anthrax attacks of 2001, which led to the imposition of Continuity of Government (COG) measures, the Patriot Act, and the proclamation, on September 14, 2001, of a State of Emergency which remains in effect. (In September 2012 it was once again renewed for another year).14″~Peter Dale Scott
    \\][//

  60. I would like to comment on my take on Peter Dale Scott; I have followed his work since the 1980s, and find his ‘Deep Politics’ analysis compelling…up to a point. If one reads this article I would say that I agree with the data and the connection of dots as Scott lays them out. I do however, have a disagreement with his last third or so of this article in ‘what it all means’. I think his ideas of a ‘working democracy’ are inconsistent with the data he has brought forth. I think there is a panoramic view that he is failing to see, and this is something I have spoken to before as far as the revelations of the larger agenda, or ‘protocol’ if you will. {Something we have yet to cover in full on this blog}.

    \\][//

  61. Jeff Prager, in Veterans Today article:
    September 22, 2012 – 12:43 pm
    >”According to the USGS study, if you read it [6 above] Ground Zero was virtually asbestos/chrysolite free. The energetic collapse blew the asbestos south and east well beyond Ground Zero. Avaris satellite data confirms, as seen in the USGS report #01-0429, that asbestos was a less-than-minor constituent of Ground Zero dust. Read the report.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    So I did read it. In fact I have read several reports on the WTC Dust.

    http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS/wtc.asc.ch3/

    USGS Spectroscopy Lab
    Spectroscopic and X-Ray Diffraction Analyses of Asbestos in the World Trade Center Dust
    Asbestos Content of the Settled Dust
    G.A. Swayze, R.N. Clark, S.J. Sutley, T.M. Hoefen, G.S. Plumlee,
    G.P. Meeker, I.K. Brownfield, K.E. Livo, and L.C. Morath
    U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado
    Abstract
    On Sept. 17 and 18, 2001, samples of settled dust and airfall debris were collected from 34 sites within a 1-km radius of the WTC collapse site, including a sample from an indoor location unaffected by rainfall, and samples of insulation from two steel beams at Ground Zero. Spectral and XRD analyses of the field samples detected trace levels of serpentine minerals, including chrysotile asbestos in about two-thirds of the dust samples at concentrations at or below ~1 wt%. The chrysotile content of the dust is variable and may indicate that chrysotile asbestos was not distributed uniformly during the three collapse events.
    . . . . . . .
    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/13/2012-14203/world-trade-center-health-program-addition-of-certain-types-of-cancer-to-the-list-of-wtc-related

    Malignant neoplasm of the larynx [C32]: (Method 3) The review of published exposure assessment studies identified asbestos and sulfuric acid as present in the New York City disaster area. [Lioy, et al. 2002; COPC 2003; Lorber, et al. 2007] IARC has determined that results of epidemiologic studies of exposure by inhalation provide sufficient epidemiological evidence that all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite) cause cancer of the larynx in humans. [IARC 2012a] IARC has determined that the results of epidemiologic studies of exposure by inhalation provide sufficient epidemiological evidence that strong inorganic acids including sulfuric acid cause cancer of the larynx.

    \\][//

  62. “Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.”~Prager
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    From Federal Register of WTC Cancer and Illnesses/First Responders:
    Malignant neoplasms of the blood and lymphoid tissues, including, but not limited to, lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma.

    Hodgkin’s disease [C81]; follicular [nodular] non-Hodgkin lymphoma [C82]; diffuse non-Hodgkin lymphoma [C83]; peripheral and cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [C84]; other and unspecified types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma [C85]; malignant immunoproliferative diseases [C88]; multiple myeloma and malignant plasma cell neoplasms [C90]; lymphoid leukemia [C91]; myeloid leukemia [C92]; monocytic leukemia [C93]; other leukemias of specified cell type [C94]; leukemia of unspecified cell type [C95]; other and unspecified malignant neoplasms of lymphoid, hematopoietic and related tissue [C96]:

    (Method 3) The review of published exposure assessment studies identified benzene [Lorber, et al. 2007; Wallingford and Snyder 2001], 1,3-butadiene [Lorber, et al. 2007; Wallingford and Snyder 2001], and formaldehyde [COPC 2003] as present in the New York City disaster area. IARC determined that there is sufficient evidence that exposure to 1,3-butadiene causes cancer of the hematolymphatic organs. IARC considers hematolymphatic cancers attributable both to leukemia and malignant lymphoma. The IARC working group recognized that the epidemiological evidence for an association with specific subtypes of hematolymphatic cancers is weaker, but when malignant lymphomas and leukemias are distinguished, the evidence is strongest for leukemia.
    [IARC, 2012c] IARC also determined that there is sufficient evidence that exposure to benzene causes acute myeloid leukemia and acute non-lymphocytic leukemia. [Cogliano, et al. 2011; IARC 2012c] IARC has determined that results of epidemiological studies of exposure by inhalation provide sufficient epidemiological evidence that formaldehyde causes leukemia in humans. [Cogliano, et al. 2011; IARC 2012c] In addition, IARC has determined that there is limited evidence in humans that styrene, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin cause leukemia. For the reasons discussed above, the Administrator intends to include all hematolymphatic cancers.
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    \\][//

  63. A RHETORICAL RAMPAGE…Scatomancy

    JeffPrager – September 22, 2012 – 12:43 pm
    >“According to the USGS study, if you read it [6 above] Ground Zero was virtually asbestos/chrysolite free. The energetic collapse blew the asbestos south and east well beyond Ground Zero. Avaris satellite data confirms, as seen in the USGS report #01-0429, that asbestos was a *less-than-minor constituent of Ground Zero dust. Read the report.”
    AGAIN: Jeff Prager – September 22, 2012 – 5:08 pm
    … According to the USGS and AVARIS satellite data asbestos was not a constituent of Ground Zero dust in any measurable amounts.”~Ibid
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    *The issue seems to be one of subjective use of language here; “less-than-minor” “virtually free” “in any measurable amounts”…moromancy

    This prattle from someone who makes big doin’s out of 55 times the background level of Tritium, when the fact is that if a fission/fusion devise had been used the result would been in the MILLIONS of curies, rather than in the tens of nanocuries (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie.)
    1 curie (Ci) = 3.7 × 1010 Bq. A Bq is a tiny measure of activity.

    Prager is simply speaking through the seat of his trousers.

    \\][//

  64. To sum up what the last few posts reveal:

    It proves that Prager is making spurious claims; He is making the case that the only known source for these diseases is radiation. The information I just presented shows this to be clearly false.

    I have also shown his rhetorical ‘pressure cooking’ of terminology to downplay the obvious fact that there was asbestos in this hyper-toxic mixture. As an accumulative and an abrasive, asbestos would aggravate tissue, making it more susceptible to other chemical and gaseous damages

    Again; He asserts radiation with no foundation for displacing the already established, known toxins provided by empirical evidence.

    And as well, I have shown his use of ‘persuasive’ inaccurate argument to attempt to strengthen a fragile case.

    In this instance, on these points – he ends up with zero.

    \\][//

  65. Wrote a Q-Group A-Lister:

    Prager is simply speaking through the seat of his trousers.

    In uttering that, Agent Rogue’s voice is muffled by his wallet filled with paid-to-post cash and perched in his own trouser pocket.

    This is not to say that Prager’s efforts won’t be found without error or stilt, like any of his forerunners in their PR tours: Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, Dr. Legged, Simon Shack, Mr. Gage, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Fetzer, …

    Tetris. The odd shaped blocks come down, and you must orient & position them to allow the fewest gaps in the resulting stack.

    9/11 Tretris. The various pieces of evidence come down, and you must orient them to allow for the fewest gaps in the resulting theory.

    Agent Rogue makes light of what could or could not cause a sudden increase in cancerous ailments in 9/11 1st responders. He wants to take off the table that radiation exposure was one of the toxic elements that accelerated the onset of cancer.

    Despite the fact that the 9/11 Tetris blocks can be oriented and stacked with fewer and tighter gaps into the shape of “nookiedoo” as Agent Rogue has affectionately nick-named “nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)” in his Public Relations tour, it becomes rather funny looking at gaps in his theories… gaps with tritium staring out, gaps large enough to hold a coil over 600,000 miles long of imaginary garden hose, gaps that are illogical and unreasonable from the perspective of a special operations having deep pockets and access to every single nookie-and-crany in the military arsenals of the world.

    Yes, it is indeed “nookiedoo” when smashed with the sole of a black boot, as has been an agenda since entering these forums in January 2012.

    Keep going, Agent Rogue, and don’t forget to analyze the bridge between Mr. Prager’s nukes and Dr. Wood’s DEW, seeing how you have their collected evidence handy. Good (nuggets of truth) as well as bad and ugly has the task all along.

  66. I would remind the forum however, that when assessing Prager and his disciples:

    “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
    ~Hanlon’s Razor

    Intent is the most difficult aspect to parse; mala fides, duplicity, perfidy, and pretense shows the same appearance as stupidity, and the two are as identical twins. So in such cases it is best to be gracious and extend the ‘benefit of the doubt’.

    A famous phrase sums it divinely; “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

    \\][//

  67. For the forum’s enlightenment – on the definition of Tetris:

    Tetris (Russian: Тетрис) is a falling-blocks puzzle video game, released on a large spectrum of platforms.

    ‘Tetris’ blocks is a game – not a philosophy or epistemic construct.
    A game, like using the name of a game as though it were a valid concept of logic.

    So we could use this same term in a new game, the Tetris Cage, where “no light” can get through the spaces between the blocks, and the mind inside sits in utter darkness.

    Rather still, better to drop the whole game, for it is scatomancy.

    \\][//

  68. Sound Level Measurement

    Among a penumbra of scurrilous assertions made by the purveyors of myth known as NIST is this assertion:
    >“We ruled out known conventional controlled demolition explosives and known military explosives, because the signature decibel levels were not present.”~Dr. Sunder
    … … … … …

    Sunder’s wasn’t challenged on just how NIST was able to make such a determination, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure decibel levels from sound recordings. And his assertions rely on the studies of video recordings and their attending sound recordings.
    The only way to measure decibel level is live, by a special mic interfaced with a decibel meter.

    Of course NIST ignored – even denied the many reports of eyewitnesses, many of these first responders themselves who reported loud explosions. Explosions were indeed recorded in many video soundtracks – although the actual sound level cannot be measured, the familiar signature is recognizable.

    The denial of explosions being heard, and the subsequent proofs by sound and video recordings as well as eyewitness testimonies is one of the major proofs that the 9/11 NIST reports and apologies for, are pseudo-scientific lies, cover-ups and whitewashes.

    \\][//

  69. The Syham Sunder Sham
    (Sham: To trick; to cheat; to deceive or delude with false pretenses.)

    “In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed—at least 100 pounds for one column”~Syham Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator

    This is proven to be absolute bullshit – See: Jon Cole thermite experiments:
    http://reinep.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/national-geographics-kiss-ass-theory-on-911-is-debunked/

    Just one of many witness testimonies:

    “I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I m shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”~NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before and during its collapse at 5:30

    \\][//

  70. As part of being “seriously finished with an asshole,” an A-Lister of the Q-Group spreads his own “pseudoscience punk sauce:”

    You’re such a numbskull that you don’t even realize you cannot determine decibels from a sound recording, it can only be measured live.

    Inside this thread he writes:

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure decibel levels from sound recordings.

    The science of the matter tells another story.

    Fact: The noise level drops by 6 dB as the distance from the noise source doubles.

    Task: Calibrate the microphone and equipment of the recording session against a known noise source with a known dB level at a known distance to the mic.

    Thereafter, the unknown dB level of a second noise source in a recording at a known distance can be calculated. The scientific guess won’t be 100% accurate, but probably “close enough for government work” (as we used to say in a machine shop.)

    Caveats: The recording of either noise source should not be pegging any of the recording meters, because this indicates clipping. Obstacles in the environment through which or around which the sound must travel will also reduce recorded levels of a noise source at the microphone.

    SOUND LEVEL decibels: Environmental condition
    140-130 Pain threshold
    130-120 Pneumatic chipper (jackhammer)
    120-110 Automobile horn (at one meter)
    110-100 Jet aircraft overhead (low level flight)
    110-90 Interior of subway train
    90-80 Inside of bus, cab of a transport truck
    80-70 Busy street traffic
    70-60 Normal conversation
    60-50 Office background
    50-40 Living room background (suburban residence)
    30-40 Library
    30-20 Bedroom at night (suburban home)
    20-10 Sound studio background noise
    10-0 Threshold of hearing

    On 9/11, camera microphones were calibrated for the reporter speaking in a newscaster voice right next to the microphone. (This is something that a trained reporter ought to be able to come very close to repeating on command, as required by their profession. Let’s say 60-70 dB.) The reporter’s microphone was a known distance away from the WTC towers when their decimation started and when the microphone picked up sounds of explosions. Assuming no clipping in the recording, the dB reading coming out of the towers (but not within the towers at the source) can be scientifically guessed, which is what NIST did.

    Dr. Sunder said (paraphrased):

    “We ruled out known conventional controlled demolition explosives and known military explosives, because the signature decibel levels were not present.”

    Part of the spin may have been the attenuation in sound by the shielding walls of the WTC complex.

    Dr. Sunder may be factually wrong when he states:

    In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed—at least 100 pounds for one column.

    So, Jon Cole proves that you can cut through steel with less than 5 pounds of thermite. Multiple 5 pounds by the number of columns on a floor and then by the number of floors. Not only do massive amounts result (not Occam Razor), but also the destruction would not be what was observed (or recorded). Specifically, it was not 110 unique explosions in sequence happening inside of about ~11 seconds demolition time [~10 explosions a second that I'd never be able to count]; it was not 47 unique explosions in sequence happening inside of ~6.5 seconds demolition time (WTC-7) [1 explosiong every 0.13 seconds]; it was as witnesses reported (NYPD officer Craig Bartmer on WTC-7):

    The whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.”

    In other words, the explosions could be counted. Or, a single explosion took out multiple floors. Not just took out; dustified. Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, so it by itself would not be responsible for this phenomenon. If you were to add in other explosives, how many floors could they take out at once and what would their decibel signature be? And would it be Occam Razor easy?

    The observed destruction [e.g., calcine concrete, iron spheres in dust, correlated percentages of various elements int he dust, TRITIUM, etc.] could be explained by small nuclear DEW (neutron weapons) directed upwards and placed every 10 floors or so. Study from Dr. Wood’s book or website the damage to WTC-4 main edifice, WTC-5, and WTC-6. The leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice (9 stories) is particularly noteworthy for being sliced from its North Wing at a line and for having insufficient debris from the towers to account for the dustification of the main edifice.

    Nobody every said small nuclear DEW (neutron weapons) would be without sound. But by their very nature and location within the towers’ shielding walls, their dB signature might indeed be small compared to RDX and other brissanty conventional explosives.

  71. My opponent offers fodder for the lowest common denominator. Appeals to stupidity, like Fetzer and his ceaseless crank sales-pitches.

    A ‘guess’ an ‘approximation’ is not ‘measuring’ – it is guessing and making approximations. That is not “science” that is GUESSWORK.

    The complexity of the urban terrain, a veritable sonic obstacle course, makes these assertions of approximations barren of any rational “calibrated” meaning.

    But beyond this NIST is “measuring” the dB of sound levels that are not existent in their recordings? So just what measurements could they be referring to? Did they listen to recordings of these “booms” and say to themselves, “well those aren’t loud enough”?

    No, they denied the existence of booms, and denied the testimony of booms, and explosions…

    But all of this is presumed to be dismissed with a wave of the hand, appealing to “science” while making up shit out of whole-cloth.

    Who is in the majority of the general population? The lower common denominator. That is the gist of the overall problem of humanity, isn’t it?

    Is the Truth Movement really going to act as a lower common denominator?

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure decibel levels from sound recordings.

    \\][//

    • It is more than appropriate that the first word in the title of this article is “ignorance,” which is sadly so readily on display with these words by Mr. Rogue who clearly has never been a serious student of science:

      A ‘guess’ an ‘approximation’ is not ‘measuring’ – it is guessing and making approximations. That is not “science” that is GUESSWORK.

      Contrary to Mr. Rogue’s PR efforts into declarative suggestions, science is all about “guess work”: educated guesses honed by experience and math. It is using the known to learn about and predict features of the unknown.

      The mark of all really good engineers and scientists is their ability to estimate quickly magnitudes and to approximate quantities & volumes for the sole purpose of getting close, which then can help determine an appropriate course of action (e.g., is this beeker big enough? can this wire handle the current? is this enough material to handle the load?) They save the precision measurements and calculations for when it really counts and can be done by automated means.

      Mr. Rogue concludes with an assertion that should have had qualifiers:

      It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure decibel levels from sound recordings.

      An appropriate qualifier would have been “from most sound recordings”.

      I provided the very limited conditions whereby decibel levels could be guesstimated from a recording, which requires a calibration from a known source within the recording and knowledge of the environment and distance to the target source of unknown but to-be-calculated decibel levels. [Doesn't apply to all recordings.] When the conditions are given as I stated, educated guesswork can bring someone within a reasonable margin of error to actual numbers.

      Mr. Rogue writes the truth:

      The complexity of the urban terrain, a veritable sonic obstacle course, makes these assertions of approximations barren of any rational “calibrated” meaning.

      “Calibrated” meaning? Indeed. The guesstimation does not have to be calibrated and accurate to any number of decimal places. The guesstimation just has to get the scientist into the right ballpark (order of magnitude) where more detailed research can spring forth.

      Being in the right ballpark turns out to be the issue with NIST. These assertions by Mr. Rogue are 100% valid:

      But beyond this NIST is “measuring” the dB of sound levels that are not existent in their recordings? So just what measurements could they be referring to? Did they listen to recordings of these “booms” and say to themselves, “well those aren’t loud enough”? No, they denied the existence of booms, and denied the testimony of booms, and explosions… But all of this is presumed to be dismissed with a wave of the hand, appealing to “science” while making up shit out of whole-cloth.

      Had NIST not performed its initial slight of hands in attempting to deny the existence of booms, their guesstimation work into the decibel readings of the booms from (finally acknowledged) recordings of such should have set them into the correct ballpark: namely, the ballpark of asking questions about the source of the booms.

      Let’s let Mr. Rogue savor his little strawman victory.

      Why were decibel readings and their mishandling being discussed here? In my dismissal of conventional (brissant) explosives as the primary mechanism of WTC distruction, I am guilty of using as one of my weaker arguments NIST’s lame-ass efforts into decibels readings. Woo hoo for Mr. Rogue for making hay with it.

      However, despite being weak, the decibel argument has merit.

      You see, even Dr. Sunder estimated for one column the amount of some explosive that, when extrapolated to all necessary columns, represents very large quantities [and this was demolition, not pulverization.] Dr. Harrit also guestimates very large quantities of thermite attributed to being accountable for the percentage of iron spheres in the dust. (The fact that Dr. Jones did not make such approximations is also glaring.) The old discussion with the “imaginary hose” packed with conventional explosives to account for under-rubble hot-spot duration (over and above amount required for decimation) also guestimates massive quantities even when salted down. The extreme pulverization of concrete represents a massive energy sink that requires an appropriately massive energy source.

      Someone who is not scientifically challenged can use the margin of error on these amounts, increase the margin by an order of magnitude (or two), and determine worst cases for the amounts of conventional explosives. Alas, even the low-end figure used in staggered configuration is very large, runs quickly into logistics improbabilities, and by way of educated guesses should result in very large brissant “booms”, much louder than observed.

      The deceit from NIST in this aspect was purposely flawed reasoning to appeal to science-challenged sheeple:

      If we don’t get decibel measurements at expected levels, not only was it not explosives that produced it, but also more importantly — we don’t have to continue looking into the source of the “booms”. Check out what gravity alone can do…

      Mr. Rogue mentions “lower/lowest common denominator” three times in his rebuttal. From past discussion, conventional explosives appear to be his lowest common denominator solution. Too bad that when the denominators of 9/11 fractions in the equation contain “tritium”, “pulverization”, “lower decibel levels”, “selective & anomalous vehicle damage”, and “lazy-ass logistics”, the lowest common denominator increases to “nookiedoo”. The 9/11 Tetris Evidence stacks with fewest gaps as nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW).

      //

  72. Ah, the hand on the crank. The crank on the box that plays the theme to the ‘Mulberry Bush’.

    So ’round’n’round we go….

    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s