Ventura, Asner, AE film, and a legal heavyweight provide good news for 9/11 truth


By Craig McKee

Is the glass somewhat empty or partly full?

With the 9/11 Truth movement, it can be hard to tell at times.

Sometimes the outlook can seem bleak as the mainstream media continues to freeze out all perspectives that don’t fit the official narrative while corrupt courts smother the truth before it can ever … not be reported.

The frustration is such that truthers can’t be faulted for wondering whether it’s all worth it. It’s understandable that doubts exist about whether the many cracks in the official lie will ever widen to the point that the whole thing falls to pieces. It’s a choice that people have to make for themselves: do I fight on, or do I move on?

But despite the frustration there are reasons not to give up – and more coming all the time. Ultimate success in creating widespread understanding of how the 9/11 lie was orchestrated might not come this year or next, but it will come if we keep fighting. Personally, I’m not great at leaving arguments until I’ve won – or at least worn the other person out. Control issues, I guess.

For starters, we have the honorary president of the Supreme Court of Italy, Ferdinando Imposimato, recently calling on the International Criminal Court to conduct a trial on 9/11. He says the court was created to deal with criminal acts of war and is therefore the ideal body to take on the case.

Now, this is a longshot, but it has to be good news whenever a public figure of Imposimato’s stature adds his or her voice to the chorus calling for justice. Imposimato, in addition to being a panelist at last year’s Toronto 9/11 Hearings, has presided over numerous terrorism cases, including the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and the assassination of former Italian President Aldo Moro. In other words, he’s someone to be taken seriously.

In a statement, Imposimato writes: “The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly, the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”

Okay, it’s a LIHOP scenario he’s touting (Let it Happen on Purpose), but it’s still a big step forward. And Imposimato is not the only prominent Italian political figure who is willing to say publicly that the U.S. government played a part in 9/11 that it is lying about. Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga (1985-92) publicly stated back in 2007 that 9/11 was a joint CIA/Mossad operation and that this is well known among global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga likened 9/11 to NATO’s Operation Gladio, which Cossiga was involved in creating. In this secret false flag program, which ran from the 1950s until 1990, NATO and the CIA carried out bombings and other “terrorist” attacks aimed at discrediting left-wing groups and subverting democracy.

In another recent bit of good news, we had Jesse Ventura openly scoffing at the 9/11 official story on the Piers Morgan show on CNN in September, with the audience squarely behind Ventura.  I loved it. And what a pompous ass Morgan is. Here’s part of the exchange:

PM: What would you have done on Sept. 12, 2001 if you were the president?

JV: I would have done a legitimate investigation to find out what exactly happened on 9/11. How did they know who did this so quickly like they did Lee Harvey Oswald? How quick they knew Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy (big smile on his face).

PM: Because the people who did it were identified, and we knew who they were.

JV: Then why couldn’t we have stopped them beforehand if they were identified and we knew who they were?

PM: Because it was a failure of intelligence. Everyone’s accepted that.

JV: No it wasn’t. We knew before with Condolezza Rice’s memo of Aug. 6 when it’s stated right in the memo “Bin Laden to steal planes and run them into buildings.” And more stuff is coming out now also about how much the Bush administration ignored the intelligence. It was almost like they ignored it because they wanted it to happen (bigger smile).

PM: Oh, come on, Jesse (complete disgust).

JV: No, not oh come on. Every war starts with a false flag operation (pointing emphatically).

Ventura went on to describe the famous BBC report on the collapse of Building 7 that aired half an hour before the building fell. In fact, reporter Jane Standley explained that the collapse had occurred while the building was in plain view over her left shoulder the whole time. The report was interrupted when Standley’s satellite signal mysteriously broke up in time to avoid the spectacle of the building falling on live TV during her report.

Morgan went to commercial condescendingly telling Ventura “You need to have a break, Jesse,” to which Ventura replied, “These are facts, my friend.” Later, when Morgan accused Ventura of making “crackpot points,” Ventura polled the audience. “How many people think I make crackpot points?” One person clapped. “How many people think I make sensible points?” Enthusiastic applause.

Now Ventura is still not going all the way with a MIHOP (Made it Happen on Purpose) scenario, although he comes as close as you can get without coming right out and saying the government did it. He also plays a little looser with facts than I’d like. The title of the Aug. 6 memo didn’t indicate that bin Laden wanted to “run planes into buildings,” it said, “Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States.”

Ventura is clearly an anomaly. He is very popular on talk shows and news programs and he has his own show called Conspiracy Theory. He says things that almost no one else is permitted to say. And he gets to say these things repeatedly.

But even he can be the victim of censorship. In 2010, he wrote an article for The Huffington Post that questioned the official story of 9/11. It was the cover story for a few hours, but then it disappeared. This statement replaced the article: “Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.”

In another bit of positive news this month, actor Ed Asner was interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning, also questioning the official 9/11 narrative. Although most of the interview dealt with Asner’s career, he did have the chance to say this to a question about his views on 9/11:

“No one wants to hear the destruction of the American myth, that some elements of government were involved in 9/11,” he said. “Why did it take an hour for the strongest nation in the world to get planes in the air?”

Grinning interviewer Rita Braver predictably came back with: “You underestimate incompetence?”

To which Asner wryly retorted: “It was all around that day – all around.”

I’m afraid that many may have missed the sarcasm, but at least the first statement was made – and it got on the air. Small victories are better than no victories.

And we’ve had the hugely popular airing of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth documentary Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out on PBS. The film was shown on PBS’s Colorado affiliate, which had shown Blueprint for Truth in 2009. Experts soon became the most shared video on the PBS national site and one of the three most watched – that is until it was removed from the site. But to say there was an audience for the film would be an understatement.

If one wants to find bad news, it’s not hard to do. But if you’re looking for a few rays of light and hope, they’re there, too. When I argue with some people online or in person about 9/11, I don’t get indifference, I get anger and ridicule.

We must be doing something right.

101 thoughts on “Ventura, Asner, AE film, and a legal heavyweight provide good news for 9/11 truth

  1. Yes, Craig. These things keep my fuel going too. You can tell that many people who were active for the better part of half a decade have peetered off, perhaps having moved on to the next “chapter” of their life after hard core 9/11 activism. Also, let’s not forget the mass purges from what was the leading truth site for awhile, 911blogger. The blogosphere is basically dead save your blog, Kevin Barrett’s blog, and a few others. But paradoxically, we’ve had, this same year, some of the movement’s biggest successes as far as breaking into the mainstream.

    When you make the reference to the Huffington Post censoring Ventura’s article for violating the rules, I am reminded of an analogous event (roughly around the same time if i remember correctly) when 911blogger refused to publish Zwicker’s CIT endorsement, claiming that barrie’s remark about disinformation specialists (loosely speaking, not naming anyone in particular) was a violation of the site rules which said “Calling another user a liar or disinformation agent will not be tolerated.” A ridiculously transparent response by 911B editorial staff to censor 9/11 Pentagon truth specifically, much like the ridiculously transparent response from Huffpo as a sorry excuse to censor 9/11 truth as a whole.

    Well written as usual Craig. Keep them coming, we need you!

  2. Craig you continue to do a great job. It is impossible for the perpetrators to paint a vivid picture with only one color on their pallete. Whitewash gives little contrast. The chickens are coming home to roost. It’s just a matter of time and patience. The main criminals will probably die of old age free but the lie will be revealed eventually. The crime will be exposed.

    • Thanks, Mark. I feel the same way – that the crime will be exposed. We just have to keep pounding. And we have to keep telling everyone who will listen, or not listen, about the truth of this event.

  3. Actually, the remarkably effective worldwide, persistent, cross-disciplinary censorship of 9/11 is a blessing, because its analysis leads straightforwardly to the demonstration of the existence of the global Platonic theater, the mother conspiracy that foments and nurtures numerous grand and small conspiracies against humanity, from major wars to petty wedge issues. The knowledge and understanding of the global Platonic theater in turns allows to formulate some simple, although disconcerting, paradigm shifts at the individual level that may usher humanity out of the war system and into an age of prosperity.

    Love,

    • Well, to be more specific, the court of public opinion within the demographic of people who’ve taken the time to look at the evidence has already won.

      I remember introducing 9/11 truth to a complete newbie (classical musician) and used the example of Frank diMartini in his famous clip, where he takes a pencil and punctures a screen door to show that the WTC crash damage would be totally localized. His instant answer: “But the pencil through screen door scene doesn’t involve heat.” Hurr-durr. I should have completely switched gears to another tack, but continued trying to convince with the physical evidence. Didn’t work. The guy had a “less than 30% open mind.”

      If ever someone instantly shows a close-minded approach with the physical evidence, immediately switch to the circumstantial, like the war games, PNAC, Northwoods. Talking about the WTC science is zooming in to the trees too close.

      • @ Adam Syed
        Could I suggest that you could puncture a screen door with a pencil all day and nothing much would happen because the mesh is not holding up the door. You could remove the mesh altogether and the door frame would still stand up. A particularly illogical illustration for someone who is an engineer to come up with.

      • Actually Mr Wright,

        Demartini’s analogy is quite apt due to the nature of the construction of the WTC towers.

        Do you have a grasp on the architecture of the tube design these towers were constructed as? Do you understand that the outer facade is constructed for lateral tension strength and is not ‘holding up’ the towers?

        In the analogy of a screen door, the ‘frame’ of the building is the inner core of the building. The puncturing of the facade would indeed have little effect on the stability of the entire building and would indeed be like a pencil puncturing the netting.

        The towers were constructed with redundant load bearing strength. Their so-called “collapse” due to jet fuel fires and the physical damage caused by the planes is simply absurd, as has been explained in excruciating detail for twelve years now.

        NIST clearly did not address the global failure of the towers. They ended their analysis when the buildings were “poised for collapse” as they say, clearly defying their mandate to explain why the buildings failed globally. It is up front and in your face Mr Wright, NIST was a scientific hoax and a political whitewash.

        I do not understand what motivates your vain attempts here. What is it you are trying to prove? The official account is so absurd on so many levels that it is beyond imagining anyone with any rationality at all could buy it. And thus far your rhetorical lollipops have been anything but rational.

        \\][//

      • I think it is also worth pointing out that Mr Wright’s argument against DeMartini is the very same one used by the nutty professor, Jim Fetzer, in his arguments claiming an airplane cannot crash into a building.

        So now at this point in the current thread, we have the Tension Rod arching from Wright to Fetzer, and now Onebornfree…

        What is the continuity of this circuit? Is it not obvious when given just a moment’s reflection? The sun shines on Sunstein like a focused beam through a magnifying glass.

        \\][//

      • REVIEW:

        In regards to the Towers’ immense solid steel construction, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management stated in an interview back in January 2001:

        “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

        \\][//

      • A. Wright,

        The “mesh” is not holding up the building, the core and perimeter columns are. Yes, the pencil through screen netting is a perfectly apt analogy, and it came from the WTC construction manager.

        HR’s response is right on the money.

      • http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

        The NIST mandate was, first and formost:

        “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”

        “Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.” [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called “global” models of the towers.”

        \\][//

  4. You are right, Craig. Jesse is a tremendous asset. His observation that his camping stove burns propane, which is hotter than kerosene, but it does not melt when he uses it is an all-time classic! And The Vancouver Hearings have broken through the cover-up once and for all by establishing these findings:

    (1) No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon;
    (2) All of the “crash sites” were fabricated;
    (3) The Twin Towers were destroyed using nukes;
    (4) It was done by Neo-Cons with the assistance of the Mossad.

    Here are some resources for those who want to know the evidence and the argument that support those conclusions, where the hearings’ web site offers more about the conference at http://www.911vancouverhearings.com:

    “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/07/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-i/

    “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/12/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-ii/

    “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-jaccuse-zelikow-cheney-rumsfeld-bush-and-obrien-2/

    “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/30/911-confessions-of-a-former-cia-asset/

    “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/22/911-and-zion-what-was-israels-role/

    “9/11: Have we been bamboozled?”
    http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/

  5. A very good article Craig, one that touches the core of reality – eventually all truth is revealed.

    If course as everyone is aware by now I strenuously object to Fetzer’s unpaid advertisements for his loonytoon “conspiracy” products.

    I think his last point is the most jejune and misguided, as it covers for the larger agenda that is systemic. I think this is Fetzer’s role in disinfo, to lead away from the deepest truth of all; the actual architecture of modern political power.

    The truth about 9/11 is most important as it leads to an understanding of how the event fits into the larger context of this pathological system. To truncate that truth with half-truths is a vile agenda in itself.

    \\][//

  6. As always, good job, Mr. McKee.

    I’m starting to come to peace with my overall anger at prominent conspiracy theorists who don’t go far enough, or go way overboard. To land too close to the truth is a recipie for getting suicided.

    When considering the purposeful “bat-shit crazy” or the “self-inflicted hole-in-foot” that all who rise to conspiracy theory prominence seem to have, the thought creeps into my mind that: “It would be stupid not to.” Killing the court jester is bad form for royalty, but the life-extending condition is that in order to utter truth, you have to don the jester’s garb.

    Monopoly board game had the card, “get out of jail free,” which is actually very much apropro to the wealthy elite who play monopoly for real, like in blowing up WTC-7 with the SEC records and taking out the investigators and records from the Office of Naval Intelligence.

    When the Conspiracy Theory board game is created, it’ll have a slew of cards like:

    get out of being suicided FREE by incorporating a bat-shit crazy idea

    get out of an early death by “natural causes” FREE by not going far enough

    get the Howard Dean “media scream” treatment applied to you, do not pass GO

    television, radio, newspaper, and partisan internet blogs change your middle name to “loony, whacky, crazy, nutty”

    rescinded invitations to family gatherings

    “ego surfing” on your own name in google ranks the vilest ad hominem first for new employers to see

    surveillance photos of family members overlaid with gun site markings seal the deal on “the offer you can’t refuse”

    lose all interest in politic things and become addicted to professional sports

    favorite television host was once a “professional” wrestler

    favorite politician was once a “professional” wrestler

    taking a Bug’s Bunny lesson to heart — “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”, you purchase a Lazyboy recliner, a television, and premium cable so that you can channel-surf your life away

    when shopping for underwear, the only motifs available in your size have super heroes or cartoon characters on them

    blog infiltrated by the A-Team from the Q-Group

    home wireless modem keeps dropping your internet connection

    favorite conspiracy blog won’t let you post

    favorite conspiracy website has it formatting and color scheme changed so that you can’t read it

    favorite conspiracy database containing revealing truths wiped out by a “service upgrade”

    disinformation pincer attack in the forums get your eyes spinning and give you a headache

    conspiracy carousel ride takes you for another spin

    “neu nookiedoo” is how they christen your “neutron nuclear DEW” (directed energy weapon)

    nose is (figuratively) bloodied in conspiracy debate from a refusal to objectively go there

    you start to like the clever ad hominem names that others call you such that they become your new posting signature

    you feel like they are recording your calls and intercepting your internet traffic… because they are

    you get called a “disinfo agent” on your favorite conspiracy forum before you can call the other guy a “disinfo agent”: Godwin’s Law revised

    Facebook posts on your wall all privated messages sent to you, while posting on other people’s wall all private messages you sent them

    ScrewLooseChange takes a special interest in outing you

    implants and RFID nail the coffin shut on more than just internet anonymity

    internet databases and google searches give new meaning to the threat: “this is going on your permanent record, young man”

    Okay, I’m having too much fun here.

    [Disclaimer: a few of the above are completely unsubstantiated speculation. Some but not all of the above apply to me. The purpose was humor even if a bit gallowy.]

    • The late Allen Watts in his lectures on Zen, spoke to the trap of “game theory” which he describes as a psychological form of “one-upmanship”. In essence the danger is in the dialectical character of ‘game attitude’ as a basis of life’s interactions, and that has to do with the distinction made by Fromm:

      “Reason is man’s faculty for grasping the world by thought, in contradiction to intelligence, which is man’s ability to manipulate the world with the help of thought. Reason is man’s instrument for arriving at the truth, intelligence is man’s instrument for manipulating the world more successfully; the former is essentially human, the latter belongs to the animal part of man.”—Erich Fromm
      . . . . . . . . .
      Although this comment is drawn from the subtext of Señor’s comment, it is not meant as a taunt, nor a come-on for an argument. It is merely an observation that might be pondered.

      \\][//

  7. very good article, craig. i like your focus on the positives that are occurring, and your tolerance of the LIFO perspective. of course, given the nature of mass media, unless you drive the point home repeatedly (as ad campaigns do), you don’t get to reach all that many people effectively. still, the 9/11 Truth message is so powerful, you don’t need as much exposure as say the latest after-shave product, to be effective. it’s a cliche’ but it’s true: “every little bit helps.” and the break-thru’s you discuss are each more than little bits. collectively, much more. as adam said, “These things keep my fuel going too. ” thanks!

  8. I would like to recommend three books that I feel are essential primers for grasping the depth of our cultural-political situation:

    1> PROPAGANDA by Jacques Ellul

    2> PROPAGANDA by Edward Bernays

    3> PUBLIC OPINION by Walter Lippmann

    This is Techno-Cultural Anthropology 101

    Essential Reading.

    \\][//

  9. http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012-September—Imposimato-letter.pdf

    Ferdinando Imposimato 9/11 Anniversary Letter as posted as PDF on Journal.

    “I agree with architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, both
    highly experienced professionals, who have arrived at their conclusions through reliable
    tests, scientific proof, and the visual testimony of people above suspicion, including
    firefighters and victims. The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin has described
    very precisely why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into
    consideration. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions.”

    I do not think this is an indication that his views are LIHOP at all! I would say these views are very much the views of a total inside job.

    \\][//

  10. I’m glad to see Mr. McKee pointing out where Jessie Venture plays a bit fast and loose with the facts, but that is in my opinion one of the hallmarks of the 911 truth movement. In most TV and radio interviews with someone from the truth movement it seems to me they invariable present distortions and misrepresentations of the facts, from Barrie Zwicker, to David Ray Griffin, to Jessie Ventura and most others you could mention. In that interview Ed Asner says “Why did it take an hour for the strongest nation in the world to get planes in the air?” Is that true? Did it take an hour to get planes into the air? Does Ed Asner know the facts? Why does Barrie Zwicker do interview after interview saying that ‘in a drama in the skies that lasted almost two hours, not a single military jet turned a wheel, until it was too late..” What does that mean? – that no planes took off for two hours? Anyone listening to Barrie Zwicker saying this is going to get the false impression that military planes sat on the ground for two hours. You would think someone who professes to be seeking the truth might al least get the facts right and not present their audience with distortions and misrepresentations of those facts, which I’m afraid Mr. Zwicker does,for all his sincerity.

    • So tell us YOUR version of why there were no fighter interceptions during “the attacks” Mr Wright.

      I think this forum is getting pretty sick of your popping in here like a leering jack’n’the’box’ puppet, springing ditzball questions and then never answering any of ours.

      Which of the aircraft in question were intercepted by a US fighter? Oh…zero…yes well, then why do you suppose that is?

      Well then if that is too complex a question for you, when did the first fighters take off and where did they go? Why didn’t they intercept?

      Your turn genius.

      \\][//

    • Wright,

      And you’re no different from resident head-under-the-blanket farter poster, onebornfree.

      If you can’t follow your script, you simply ignore valid points, piss off and then arrogantly post another “gem” before sauntering off with that concrete filled noggin of yours.

      When I say script, I’m not even going down the “disinfo agent” path with that remark. Government loyalists such as yourself (and you are) need to have that script handy. A script that is not solely a base for fact, figures, quotes, documents, etc as most of us would have for reference.

      No.

      Your script is for the purpose of how to phrase an answer to a question. Of how to create wriggle room. Ambiguity. Avoid. Copy and paste mud. Ignore valid arguments. Know how to stay within its borders. Always make sure there’s a safety net. Know when to split.

      The thing about truth is that it is an animal. Always evolving. There are different interpretations of the truth. All could be wrong on their version of the whole truth. All could be correct on many facts but still be wrong in their conclusions. That’s why there are many posters here and on other forums from different backgrounds, different approaches, (waaay) different opinions, but it’s that same diversity that makes each person strive to search for the truth through trial and error.

      If you go to any government loyalist site, they’re like a bunch of nodding dogs all essentially reading from the same script you’ve bought into. To admit one solitary concession or allow a chink in the armour is seen as a betrayal of that script.

      I can read you like a book Wright. Or a script. And it’s boring.

    • A.Wright demonstrates classic troll behavior by dropping numerous accusations and then failing completely to respond when challenged. If he is unable or unwilling to respond to legitimate rebuttals to what he says then he is a proven troll with one agenda to disrupt the board. He fails to disrupt the board of course because so many of us are familiar with this type of troll behavior that he has virtually zero impact however the attempt to disrupt the board makes him worthy of an either or proposition in my opinion. Either you meaningfully respond to rebuttals or you lose your priviledge to post new items until you do so. JREFers and their kind can be dealt with swiftly and effectively by simply forcing them to back up what they say or lose their posting priviledges. From what I have observed A.Wright is a classic troll hitting and running and consistently failing to back up what he says.

      For the record JREF is funded by an Anonymous donor from Washington DC. Did anyone else here know that?

      • “For the record JREF is funded by an Anonymous donor from Washington DC. Did anyone else here know that?”~Ruffadam

        Hmm…? I didn’t know that actually. I do know quite a bit about the “amazingly Amazing Randy” and how his live-in loverboy was a con man…”birds of a feather” as they say.

        I would intuit that JREF is a direct subsidiary of one of the military industrial think tanks. They sure get some whacko’s on their threads…very ‘Strangelovian’ hoodoos.

        \\][//

      • @Ruffadam
        On this thread I have made a couple of the posts, the first to point out to Adam Syed that the analogy of ‘a pencil being pushed through a screen door’ is an invalid analogy for the WTC towers being hit by an airplane. If you read his reply he is basically just confirming what I said. My other post was about the kind of distortions and misrepresentations of the facts that are presented by people in the 911 truth movement , with Ed Asner saying “Why did it take an hour for the strongest nation in the world to get planes in the air?” Am I, or anyone else allowed to point out this kind of inaccurate and misleading statement? I’d say most of the people watching that interview don’t realise that is a misleading inaccurate statement. He is misleading people. Why did no one on this forum point it out? At the same time you have Barrie Zwicker talking about 2 hours before any interceptor ‘turned a wheel’. Misleading and inaccurate statements, that he makes over and over in practically every interview he does, and is never challenged on.
        I don’t think other people on this forum are anything other than ordinary people like myself expessing their own views. I’m expressing my views. You are expressing yours. I write posts here when I have the time as I’m sure you do. Being in a different time zone and sometimes having a number of replies – mostly from people I had not addressed the post to in the first place and often laced with caustic personal innuendo by people who know nothing about me – before having the opportunity to reply myself, usually doesn’t encourage me to continue.

      • A.Wright

        You complain about others such as Barrie Zwicker making “misleading statements” by making a misleading statement yourself. The Zwicker quote that you posted was not complete and therefore was out of context and misleading as to what he actually said. I challenge you to post the entire quote and link to the source so we can discuss what he actually said.

        What I notice is that some people put their own spin on what others say instead of posting the actual quote and then they proceed to attack their own “spun” version of what the person actually said. This is called a straw man tactic. I personally think you are guilty of exactly that, using straw man disinformation tactics. I challenge you therefore to post a link to Zwicker’s quote and then debate that singular point with me. Are you willing to do so?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua1-EsjKwY4&feature=relmfu
        The Great Conspiracy
        BZ: The events of 911 begin with aircraft going wildly off
        course. Incredibly , despite radar tracking for almost
        2 hours, the whole of the mighty US Airforce goes AWOL that morning
        It’s a mind bending anomaly. Not a single US Airforce interceptor turns a wheel until
        it’s too late. There are no jets at all. It’s a matter of historical record.
        ___________________
        http://www.myspace.com/ottawa911/videos/video/28620446
        The Agenda with Steve Paiken
        BZ: . So I saw the 2nd plane going into the second tower and I was in my writing studio on the third floor of our house, I went down to the livingroom and I’m watching and people joined us my wife and I and I said look, where’s the US Airforce here, I was getting exercised, because the crawl said you know airliners are going all over hell’s half acre, they’re heading for Washington, and they are heading here and heading there. So I’m saying ‘come on US Airforce, come on US Airforce’ , I’m jumping up and down and screaming and my wife says ‘calm down’ ..
        SP: Are you thinking anything neferious at this point?
        BZ: Yeah right away, I’m saying where is the US Airforce, I know they scramble in minutes and now like an hour has gone by and there’s still no interception has taken place. You know it was almost 2 hours before any US jet turned a wheel, almost 2 hours.

      • A.Wright- on OCTOBER 23, 2012 – 6:03 PM – says:

        >”On this thread I have made a couple of the posts, the first to point out to Adam Syed that the analogy of ‘a pencil being pushed through a screen door’ is an invalid analogy for the WTC towers being hit by an airplane. If you read his reply he is basically just confirming what I said.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . .

        I challenge your reading comprehension skills Wright, both Adam and I responded to that post, and both of us disagreed with you. Both of us made the point that the analogy was indeed applicable and why it was. This is right above in this very thread! WTF are you talking about???

        You then go on to challenge both Asner and Zwicker on the times that first responders took to get off the ground for intercept. You show then that they did indeed speak to this horrendous time of lack of response. But you bring no information to counter the assertions of lack of response!

        As is pointed out time and again – there WAS NO RESPONSE until the Pentagon was already hit. This is no empty assertion of the Truth movement, this is historical fact. This is an issue that even the chairs of the 9/11 commission spoke to after the report came out, in which they said that the military had lied about the response. Anyone who knows the first thing about the 9/11 case knows there was NO response by the military until the whole thing was over, and that the military lied about their part in the affair.

        Where is your proof of air response to supposed ‘hijacked airliners’? You will have to make it up from your own imagination, because the military told three conflicting stories and none add up.

        \\][//

      • A Wright whines;

        >”..laced with caustic personal innuendo by people who know nothing about me…”
        . . . . . . . . . . . .
        Come now Mr Wright, we know “nothing” about you? You reveal yourself in your text and subtext. How can this be characterized as ‘nothing’?

        Even here we learn ‘something’, and that is how disingenuous your entire approach to these things are. You have revealed that you will argue without the benefit of backing those arguments up with data and reasonable interpretation of said data. You have revealed that you buy one of the most preposterous and monstrous lies ever told by a government to their population. We find that you are willing to act as a stooge based on clearly blatantly false PR and spin.

        We may not know the color of your hair, the shade of wingtips you wear nor the width of your tie, but these are trivia and mean nothing. We know plenty about where you are coming from and what your gig is here.

        Let us not trifle Wright, you are not in the slightest amusing.

        \\][//

      • A.Wright

        Your straw man is revealed just as I said it would be. First you claimed BZ said the following:

        “You have Barrie Zwicker talking about 2 hours before any interceptor ‘turned a wheel’”

        But then once you link to his actual statement we discover that he actually said:

        “The events of 911 begin with aircraft going wildly off course. Incredibly, despite radar tracking for almost 2 hours, the whole of the mighty US Air force goes AWOL that morning it’s a mind bending anomaly. Not a single US Air force interceptor turns a wheel until it’s too late. There are no jets at all. It’s a matter of historical record.”

        In the first version you spin what he actually said into your own straw man version by leaving out the entire context of what he said AND you cut out key words such as where he said “almost 2 hours”. In your version of what he said it is directly implied that BZ said no planes took off for 2 hours. In the actual quote however we discover what BZ really said and meant. He said and meant that the jets did not get into the air until it was too late in spite of radar tracking, which is true. He said the air force was AWOL for ALMOST 2 hours. AWOL means away without leave. In the context he was using the term it meant they were nowhere to be found or nowhere near where they needed to be to intercept the planes which is also true.

        His statements were grossly distorted by you in order to create a straw man. You are dishonest A.Wright and may I also point out that attacking truthers who are out there trying to expose the truth and achieve justice does not sit well with me. I question why you would choose to do that rather than seeking the truth of 9/11 yourself and at least try to bring about justice? Why aren’t you nit picking at every single word of the god damned filthy lying sacks of shit at NIST or the Pentagon or the Bush administration? Why aren’t you doing anything positive towards helping the 9/11 victims or exposing the truth? Instead you come in here and create straw man arguments about good people who actually are trying to make a difference and you do so in true JREF’er fashion. That makes you not only a disinformationist but also a loathsome figure in my book. I just don’t like people like you and frankly speaking if you stomp off angry and never post here again it will not bother me in the slightest.

      • For The Record: NORAD Response Time:

        At 8:14, Flight 11 failed to respond to an instruction to ascend issued from Boston Center.
        At 09:38 the Pentagon was hit, crash in Pennsylvania at 10:03.

        ***ALMOST 2 HOURS!!***

        The original story was delivered by Gen. Richard Myers, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and acting chairman on the morning of Sept. 11, Myers told the Senate that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was struck.

        When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, then any who support that story must be held in the same contempt as that lying government; as they are accessories after the fact.

        \\][//

      • One more note on the stand down of the military on 9/11:

        On the morning of 9/11 Dick Cheney was surprisingly in control of NORAD. This is the first time in history a VP was in charge of the agency. Dick Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down on the morning of 9/11 allowing the planes to fly into the WTC and Pentagon.

        http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

        There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called:
        “CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A”
        (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf)

        “AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS”

        \\][//

  11. craig, yes, a cumulative thing. richard gage makes that argument via the analogy of drops of water slowly dripping into a bucket. for the longest while, it seems like nothing is happening, then all of a sudden you realize that there’s a lot more water in the bucket than there was some time ago.

  12. Jim Fetzer says: ” Jesse is a tremendous asset.”

    Sorry Jim, but Mr Ventura is probably just controlled opposition, nothing more , just like Alex Jones, “We Are Change” ,Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Pilots For 9/11 Truth et al [and some of the posters here ], probably are .

    Jim Fetzer says: ” (1) No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon;”

    True! But no planes hit anywhere else either!

    Jim Fetzer says: “(2) All of the “crash sites” were fabricated;”

    True Jim, but as as I said at [1], no planes hit anything, anywhere.[Maybe planes were in all 4 areas?]

    Jim Fetzer says: “(3) The Twin Towers were destroyed using nukes;”

    Totally unprovable, in my opinion.

    And irrelevant, to boot, as are _all_ of the “what did they use”, “scientific” , “demolition theories” [deliberate disinformation distractions actually].

    The ugly truth is that _all_ of the “live” network videos depicting the super fast collapses of WTC1 &2 are 100% fake [i.e pre-fabricated digital animations], as are _all_ of the WTC7 collapse sequences [so religiously and repetitively posted here by at least one poor deluded "believer" in their authenticity in prior threads here- as if to say: the more he/she posts them, the truer they all become :-)]; ……..and as are any/all other alleged “live”collapse sequences of any other WTC buildings – so the fact of the matter is that any such “nuke” collapse theory for WTC1&2 , or any other collapse theory for that matter, that relies almost entirely on “scientific analysis” of that very same 100% fake live network footage [or on any of the various post event so-called "new collapse footage" released to date], as they all inevitably must, is sheer speculation and nothing more: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=67871cd40dbf68c15b836117f58c2e4b

    Conventional Demolition?:

    Most likely the twin towers and the rest of the complex were brought down off camera [behind military style smoke screens] via simple, conventional demolition, where the base section [always 7 to 8 times stronger than higher sections], is removed first,so that the top naturally collapses down on to the newly “vacated” space thus created below:

    Still Unprovable- and Irrelevant:

    But since the network “live” collapse footage was all faked, even this hypothesis [i.e conventional demolition] is most likely unprovable – and just as irrelevant big picture wise as all of the other controlled demolition theories out there, including mini-nukes.[ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm ].

    A Deliberate Distraction:

    The “How did they demolish the towers” question is a mere [and both deliberate and never resolvable] distraction; in other words – a distraction that effectively keeps attention off of the bald fact that the media [i.e CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox etc.] en masse broadcast 102 minute long, entirely fake videos of downtown Manhattan on the morning of 9/11. http://www.septemberclues.info/

    Jim Fetzer says: (4) “It was done by Neo-Cons with the assistance of the Mossad.”

    Way, way ,way, way too narrow, Jim. Bordering on myopic actually. Sure, the neocons and Israel, were probably center stage, but many other equally [or perhaps more] powerful interests stood to directly benefit from the scam.

    If you are implying that this all happened purely because a Re-pube-lickin’ was “the decider” as opposed to a Dimmokrat, you have obviously been wearing [and evidently continue to], some pretty heavy duty political philosophy blinders that are effectively blinding you to the true nature of _all_ governments, everywhere. There are, and can be, no exceptions.
    See: “The Lying, Criminal, State”: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2007/10/lying-criminal-state.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • OBF says:

      Most likely the twin towers and the rest of the complex were brought down off camera [behind military style smoke screens] via simple, conventional demolition, where the base section [always 7 to 8 times stronger than higher sections], is removed first,so that the top naturally collapses down on to the newly “vacated” space thus created below:

      I am currently feeling like Richard Gage first did when he was driving and heard Griffin on the radio outlining 9/11 truth! If I were listening to you on the radio right now and I heard you say the above, I would have to pull over to the shoulder so I could cling onto your every word! I feel like I’ve been hit by a two-by-four! Never before in my life have I felt this enlightened! Thank you so much OBF!!!!

      • Yes Adam,

        It is this phrase and concept that is such the “kicker”:

        “[behind military style smoke screens]”

        This is the part I want explained in detail. Exactly what is this ‘smoke screen’ effect and how is it accomplished in broad daylight? And if it was put up before the first plane strike…as would be a necessity for this tale to hold together…why would anyone on the streets of Manhattan that day have the slightest concern that ANYTHING unusual was going on?
        Well maybe fire engines and other first responders screaming into the WTC area, only to suddenly ‘disappear’ behind this “military style smoke screen” might set the witnesses teeth on edge…like “what sort of Twilight Zone is happening here?” Lol

        I agree, it IS rather like a two-by-four up side the head {grin}.

        \\][//

    • “Most likely the twin towers and the rest of the complex were brought down off camera [behind military style smoke screens] via simple, conventional demolition, where the base section [always 7 to 8 times stronger than higher sections], is removed first,so that the top naturally collapses down on to the newly “vacated” space thus created below”

      Conventional demolition leaves behind a stack of compacted floors and debris 10-15% the height of the intact building. Is that what you observe after the ‘smoke’ clears?

  13. Regards onebornfree,

    The ugly truth is that you don’t have the slightest knowledge of digital animation and your whole theory is utter bullshit.

    A Deliberate Distraction: And one that attempts to erase the entire visual record from the case. You have not once EVER offered anything close to proof as to this lunatic idea.

    Why would anyone want to put the strongest evidence in the trashcan in one fell swoop like this? The answer is obvious, you are part of the controlled opposition that you accuse the whole truth movement of being. The only other option is you are simply nuts.

    \\][//

  14. I would like to comment on the article and on the first comment made by Adam Syed.

    Adam Syed
    October 11, 2012 – 11:24 pm

    Yes, Craig. These things keep my fuel going too. You can tell that many people who were active for the better part of half a decade have petered off, perhaps having moved on to the next “chapter” of their life after hard core 9/11 activism.

    My point is:
    We don’t need to make anymore 9/11 truth videos, what we have already is enough truth to expose the official 9/11 lie. (although I will always appreciate new videos when they’re made)

    9/11 truth must be front and center of our minds at all times and when we are out and about and meeting people we must always try to find an opportunity to raise the question of 9/11.

    We only need to raise it once with the same person or crowd. If they are not interested it is very unlikely that they will want to return to this subject to categorize you and call you a “Conspiracy Theorist”. I personally would welcome very much being called a conspiracy theorist it would give me an opportunity to expose the 9/11 lie even more. The fact is most people don’t want to talk about it.

    If some 9/11 truthers appear to have petered off I hope that they would not pass up an opportunity to engage with someone who might or might not listen.

    Debating 9/11 is not a religious subject. It is not a philosophical subject. It is a subject that can provide a definitive answer. It can also identify a goat very quickly even if it has letters after its name. If this same person is approached a second time by a different 9/11 truther he she might react a little different and perhaps view building 7 coming down.

    Each time the truth is told, the lie becomes more unbearable for the believer and the unbeliever.

  15. CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF BUILDING WTC 7

    http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/911-debate-do-we-know-the-truth
    – Dave Thomas v Richard Gage on WTC 9/11

    The sound track to that video that they played on that radio debate between Dave Thomas and Richard Gage has been playing in the background in my head. It just hit me what it is!

    Indication of audio attenuation is on the very video used to show and prove there were no sounds of explosions during the collapse.

    However there is jiggle noise and a fragment of voice at the very beginning of the movement of the building, and then again at the climax the jiggle noise and a voice. What is in between is TAPE HISS. Depending on EQ settings, this his could be boosted in the mid-range and bass to make the sound more like a subtle roar, rather like falling sand – which is now I would describe the audio on this video.

    Anyone looking for indication of explosive booms would naturally boost EQ in such a manner, if they didn’t realize the recording went blank at the first loud noise to peak the internal VU, clipping the recording until recovery. If loud booms where present all the way down, the mic would only recover when the collapse was complete. Thus the background jiggle and the voice coming on again.

    A digital paradigm shift later, people forget or younger ones have never heard tape hiss. All of the videos are taken with analog recorders on 9/11. Transfer to digital happened during video feeds to stations. Private videos would have been transferred to digital on computer or pro transfer labs.

    \\][//

    • Just finishing listening to the radio show myself as I write this. Great job Craig and Shelton and may I say Kevin Barrett as well!

      • I appreciate it. I think we’re lucky to have a guy like Barrett who stands up for the Pentagon evidence, and who has the platform to get that evidence to the movement. He has guests like Bursill and Jenkins but he’s not afraid to tell them how wrong they are.

      • Stage fright is common for most novices in new experiences. If you were indeed nervous, you didn’t come off that way.

        If you will listen to the breathing and insecurity shown in the voice of the last caller, you will perhaps hear what I mean, you can almost hear the rapid heartbeat in his voice. Sort of a sense that he was “caught on the spot”.

        As a stage performer of many years, I learned various techniques for dealing with ‘stage fright’, which is of course overcome by experience, but can manifest in anyone with the proper cues or miscues a circumstance may apply.

        All in all Craig you did excellent.

        \\][//

        • Thanks again. I do have the tendency to imagine the worst case scenario (especially where public speaking is concerned) but in this case I think that helped me to be on my toes about what I wanted to say.

      • Gerry Spence’s book HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME, is highly recommended as per this topic.

        It is not aimed specifically at the trial lawyer, but draws from insights of one that have broad application. This book is an inspiration, more than just a series of ‘mechanical’ techniques, and helps to understand the positive frame of mind and achieve it.

        \\][//

  16. Like a Willow not an Oak

    I am addressing Mr Wright here, but I am also addressing others, as it seems that both the general population, the truth movement, and the debunkers suffer from misconceptions as to the architecture and engineering structure of the World Trade Towers.

    They were built to be resilient like the Willow tree, not impenetrable like the sturdy Oak.

    Many seem to take DeMartini’s characterizations, and the comments of other structural engineers involved in the building of these structures as if they are “Urban Legends”, that surely Demartini jested when he made his remarks about a jet liner being able to puncture the façade, going through it like a pencil through mosquito screen.

    These façades were not built as impenetrable hardened walls, they were built for lateral resilient strength, for the most part to deal with heavy winds…again like a Willow.

    It should be no mystery whatsoever that jet aircraft was able to puncture and go through these façades as predicted by the engineers who built them.

    There was some conversation to this during the recent radio program we are discussing, this is why I include some of those in the Truth community in these remarks.

    There has been detailed discussion on these threads of the crash physics involved here, there is no guessing game about this issue. There HAS been quite a bit of misinformation and disinformation, both spread throughout these threads by certain parties. But it is more than clear that the energies in the momentum coupled with the material strengths of both objects; Plane & Building, that the planes were capable of exactly what is seen in the visual evidence.

    What is actually seen in the visual evidence__not in how it is sometimes characterized.
    There is simply no reasonable argument against these facts. Why the issue continues to be a birdie in a badminton match is the real question.

    \\][//

    • HR1,

      Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists. If I had any arguments with what you have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts. Keep up the good work, I and others are listening and occasionally, as time permits, contributing to these discussions.

      • Thank you for your kind words Ruffadam,

        I realize that I am in perhaps a unique position, being retired and having little to distract me from my research, as well as having time to pursue these dialogs.

        I appreciate your and any others support.

        \\][//

  17. It just so happens that a new paper has appeared on Journal dealing with one of the issues that developed in the discussion on this thread. It proves to be a powerful one, that I strongly recommend to all:

    Journal of 9/11 Studies · Volume 33 · October 2012
    Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11
    by Paul Schreyer

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Schreyer-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf

    Absence of command authority 9/11

    The specific people who should have managed the air defense on 9/11 were absent precisely while the attacks were occurring. Even though they were available in the days before and after the attack, they were missing exactly in the crucial hours of the hijackings. For better understanding, this is what the protocol said before 9/11 in case of a hijacking:

    The air traffic controllers realizing the hijacking would inform their superiors, who in turn would alert the Hijack Coordinator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Hijack Coordinator would call the Pentagon, more precisely the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) in the National Military Command Center (NMCC). The DDO in coordination with the Secretary of Defense then would give orders to NORAD, which would scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked plane.

    So the top people responsible would be:
     the FAA´s Hijack Coordinator
     the DDO in the NMCC
     the Secretary of Defense

    On 9/11 all three were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).

    \\][//

  18. Dear Mr. RuffAdam,

    You wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:

    Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. … I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.

    Operating dishonestly? Hmmm? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category?

    You recently wrote to Mr. Rogue regarding his “handling of Mr. Wright”:

    Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists.

    How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue — “being retired and having little to distract him, as well as having time to pursue these dialogs” — wasn’t the “lone voice”, but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides?

    It has not been definitively proven but strong speculation of sock-puppettry is on the table due to a family affinity of one partipant to the alias name of another participant.

    On the one hand, it might be getting back at the govt modus operandus regarding the best way to control the opposition being to lead it. Turns that one on its head, as a 9/11 Truther (?) controls the argument he thinks the govt would make with his sock-puppet, and then knocks the govt’s strawman down.

    On the other hand, the suspected sock-puppet antics didn’t meet my previous definitions of “dishonest multiple-alias usage”, because the aliases were not tag-teaming and manufacturing false solidarity to one-side of a given topic. But they were doing the pincer type attacks that Mr. Rogue was fond of reminding us about.

    On the third hand, all good theatrical productions require some form of conflict, otherwise they are just bland interchanges of “me, too” and “roger that.” As a rhetorical tool, it serves a purpose. Here, it probably served its purpose.

    However, my previous definitions regarding “dishonest alias usage” can be amended. When the sock-puppet could never be a full, complete, well-rounded online entity, because differences and beliefs had to be compartmentalized and manufactured [e.g., ala the MKUltra split in personalities] in order to fire up contention points for debate, then the stiltedness of the sock-puppet’s views verging into “brain-dead unobjectivism” becomes just one troubling surface aspect. The sock-puppet’s beliefs, not being genuine, means that no satisfactory resolution to a debate will ever be reached, no moment of “either you convinced me, or I convinced you.”

    The extent of insincere beliefs of a participant must necessarily be questioned for not just the sock-puppet, but also for the participant’s other aliases.

    But a more troubling contemplation relates to the Thomas Pynchon quote:

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.

    If a sock-puppet can get the T&S discussion circling around “pencils piercing mosquito screen doors” and “NORAD response times,” … well… So much for serious questions into validating (or not) my one remaining 9/11 hobby-horse of “neu nookiedoo” [neutron nuclear directed energy weapon].

    The paranoid in me sees the online debates of Mr. Wright versus Mr. Rogue — just two personality splits — as 9/11 Truther legend-establishing. I found the Mr. Wright-split too “intractable” (today the word becomes “manufactured”) easily a month or two before Mr. Rogue’s entrance in January 2012, and even counseled Mr. Rogue and others to not engage Mr. Wright.

    2012-02-17:

    Ooooh! I like it! I never called you [Mr. Rogue] a “provocateur”, but I like it. It is exactly what you are doing. [As if I didn't notice how you are trying to crank up a discussion with Mr. A. Wright, who arrived just after Mr. Albury Smith was shown the moderator's door and who already has a reputation here. Not a good sign.]

    2012-05-17:

    When you consider how you should handle me henceforth, recognize that you are under no obligation to handle me. It isn’t your blog. It isn’t your place. [Unless that is your assignment and your agenda.] Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: ignore me. In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther.

    2012-09-24:

    I have written my advice regarding Mr. A. Wright elsewhere. In essence, don’t waste too many keystrokes on him.

    My, how ironic those earlier words look in light of today’s revelation.

    Mr. RuffAdam wrote here:

    If I had any arguments with what you [Mr. Rogue] have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts.

    I didn’t have any arguments with what Mr. Rogue was writing to “Mr. Wright” either, except for the fact that Mr. Rogue was engaging “him.” Correction, as it turns out. Mr. Rogue was engaging “himself.”

    I’ve got many references to Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly in other ways, like this one from 2012-10-04 or this one from 2012-10-06.

    But this sock-puppetry is in a different league of craftiness. The A-team of the Q-Group, perhaps? Certainly more resemblance to the “Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation’ and PSYOPS THEATER” regularly mentioned by Mr. Rogue.

    My apologies to you and the lurker-readers for the brain-f++k this twist in players turns out to be.

    So much for my hopes of ever convincing Mr. Rogue that I’m not: “a tacky tar-baby, Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter, a chameleon, crackpot, and a real fuckin’ asshole.”

    // “bringing in the dog and putting out the cat”

    • OK Senior this post was just plain nuts. You accuse HR1 of using sock puppets but provide no proof to support your accusation which renders the accusation meaningless. Next you accuse HR1 of operating dishonestly but provide no specifics as to what he said or did that was dishonest. You only provide links to posts but make no mention of what in them is dishonest. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what specifically you find to be dishonest? I cannot read minds nor do I want to spend what little time I have trying to figure out your logic. So, in conclusion, from my perspective you Senior are the one acting improperly.

    • {2nd attempt}
      Dear Mr. Adam Ruff, you write:

      OK Senior this post was just plain nuts. You accuse HR1 of using sock puppets but provide no proof to support your accusation which renders the accusation meaningless.

      I agree with your “plain nuts” assessment.

      With regards to proof to support my accusation that “A.Wright” is Mr. Rogue’s sock-puppet, I was purposely keeping it on the thin side, because there is no call for me to reveal personal information about Mr. Rogue.

      As the back-story unfolds, Mr. Rogue was doing a fine job of characterizing me on his home COTO court:

      2012-09-29: a tacky tar-baby that sticks to you once you engage it.
      2012-10-10: Señor El Once aka The Duped Useful Idiot aka Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter…etc etc is a LIAR.
      2012-10-19: a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation
      2012-10-20: Señor is a chameleon, either the more expert and subtle agent, or simply the ‘duped and useful idiot’ he claims to be.
      2012-10-21: It could be he is the covert agent.
      2012-10-21: Whatever the answer is, agent or crackpot, one thing is certain, he’s a real fuckin’ asshole.

      He chummed the waters with plenty of bait to lure me over there. As part of my entrance and introduction to my exit on October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm, I made the following observation:

      Here’s a coincidence. To get the gift of a book delivered, the option chosen by the eager reader was to provide a mailing address, as opposed to ordering & paying on his own and then being re-imbursed through PayPal. Although not requested, the gift-receiver also gave a contact telephone number in the event issues in the delivery should arise. Recently when pretending to be an agent, a reverse look-up was performed on the lingering telephone number. No surprise that the physical address of the telephone number matched where the book was ordered to be sent. The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: “A.Wright”. Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.

      In case that is too cryptic for you, the book in question is Dr. Wood’s, and the gift-receiver was a thankful Mr. Rogue who since that time has been getting regular bloody noses from that very same book snapping shut on it in lieu of him mining the book for nuggets of truth: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In order to receive the book, he had to supply the shipping address, but gave the telephone number at his on voliation in case delivery problems arose. [And it isn't as if I tricked him into giving me any personal information, because he had another options that did not require me learning anything about him that he passed on.]

      It should be noted that I did not mention a first name or any gender distinctions. At the onset, Mr. Rogue connects some dots {with my editing} on October 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm:

      So, yea my mom’s name is {… edit …} Wright, having married a Wright, …

      He doesn’t mention the middle initial that she uses, but if it were anything other than “A”, I would have had nothing to tweak Mr. Rogue about, period. [Ironically, my own pen-name also reflects familial under-pinnings of a very similar nature, so I can say with certainty that such "unoriginality" and reliance on "the familiar" is quite common in online personas.]

      And then all hell broke loose on three fronts: this thread, that COTO thread, and an old T&S DEW thread authored by me. Just the eifer in the fast pace of Mr. Rogue’s distracting responses to build distance is of note. Oh that’s right! I did note it, if you follow the link and can follow the interruptions to my righting that Mr. Rogue necessitated.

      It is worthwhile to read the nested postings at the DEW article, despite its “plain nuts” organization. Why? Because within 12 hours of me posting my reply on COTO urging caution, that posting and a few from the COTO crew (including Mr. Rogue) were removed. The COTO postings were removed before their re-purposed verbiage saw the light of day under the DEW article, due to posting delays through Mr. McKee and despite their T&S datestamp. However, the T&S posting did take six attempts that involved shutting down browsers before it would take, in addition to waiting for Mr. McKee overnight.

      The nature of the hell breaking loose is worthy of study.

      Mr. Adam Ruff writes the challenge:

      Next you accuse HR1 of operating dishonestly but provide no specifics as to what he said or did that was dishonest.

      Obviously, my postings fit into the category of those you skip over [and I don't blame you.] “Beancounter” that I have been accused of being, I have about 11 months of on-line debate material that I can quickly reference to specific comments under various articles on T&S to prove instance after instance [but not all at once, mostly whenever Mr. Rogue was on the ropes] of “Mr. Rogue’s operating dishonestly” in his debates against me. I spare this forum such tedium today, and it doesn’t take much googling to find. I’m sure that Mr. McKee or Mr. Rogue will vouch for my abilities in this realm (if your own googling doesn’t), in lieu of me distracting this thread with such busy-work.

      You only provide links to posts but make no mention of what in them is dishonest. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what specifically you find to be dishonest? I cannot read minds nor do I want to spend what little time I have trying to figure out your logic.

      I never asked you to read minds; sorry if I left that impression. The links took you to the culmination of a couple bouts with Mr. Rogue and explain what just went on there at that time. Aside from following the links, I expected that if curious, you would be able to scroll (up) for context to verify (or not) my assessment of those situations.

      To spell out but one of the links, this October 7, 2012 posting of mine under “And then there was one…” is the culmination of a Rogue bout where he accused me of being on “a crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones.” Again, you can read it on your own and scroll up within the thread to get more context. The crusade wasn’t, neither were the attack or belittling of Dr. Jones; they were Mr. Rogue lying. Discussing the weaknesses in Dr. Jones work is and has been fair game for critique, which is where I’ve held myself pretty close to that line.

      Let’s take a brief detour in the sudden appearance of A.Wright and your reaction:

      I notice you choose not to reply to the post above of (October 25, 2012 – 12:03 am) where I discuss your straw man tactics and how you attempted to discredit Barrie Zwicker by misquoting him. So do you plan to just pretend the post is not there or will there be a meaningful response forthcoming? I will not risk holding my breath for your response because something tells me I will be waiting quite a while.

      Misquoting me is something that Mr. Rogue has regularly deployed as a dishonest tactic, as were copious amounts of straw man tactics. You do the math and figure out what sort of a response you could expect from a potential sock-puppet whose puppet-master is tripping on the ropes of his own games and damage control.

      The significance of the three other quotes from me (02-17, 05-17, 9-24) were my assessment of A.Wright based on experiences in late 2011. I could sense that he wasn’t genuine, so I stopped engaging him seriously except on occassion for sport, and I was advising others (especially Mr. Rogue) to stop feeding the troll.

      At this juncture, neither have offered a simple:

      “By jove, that is a fine coincidence worthy of our amusement that Mr. Rogue — in a Freudian manner — would regularly get it on with another straw man peddler “A.Wright” having overlapping initials and last name as Mr. Rogue’s dear old mum. But coincidence is all it is, I’m afraid. I am not he, neither is he I. Sorry, old chap. Tally hoe.”

      Mr. Adam Ruff assesses:

      So, in conclusion, from my perspective you Senior are the one acting improperly.

      Maybe in light of the evidence and how its validity can affect the very carousel that you wish to start with “A.Wright”, you’ll reconsider this hasty judgment against me. I just saved you lots of time.

      //

      • >”The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: “A.Wright”. Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.”~Señor
        . . . . . . . . . . .

        Yes my mom’s name is, Ruth A. Wright. So even in ‘thickining’ your ‘thin’, you have a wide canyon of assumption you jump over.

        “And their tongues are full of heartless tales that drain on you..”~Beck

        I have used these three monikers on the web the entire time I have been posting; William Whitten, and Skywalker on Amazon forums. William Whitten on OpEd News, and Hybridrogue1 on COTO and everywhere else since 2001 or so. I have revealed I go by Willy Whitten as a professional sculptor, designer and special effects artist for cinema.

        What you see is what you get. I am innocent, I am not A. Wright.

        I may be more or less right in my assessment of data and facts, but I am sincere. I am not engaging in spurious argumentation. I can certainly be provoked to aggravation however.

        Bridges quotes me thus:
        “I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria.”

        To which he replies:
        ” I hereby state that I have no suicidal inclinations. So, if something of this “he got suicided” nature actually happens, well…”

        I would think it obvious that what I wrote as quoted is allegory, that I am saying that in his hysteria and paranoia Bridges is on the verge of ‘suiciding’ his own reputation, that by continuing with this attempt to frame me, he is outing himself as unstable. And to make the statement that he has no “suicidal inclinations” is, I think an indicator of just how paranoid he is. To consider my words a threat is preposterous enough, but then he goes on to advise the members of COTO not to mistake my words as orders for an assassination! Just punking shithouse rat crazy!!

        Now I have had enough of all of this. I do not mean Señor El Once any harm. I do however, want him to cease and desist with this lunatic trip he is on. I want it to stop.

        And if he thinks by this I mean that if I make argument to his commentary again that it is a green light to start in on this shit again he is mistaken. I will not be intimidated by his hooting gibberish, I will not “STFU”, nor take any of his misplaced advice on how to compose or conduct myself in my commentary.

        \\][//

      • Unfortunately Maxiwhine never entered COTO from the Home page where the advice is given that it is a “frank and explicit program”. At COTO we call a spade a spade, and a joker a joker.

        And Anglo-Saxon is in common usage there.

        He was warned by several commentators there that he was not welcome with his scurrilous ranting. Apparently his 950 word squall was the breaking point for the administrator. That, as well as a few comments answering it were removed at some point.

        As far as any communication breakdown, I want to point out that I offered the URL to the SEPTEMBER MORN thread on COTO to the entire forum as it had to do with the movie we had discussed on an earlier thread here. It certainly wasn’t an invitation for Senor to bounce his party-head over there to churn the spleen.

        As far as this blog is concerned, I do hope that this will be the last of this thing. I see no profit in walking this dog any further.

        \\][//

  19. NOTE: There are 513,617 people in the United States with the surname of Wright.

    It is obvious that Señor is now grasping at straws in order to defame me. The question is why? What is this rag that he is on? What is he up to? In fact who is this Señor El Once himself? He is anonymous when it comes down to it.

    Maxwell Circuits Bridges. Anyone who knows electricity understands that a Maxwell bridge has to do with electrical circuitry. So it is natural to assume that this moniker is not this character’s real name. Therefore we have an anonymous troll on Truth & Shadows, who is intent on framing me as an agent. He has been on this crusade since I first arrived.

    Why?

    As far as any complaints as to “outing” Señor as Bridges, this comes from this very blog itself:
    “This piece, written by Maxwell C. Bridges…is a frequent contributor to this blog under the name Señor El Once.”~Craig McKee in his introduction:

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/

    \\][//

  20. @Hybridrogue
    “It is obvious that Señor is now grasping at straws in order to defame me.”
    Defame you?? I thought he was trying to defame me…

    • A.Wright,

      I notice you choose not to reply to the post above of (October 25, 2012 – 12:03 am) where I discuss your straw man tactics and how you attempted to discredit Barrie Zwicker by misquoting him. So do you plan to just pretend the post is not there or will there be a meaningful response forthcoming? I will not risk holding my breath for your response because something tells me I will be waiting quite a while.

      Adam Ruff

      • Adam

        Wright won’t answer.

        He and his ilk – Brian Good, Chris Sarns, John Bursill – bring out the worst in me.
        Onebornfree is exactly the same but at the other end of the spectrum of liars and cowards.

        It pisses me off that these entities can defacate all over not only the victims of 9/11 and their families, but on the millions of victims of the same cabal throughout the last century and this one.

        I recently posted a response at JREF about the treatment of the NOC witnesses and compared the ridiculous “counterarguments” to the whitewashing of entire populations in Oklahoma (John Doe 2), New York (TWA800) and Dallas (JFK).

        Pandemonium. Off script. Witchcraft!

        Ask Wright or any GL for his opinion on anything pre 9/11 and he’ll disappear.

      • @Ruffadam
        I got the impression that since you resorted to derogatory remarks and personal insult that you are not interested in rational debate.

      • “Rational debate” you say Wright??

        Good grief!!!

        I swear, this is a frigging three ring circus!

        When have you ever participated in a rational debate? We have all been here for every one of your scewball postings. You always come up with this same excuse.
        That is because you have no rational debate. This is so utterly obvious.

        Enough!

        \\][//

      • A.Wright,

        I will no longer engage with you or read what you have to say. You are dishonest and evasive with no interest whatsoever in rational debate. Your lack of respose to my (October 25, 2012 – 12:03 am) post speaks volumes about you and your agenda.

        As trolls go A.Wright you are not even a very good one of those.

      • I’ll put up my post again:
        “I’m glad to see Mr. McKee pointing out where Jessie Venture plays a bit fast and loose with the facts, but that is in my opinion one of the hallmarks of the 911 truth movement. In most TV and radio interviews with someone from the truth movement it seems to me they invariable present distortions and misrepresentations of the facts, from Barrie Zwicker, to David Ray Griffin, to Jessie Ventura and most others you could mention. In that interview Ed Asner says “Why did it take an hour for the strongest nation in the world to get planes in the air?” Is that true? Did it take an hour to get planes into the air? Does Ed Asner know the facts? Why does Barrie Zwicker do interview after interview saying that ‘in a drama in the skies that lasted almost two hours, not a single military jet turned a wheel, until it was too late..” What does that mean? – that no planes took off for two hours? Anyone listening to Barrie Zwicker saying this is going to get the false impression that military planes sat on the ground for two hours. You would think someone who professes to be seeking the truth might al least get the facts right and not present their audience with distortions and misrepresentations of those facts, which I’m afraid Mr. Zwicker does,for all his sincerity.”

        I quoted what Barrie Zwicker says in numerous interviews and I said exactly why I thought what he was saying was misleading and likely to mislead by giving the impression that no US interceptors took off , i.e. ‘turned a wheel’ in this ‘drama in the skies that lasted almost two hours’, with the added little caveat ‘until it was too late’. This added little caveat could mean a lot of things which is why I asked the question, and asked what he meant by it. I asked the question not least of the person who makes these statements i.e Barrie Zwicker himself because as far as I’m concerned anyone listening to that is going to think US fighters did not take off, that they just sat on the ground. That is not true. If people listening to Barrie Zwicker think that fighters did not take off then they are being mislead and therefore being given a distorted version of events. You’ll notice I didn’t say he was deliberately trying to mislead people. I didn’t even question his sincerity. That’s why I asked the question. I was then called a troll by you. I then gave a short summary of that post and another one on this thread. You asked me to provide quotes for Barrie Zwicker and I went and looked for places where he said this and found a couple of different quotes which I posted , so as not to be accused of ‘not responding’ I posted these in the meantime. In one of these Mr. Zwicker says
        ‘There were no planes at all. It is a matter of historical record.’
        In the 2nd link I posted from a more mainstream media outlet he says
        “You know it was almost 2 hours before any US jet turned a wheel, almost 2 hours.”
        There is no caveat there, it a plain statement and it is simply not true.

        If you want a quote from Mr. Zwicker where he says what I quoted in that post it is

        “And of course it turned out that in a drama in the air that went on for almost two hours, not a single US jet interceptor turned a wheel until it was too late.”
        You then you have Ed Asner asked about 911 saying ‘Why did it take an hour for the strongest nation in the world to get planes in the air?”
        Where is he getting his information from? And this is not some unimportant detail we are talking about , for both Ed Asner and Barrie Zwicker it’s one of the primary sources on which they base their conclusions. In that last link the Barrie Zwicker says “And of course it turned out that in a drama in the air that went on for almost two hours, not a single US jet interceptor turned a wheel until it was too late. So by noon that day I was telling my friends this is Reichstag fire 2001.”
        Barrie Zwicker at noon on 911 knew practically nothing about the details of what had happened that day, what the airtraffic controllers, NORAD fighter pilots, passengers, flightcrew or anyone else had gone through or done. He had no evidence on which to base any conclusions and had therefore pre-judged the evidence, using prejudice. I see very little evidence from the way Mr. Zwicker constantly repeats all of this, often using the same phrases , that he has made any effort since to looked at this evidence in any objective way, but has only looked for things to confirm that initial prejudice.

        • Seriously, who gives a crap? What would it change if he said an hour and a half or just an hour. If the military had any interest in intercepting supposedly hijacked planes, the could have and they would have.

      • But Wright,

        You go on and on about what Zwicker said, and don’t have a counter argument as to why it is not true.

        There is simply no doubt that there was no military response whatsoever on 9/11.
        ZERO. Nothing.

        At 8:14, Flight 11 failed to respond to an instruction to ascend issued from Boston Center, at 09:38 the Pentagon was hit, crash in Pennsylvania at 10:03: Practically two hours.

        The original story was delivered by Gen. Richard Myers, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and acting chairman on the morning of Sept. 11, Myers told the Senate that “no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was struck.”

        The Kean Commission itself intervened in June 2004. In a staff statement delivered at its final set of hearings (“Improvising a Homeland Defense”), the Commission outlined a chronology that completely ditched the timeline that NORAD had upheld for two years. It also effectively placed almost all of the blame for delayed air defense response on the FAA. Gens. Arnold and Myers, who testified to the Commission that same morning, were not held to account for having presented an entirely wrong timeline a year earlier.

        On the morning of 9/11 Dick Cheney was surprisingly in control of NORAD. This is the first time in history a VP was in charge of the agency. Dick Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down on the morning of 9/11 allowing the planes to fly into the WTC and Pentagon.

        On 9/11 all three positions of command authority were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).

        Michael Canavan, the Hijack Coordinator of the FAA (and former Special Forces General) was not in the office but had flown to Puerto Rico; 2 Lynne Osmus, his Deputy, arrived in the office only after all the planes had crashed

        General Montague Winfield, the NMCC DDO (who in 2012 became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense), was not at his post between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m.; Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, his Deputy, had just qualified for being DDO one month before; General Winfield had asked him the afternoon before if he would sit in as DDO from 8:30 on; Winfield returned to his post only after all planes had crashed

        Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stayed away from the NMCC, too, and arrived there no sooner than 10:30 a.m., after all planes had crashed.

        September 11, 2001, was a quite remarkable day for the air defense system of the United States.

        The key people responsible for managing a hijacking were absent from their command posts right in the crucial hours.

        Important telephone and radio connections didn´t work until after the attacks were over.
        A hijacked plane disappeared in a radar gap, and nobody is willing to explain.

        A wargame projecting a hijacking was taking place simultaneously.

        The airbase that should have protected the capital was not able to send fighter jets within an
        hour of time.

        Interceptors from alert bases were scrambled with unexplained delays and then diverted several times.

        In short, a whole set of highly improbable events occurred simultaneously on that morning. From a scientific point of view these anomalies need further investigation. It is not credible that Bin Laden was responsible for these anomalies, nor that they were sheer coincidences.

        F-16 is Mach 2+ (in excess of 1500 mph).

        http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

        There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called:
        “CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION,
        J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A”
        (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf)

        “AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS”

        This is just a digest of some of the central facts about the lack of air response on 9/11. There are many more details that make the obvious glaringly so.

        \\][//

      • Wright

        @A. Wright

        09:03am

        Position of fighters as South Tower is allegedly impacted by “UA175″

        http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/cademartatu/1b33a957.jpg

        At 8:56 a.m., the transponder on Flight 77 was switched off and the aircraft was lost on primary radar.

        9/11 Commission Report

        09:09am

        After initially considering scrambling the Langley fighters to New York to provide backup for the Otis fighters, they decided to leave the Langley jets on “battle stations only.” NORAD had no indication that any other plane had been hijacked.

        9/11 Commission Report

        09:13am

        Radar data show the Otis fighters were approximately 115 miles away from New York City when they exited their holding pattern and set a course direct for Manhattan.

        911 Commissio

        http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a936noradmonitoring#a936noradmonitoring
        “Before 9:36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Officials Claim NORAD Is Monitoring Flight 93

        According to one account given by NEADS Commander Robert Marr, some time before around 9:36 when it changes direction, while it is still flying west, Flight 93 is being monitored by NEADS. Marr describes how, “We don’t have fighters that way and we think [Flight 93 is] headed toward Detroit or Chicago.” He says he contacts a base in the area “so they [can] head off 93 at the pass.” Not only does NORAD know about the flight, but also, according to NORAD Commander Larry Arnold, “We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.” (This change of direction occurs around 9:36 a.m.) [Filson, 2003] This account completely contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s later claim that NEADS is first notified about Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]”

        Also at 9:34 A.M. NEADS Identification Technicians who, at 9:21 A.M., had been told by Boston Center that Flight 11 was still airborne and heading south, contacted the Operations Manager at Washington Center to provide an update on the evolving situation. In the course of the conversation, the Operations Manager informed NEADS that Flight 77 was lost. He did not inform NEADS that it was hijacked because he did not know. This discussion was the first notice to the military that Flight 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call to Washington Center, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that Flight 77 was even missing.

        Also at 9:34 A.M., an update by the American Airlines SOC indicated that Flights 11 and 77 had been the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center.

        09:49am

        http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/special/911/Audio/(99)%200949%20Pulling%20Jeff%20away.mp3

        Herndon Center: Ah, do we wanna think about, ah, scrambling aircraft?

        FAA Headquarters: Ah, (sighs) oh God, I don’t know.

        Herndon Center: Uh, that’s a decision someone is gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.

        FAA Headquarters: Uh, you know everybody just left the room

        10:07am

        Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland Center notified NEADS that Flight 93 had a bomb onboard and passed them the aircraft’s last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate Flight 93 on radar because it had already crashed. The call was the first notification the military – at any level – received about Flight 93. No one from FAA headquarters, which was informed of the hijacking at 9:34 A.M., requested military assistance regarding Flight 93. In fact, the executive level managers at FAA headquarters did not forward to the military any of the information they received from Herndon Command Center regarding Flight 93

        10:11am

        As the news of a bomb on board Flight 93 spread throughout the floor, the Mission Crew Commander tried to locate fighter assets to scramble toward the plane. He established contact with an Air National Guard Unit in Syracuse, New York to expedite launching aircraft to respond to Flight 93. The Syracuse unit reported that it would be able to launch fighters with loaded guns (no missiles) in “approximately 15 minutes.”

      • Wright,

        Here’s an analogy for you.

        4 mass murders are committed in one morning.

        It’s later established that police were monitoring the movements of these madmen and didn’t follow protocol. Instead, they watched, waited and hummed and hahed instead of alerting SWAT teams. They watched the first two mass murders, then alerted the SWAT teams who were sent to circle around another city before sending them to the area.

        The next two mass murderers were monitored for 40 mins and an hour. SWAT later claims that they knew jack shit about these other two.

        1hr? 2hrs? Nothing was done!

  21. I was just listening to Black Ribbons by Shooter Jennings, a really great CD, it has Steven King as a disc jockey his last night on air…

    Anyway, I was struck by the similarity between Steven King’s voice and delivery and Mr McKee’s. I see that as a compliment…I hope Craig takes it as such.

    \\][//

  22. Dear Mr. Rogue,

    Your original quote:

    I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria.

    I will accept your version that this was intended as “allegory,” but it was far from obvious and I want to be damn sure. Meanwhile, you misconstrue my words to your co-horts:

    … he goes on to advise the members of COTO not to mistake my words as orders for an assassination!

    My concern was not for a physical assassination but to a very real “character assassination” that could have very serious googling-lingering effects to me, if your demands were heeded (2012-10-27):

    I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is. … So who is Maxwell Smartass? That is the prime question at this stage, he is clearly an underhanded slimeball, more interested in creating his “legend” than seeking the truth.

    And in fact, this concern was clear in the posting you responded to, was deleted from COTO, but remains on T&S:

    Demonstrate some ethics and morality in the pursuit of the information that you seek. Contact me off-list with your request, and maybe I might just grant you a login to the kingdom or a FaceBook name to avoid the real damage on a real person that you seem intent on inflicting, either at your own hand or your own command, should your co-horts here “misunderstand” and do the dirty deed for you “by accident.”

    On further review, maybe the reference to a very modern fear of “google-lingering artifacts” and your churning into “character assassination” wasn’t clear in those exact words, but were repeated many times in our emails, postings, and repositories where I save my work.

    The above references Mr. Rogue’s 6:45 pm “trip,” while below references his 7:53 pm “trip,” where Mr. Rogue talks about the front page rules to COTO.

    At COTO we call a spade a spade, and a joker a joker.

    But don’t call a sock-puppet a sock-puppet. He doesn’t mention the two COTO rules of Engagement:

    1. Personal attacks are not allowed, and will be deleted.
    2. Hate speech as defined in the WordPress TOS is not allowed, and will be deleted.

    It pretty clearly documented that Mr. Rogue laid thick his personal attacks before I entered and continued throughout my tenure. As for the “hate speech,” Mr. Rogue was walking a fine line.

    He was warned by several commentators there that he was not welcome with his scurrilous ranting.

    Nice spin, Mr. Rogue. You had those “several commentators” so saluting the hallowed ground of your vapor legacy & legend, they had their assessments in place and were gunning for me before I could say “Good Morning.” They were salivating so heavily at what you drop, one could almost bet that none of them followed your back-links to our discussions in context in order to draw their own opinions.

    Here’s another great spin:

    I offered the URL to the SEPTEMBER MORN thread on COTO to the entire forum as it had to do with the movie we had discussed on an earlier thread here. It certainly wasn’t an invitation for Senor to bounce his party-head over there to churn the spleen.

    Uh, huh. Riiii-ight! I suggest that you go to the article and do a Ctrl+F with things like “Señor” or “Max” to see examples of the non-invitation and were all well before any meaningful “churning of my spleen.” [Several other articles also have your "non-invitation".]

    – 2012-10-21 at 12:18 am
    – 2012-10-21 at 12:24 am
    – 2012-10-21 at 10:22 am
    – 2012-10-21 at 04:13 pm
    – 2012-10-22 at 12:15 pm
    – 2012-10-22 at 10:30 pm
    – 2012-10-25 at 12:53 pm

    As I said before, you were chumming the waters. And now you’re pissed because you were taken down on your home court, to the extent that censureship was called into play.

    Mr. Rogue states his case:

    I will not be intimidated by his hooting gibberish, I will not “STFU”, nor take any of his misplaced advice on how to compose or conduct myself in my commentary.

    Good for you. Now let’s have you not-STFU about something meaningful, like the missing “Judy, Judy, Judy” and “Jeff, Jeff, Jeff” reviews that have good, bad, and ugly. And stay away from Mr. A.Wright, who — if he’s someone other than you — probably won’t miss not having to deal with your commentary and carousel cranking anyway. [Mr. Rogue deserves a "Raspberry" for his poorly acted 9:07 pm engagement of Mr. A.Wright.]

    Final point. Mr. Rogue boasts:

    I have used these three monikers on the web the entire time I have been posting; William Whitten, and Skywalker on Amazon forums. William Whitten on OpEd News, and Hybridrogue1 on COTO and everywhere else since 2001 or so.

    Among the names he’ll call me, he can add “incompetent,” because my google-spying didn’t find his online participation go back any where near that far. It gets very thin, very fast. The onus, however, shouldn’t be on me, particularly if what he was writing was really so brilliant and worthy of preservation. Mr. Rogue has a WordPress blog. He ought to hunt down his own “brilliant works” and re-publish them in a venue that he controls and is less likely to be a memory hole, like his blog.

    Until that time, I’ll stick to my present impressions and chalk this up to being an empty boast.

    //

    • Senior,

      I am afraid I will have to stop reading your posts as well as A.Wright’s but for a different reason. I am not interested in your opinion of HR1 nor am I interested in your off topic screeds related to him. I get it, you don’t like him, no more needs to be said. If and when you have some actual evidence for your assertions that I don’t have to spend huge amounts of time sifting through to find and employ my limited psychic powers to figure out what exactly you were refering to in the first place I will give it due consideration. Until then I am going to stick to the topic at hand and ignore everyone who doesn’t do the same.

      I just find it so remarkable that no matter what the topic is that there always seems to be at least one person set on disrupting it.

    • Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,

      The loss of your readership will be mourned. Before you go, let’s clear up a misunderstanding. You wrote:

      I am not interested in your opinion of HR1 nor am I interested in your off topic screeds related to him.

      The postings here were not about my opinions of Mr. Rogue. They were trying to solicit your opinion. After all, you wrote the words on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:

      I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before.

      On October 25, 2012 – 12:34 am you go on to slap Mr. Rogue on the back:

      Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists. If I had any arguments with what you have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts. Keep up the good work, I and others are listening and occasionally, as time permits, contributing to these discussions.

      My questions to you were:

      How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue … wasn’t the “lone voice”, but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category [of operating dishonestly]?

      At other online venues, they consider sock-puppets a banning-worthy offense, although they also tend to have a low thresh-hold for labeling things “sock-puppets”, lumping into that any return to the forum under a new alias, particularly if the previous one was banned.

      Don’t let me put words into your mouth, and don’t miscontrue this line of questioning to indicate that I want Mr. Rogue banned. I don’t.

      I want his words to be “distrusted until validated (or not)”… which is the same thing I want for my words, except that should my words be invalidated, I would like to know about it so that I could amend my thinking.

      Mr. Rogue has tried and tried to invalidate my words and the neu nookiedoo hobby-horse that I ride. But owing to a pattern of operating dishonestly [which now includes his A.Wright sock-puppet] coupled with a “genius artist’s” ego who won’t be schooled, the discredit sought for me falls at his feet.

      I just find it so remarkable that no matter what the topic is that there always seems to be at least one person set on disrupting it.

      Well, if I am that person, it is a damn good thing that I make my postings so long but easy to skip over and ignore.

      Also, it should be pointed out the discussion on the topic of this thread had pretty much already petered out. Mr. Rogue’s October 25, 2012 – 8:33 pm posting already started a detour.

      I posted here, because I knew you were still acive in the discussion — as you awaited the response from the A.Wright sock puppet.

      I get it, you don’t like him, no more needs to be said.

      Evidently, you do not get it. It has little to do with “like” or “don’t like”. [I guess I am forced to admit that I "like" him, because out of necessity he forces me to make better arguments.]

      It has to do with integrity and reliability of someone’s words. Even before a sock-puppet gets pegged to Mr. Rogue, he has had his issues in the “operating honestly” department… more so against me (and taboo neu nookiedoo) than anyone else, where his postings resemble legend-establishing, even his battles with A.Wright and Dr. Fetzer.

      When someone makes a convincing case based on sound science properly applied to all of the evidence, I’ll the first to change my tune while also apologizing for having led others astray: integrity and reliability after a course correction.

      Whereas Mr. Rogue regularly tries to turn the tables to question the validity of my words and 9/11 beliefs (neu nookiedoo), he has been less than convincing because his alternatives have more issues addressing all of the evidence than mine. Rather than acknowledging the issues, he ignores them and then ultimately repeats his views with nary a vector change. It isn’t just that he trudges on, he does so while screaming invectives in post-after-post and promptly trips over a very long imaginary garden hose to make his fall complete.

      I didn’t ask for a telephone number; I didn’t plan for a curious moment months later to run it through reverse-lookup. [Divine intervention, I suppose.] I think Mr. Rogue’s reaction is much more revealing than “the coincidence” itself. And the much larger test of his integrity that brought a telephone number into my possession, he fails. Namely, his objective chapter-by-chapter review of Dr. Wood’s textbook. He had three categories — good, bad, and ugly — with which to classify the nuggets. Bad and ugly, although buried, are easy, yet he don’t go there. It is the “good” that Mr. Rogue struggles with acknowledging, and shoots his integrity to hell.

      • So another slaphappy keyboard tango blast…

        WTF Maxiblitz? It’s not as if these people you plead to haven’t been reading this forum the whole time you are looking back on with craze glazed eyes!

        Give it a break before you have a serious breakdown.

        \\][//

      • Dear Mr. Ruff,

        Unread? I can believe. But I duly note here how you ignored it not. I trust in the future that you will demonstrate more integrity by being more efficient in your ignoring efforts.

        //

  23. @ //

    Keenan was right, you are like a sticky tacky tar-baby, once attached – can’t be washed off.

    I don’t think anybody gives a lumpy drip about your continuing hysterical rants. I know I don’t, so knock yourself out, huff and puff ’till you faint.

    \\][//

  24. Now__I want to point out that I was in the middle of gathering the info to my latest response to A. Wright: OCTOBER 29, 2012 – 5:15 PM__when I was Shanghaied by an illegitimate charges of a vigilante. I was subject to spurious accusations and innuendo, and felt it incumbent on my good name to respond, wasting hours of mine and the blogs time and space.

    We are advised by this vigilante vandal, not to make responses to “trolls”, in fact he will never put a counter argument to one, but prefers to defame those of us who will.
    It is my view that it’s one of the best opportunities we have to reinforce and set the record straight when we do answer such shillings with the facts and data we know to be true.

    I therefore have this two-prong sting of wonderment at the vigilante’s advice and modus operende.

    If this post stands without a slaphappy keyboard tango blast, it will be my final word about it.

    \\][//

  25. NEW WAVE 9/11

    I have posited that the gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is a disinformation campaign which I have identified as a New Wave 9/11 Movement. It is as I see it, a co-opting of the original movement by the same type of “new fad” advertising we see in the “marketplace of ideas” as products. Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled and put into question by newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models.

    I have identified these products as; ‘Video-Fakery’ – ‘No-Planes’ – ‘Holograms’ – ‘Dew’ – ‘Nukes’ and the new ‘Reassessment of the Pentagon’ by “scientific analysis” that an aircraft indeed hit the building; Thus disputing all of the original work showing that such a crash is impossible.

    Just as the work reached it’s epitome with the outstanding discoveries of Citizen Investigation Team, the New Wave 9/11 contingent driven by Frank Legge suddenly stepped out with blaring PR to counter it. We see the same thing happening with the establishment of smoking gun evidence of explosive materials used at WTC; wherein as soon as the work of Jones and Harrit is reaching fruition, suddenly stepping forward is the blaring PR to counter it with DEW and Nukes.

    Of course these PR tactics are well worn in all other areas of our lives, it seems only natural to expect the same to be applied to the 9/11 Truth movement. Subversion from within is such a tried and true technique of manipulation.

    These are some of the reasons I counsel against accepting these New Wave productions at face value.

    I am not suggesting that anything be rejected out of hand, I am merely advising to be wary and to make certain that all the facts add up as advertised for these products. In other words be sure to read the fine print.

    \\][//

    • Willy

      And an even bigger clue? How much have we heard from these people ever since Gage, Griffin et al took a back seat on the Pentagon? What positive contributions have they made?

      Wasn’t their campaign designed to “protect the stronger evidence”? What have they been attacking ever since at Truth Action forum? You got it. The “stronger evidence”.

      I’ve been on to these people for a long time but what really angers me is the deafening silence from the likes of Chandler and Sarns (the former appeared on one of the main protaganists’ – Jeff Hill – radio show to attack CIT).

      Now that they’ve made irreversible statements and set their stances, they’re being publically ridiculed with the help of supposed “open minded” government loyalists who have joined forces with “open minded” fake truthers in “no man’s land” to discuss gravity driven collapses.

      Even the “first grade physics teacher” label of Chandler is catching on. Gage is a “charlatan” and Griffin is the leader of a “cult”,

      The main warcry was “strongest evidence” to get these people on to the bandwagon. Now that they’re on, they’re being pummelled with tomatoes.

      And not a whimper.

      So who exactly is trying to “divide the movement”?

      • “So who exactly is trying to “divide the movement”?”~OSS

        Apparently EVERYBODY…including my mom!…Lol

        There is no doubt the truth of 9/11 is under full frontal assault at this point.
        Parsing out who are the instigators and who are being sucked in is going to take being especially aware and especially cautious.

        I find it particularly hard to feature Gage as a charlatan. I see him as being bullied by the actual instigators. But it is a toss-up at this point, and anybody’s guess.

        Too bad we can’t have a big conference and frankly lay all of our concerns on the table – not just the so-called “Leadership” but anyone who has questions about what is really going on.

        There are so many little clicks now that seem to be concerned mainly with sheltering themselves from other clicks while working on their own points of 9/11 dogma.

        It’s a shambles. A Monkey brain omelette…

        \\][//

    • Mr. Rogue writes:

      I have posited that the gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is a disinformation campaign which I have identified as a New Wave 9/11 Movement.

      I disagree. The gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is not the disinformation campaign itself, but the “all-or-nothing” extreme approaches to handling it that would lump all aspects of it together in over simplified piles for easier dismissal (or acceptance): the disinformation, as well as the valid nuggets of truth that were required for the disinfo campaign to be believable. Case in point, Mr. Rogue writes:

      Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled and put into question by newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models. I have identified these products as; ‘Video-Fakery’ – ‘No-Planes’ – ‘Holograms’ – ‘Dew’ – ‘Nukes’ and the new ‘Reassessment of the Pentagon’.

      Directed energy weapons (DEW) is a very broad category, and by the very definition of the three words in its acronym would include shaped-charges from conventional and exotic chemical explosives and incendiaries. Nuclear devices are an equally broad category with significant overlap with DEW. I won’t belabor how I think Mr. Rogue is sweeping them together with “No-Planes” and Holograms so they can be swept away from deeper consideration.

      Having only worked on the PR marketing side of things and not on the engineering side of things, Mr. Rogue brushes aside that often “newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models” are required, because the previous models had technical flaws (e.g., no-worky) that had astute customers returning them for a refund or not buying them.

      In his “>35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology” (2009-03-23), Mr. Rogue still has some blind-spots. The major blind-spots are in the area of physics & math, but compounding this is his reluctance to admit what were elements of the Old Wave 9/11 Movement” to blare PR disinformation, “a co-opting of the original movement.”

      Mr. Rogue and I can probably readily agree: [1] the Bush Administration, the media, EPA, NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission, etc. conspired to keep and slow-walk the truth of 9/11 from public view in the early years, and [2] NPT and 9/11 holograms are probably the poster-children of such meddling with our understanding in more recent times.

      Where Mr. Rogue and I disagree is in the roles and influence of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood. Mr. Rogue wants to dismiss everything from Dr. Wood as being disinformation without deeper inspection, while at the same time accepting everything from Dr. Jones as being beyond reproach without deeper inspection, as is evident by Mr. Rogue’s statements:

      Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled… We see … with the establishment of smoking gun evidence of explosive materials used at WTC; wherein as soon as the work of Jones and Harrit is reaching fruition, suddenly stepping forward is the blaring PR to counter it with DEW and Nukes.

      DEW and nukes stepping forward is not sudden. What might be sudden, however, is the destruction of the old framing that limits understanding of the breadth of the capabilities of each.

      Moreover, it isn’t an issue that evidence at the WTC of explosive materials is a smoking gun. By all means, take that to court for the trial. The issue is accountability of all the evidence.

      If “neu nookiedoo” [neutron nuclear directed energy weapons] is being promoted [mostly by me, in isolation, on my lunch hour] as the “newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models” for the WTC destruction, it is because of the glaring technical flaws (e.g., no-worky) of those explosive materials to account for all of the evidence [best collected in Dr. Wood's book] in a reasonable manner. Things that Dr. Jones nano-thermitic energetic materials can’t easily explain:

      – Pulverization of content (with or without mixing with other explosives): quantities are massive.
      – Duration of under-rubble hot-spots: quantities of energetic materials that were “unspent from initial pulverization” becomes obscenely massive; such massive quanties were not found.
      – “Selective” vehicle damage along West Broadway and in car park.
      – The “depth” of damage to the Banker’s Trust building, causing them to raze it shortly after fixing the fascade damage.
      – Correlated basic elements in the dust samples suggesting source mechanisms.
      – Sudden onset of various and multiple cancers in first responder ailments.

      Furthermore, the works of Dr. Jones into tritium levels and his no-nukes conclusions have a couple of glaring flaws, but sufficient in terms of PR tactics to steer us away from nuclear contemplation. Similarly, Dr. Wood’s efforts into DEW — valid consideration — leads us astray by “free-energy from space” and “Hutchison effects” while down-playing hot-spots and ignoring potential nuclear sources, like neutron bombs, enhanced radiation weapons (ERW), and modern versions of “Project Excalibur meets Davey Crocket nukes.” Both have issue; both have nuggets of truth.

      Mr. Rogue writes:

      Of course these PR tactics are well worn in all other areas of our lives, it seems only natural to expect the same to be applied to the 9/11 Truth movement. Subversion from within is such a tried and true technique of manipulation.

      Exactly. And we should not be adverse to looking into both Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones for their involvement in the same PR tactics to steer the movement. More importantly than that, we need to be mining their works for nuggets of truth that we re-fine and re-purpose. We shouldn’t be sweeping things into dismissive piles.

      Mr. Rogue writes;

      I am not suggesting that anything be rejected out of hand, I am merely advising to be wary and to make certain that all the facts add up as advertised for these products. In other words be sure to read the fine print.

      Agreed. But to be clear, just as Mr. Rogue “identified these products ‘Video-Fakery’ – ‘No-Planes’ – ‘Holograms’ – ‘Dew’ – ‘Nukes'” as part of the “New Wave 9/11 Movement”, I identify “super-duper nano-thermite, sol gel, thermaberic,” etc. also as the previous release’s “newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models” that require both the fine print to be read and the numbers run before placing a bet with your life-savings.

      //

  26. I will speak to only one of Señor’s comments:

    >”Having only worked on the PR marketing side of things and not on the engineering side of things, Mr. Rogue brushes aside that often “newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models” are required…”

    This is preposterous, I have spoken and can speak competently to the engineering and physics aspects. Señor tries to frame me as a “yeoman” and “scientifically challenged” which is simply not the case. As far as these issues go Señor’s knowledge of mathematics is the only aspect in his favor. He is clearly less able in the theoretical and conceptual side of these subjects.

    As I have pointed out often before, applying mathematical formula to false assumptions will lead to false answers. I see a lot of irrational propositions coming from Señor, and have made argumentation against them. It is not for Señor to judge the success or failure of those arguments with the hand-wave of asserting my being “scientifically challenged”.

    One more thing I might add is that I see it as perfectly valid to frame Wood as a PR agent.
    Señor continues to contend that Jones is in the same position, and while proofs can be made as to Wood’s unreliability the same cannot be said for Jones.

    \\][//

  27. Señor is simply wrong in saying that Chemical Explosives cannot account for every one of these points:

    -Pulverization of content (with or without mixing with other explosives): quantities are massive.
    – Duration of under-rubble hot-spots: quantities of energetic materials that were “unspent from initial pulverization” becomes obscenely massive; such massive quanties were not found.
    – “Selective” vehicle damage along West Broadway and in car park.
    – The “depth” of damage to the Banker’s Trust building, causing them to raze it shortly after fixing the fascade damage.
    – Correlated basic elements in the dust samples suggesting source mechanisms.
    – Sudden onset of various and multiple cancers in first responder ailments.

    I have spoken to every one of these issues. Whether Señor will admit it or not, he has not made a successful argument in these assertions. And I am not going to reiterate on this thread all of the previous arguments made.

    As I have said time and again, hijacking every thread that comes along and attempting to turn it into a discussion on Señor’s nookiedoo trip is part and parcel of what I mean by these New Wave 9/11 theories being in the main a distraction and misdirection from all other issues. We see it happening before our eyes. What judgment do we put to that?

    \\][//

    • This is where Mr. Rogue comes across as being a team rather than an individual. He writes, “I will speak to only one of Señor’s comments… and then not only writes to more than one point, but then a scant 23 minutes later puts up another posting. He really should learn to “think twice before writing & posting once.”

      I stand by my dual assertion (A) that Mr. Rogue has never worked on the engineering side of things, where math is indispensible and Mr. Rogue regularly comes up short, and (B) that the motivation for newer versions of things is often based on fixing flaws in the previous version. [It is the marketing pukes who see the opportunity of a new bug-fixing product to put fancy packaging and a new logo on it.]

      If Mr. Rogue was really more “able in the theoretical and conceptual side of these subjects,” he would not be squishing neu nookiedoo into the treads of his black boots to prevent rational discussion thereof.

      Moreover, if he was really so up on the “theoretical and conceptual side of these subjects” AND could do the math, he would KNOW from having run the numbers that ALL COMBINATIONS of chemical explosives & incendiaries CANNOT account for the observed pulverization AND the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, due to the massively ginormous quantities that would have had to have been present & unspent in the aftermath, and were NOT found in the pile in such quantities elsewhere. Dr. Jones & Mr. Ryan imply that pockets of such can account for six spikes in the rubble temperature over so many weeks, but Dr. Jones flat out stated one month ago: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

      Mr. Rogue has no explanation for that “something.” And the smell wafting up from the soles of Mr. Rogue’s boots where neu nookiedoo oozes out? Neutron nuclear DEW suggests fracticide between the multiple ERW devices, such that several of them did not reach their full nuclear neutron-emission yield and were left fizzling in the pile.

      As I have pointed out often before, applying mathematical formula to false assumptions will lead to false answers. I see a lot of irrational propositions coming from Señor, and have made argumentation against them. It is not for Señor to judge the success or failure of those arguments with the hand-wave of asserting my being “scientifically challenged”.

      Mr. Rogue should point out “the false assumptions” and “the irrational propositions” with exact quotes and links, because otherwise these assertions “with the hand-wave” are just tactics in Mr. Rogue’s disinformation game on which he has been called before many times. (A recent example is towards the end of: Dancing to Mr. Rogue’s “No-Nookiedoo Burlesque” 2012-10-10)

      I see it as perfectly valid to frame Wood as a PR agent.
      Señor continues to contend that Jones is in the same position, and while proofs can be made as to Wood’s unreliability the same cannot be said for Jones.

      Not true, as Mr. Rogue “with the hand-wave” ignores the many times issues with Dr. Jones’ work were brought up, such as at the dancing link already provided.

      By all means, frame Dr. Wood as a PR agent, because her very expensive and colorful book with lots of pictures is just that; it is the evidence and nuggets of truth within that are important. But recognize also where Dr. Jones was the PR agent in his Tritium no-nukes paper as well as in his promotion of nano-thermite, where he let the “scientifically challenged yeoman of the 9/11 Truth Movement” [that includes Mr. Rogue] extrapolate it to explain features that it cannot reasonably do.

      Señor is simply wrong in saying that Chemical Explosives cannot account for every one of these points. … I have spoken to every one of these issues.

      Mr. Rogue should provide the links and exact quotes to where he spoke to those issues.

      When he comes back, I will then point out the very limited framing that he puts it in. The two phrases within just the first two bullet points that trip up Mr. Rogue are “quantities are massive” and “quantities become obscenely massive.” Mr. Rogue has never addressed this with respect to Occam Razor logistics in the few pre-9/11 holidays that the bomb-sniffing dogs took, or to what was found (or not) in the pile. To account for the duration of hot-spots, the key point is that this represents unspent materials that were over and WAY above what would have been required for pulverization; such quantities of unspent materials simply were NOT found elsewhere in the pile as would be expected if they were either (A) the primary destructive mechanism or (B) the source for maintaining the high temperatures of the hot-spots. And if only (A), then what was the source for (B)? Mr. Rogue is silent “with the hand-wave.”

      The other bullet points that Mr. Rogue thinks he addressed? 9/11 Tetris.

      9/11 Tetris. The various pieces of evidence come down, and you must orient them to allow for the fewest gaps in the resulting theory.

      {Mr. 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.

      Mr. Rogue again “with the hand-wave”:

      And I am not going to reiterate on this thread all of the previous arguments made.

      Fine, then Mr. Rogue should post the relevant quotes and the links.

      As I have said time and again, hijacking every thread that comes along and attempting to turn it into a discussion on Señor’s nookiedoo trip is part and parcel of what I mean by these New Wave 9/11 theories being in the main a distraction and misdirection from all other issues. We see it happening before our eyes. What judgment do we put to that?

      Oh, let me get this straight.

      It is okay for Mr. Rogue to “hijack every thread that comes along” with his PR hypnotic statements regarding what is and is not viable; it is okay for him bring up DEW and Nukes in a malframed light and give them a back-handed slap while dressing them in the same Halloween costumes as 9/11 Holograms, NPT, and Video fakery.

      But it is NOT okay for me to point out with substantiation where his ability to “speak competently to the engineering and physics aspects” is proven wanting, and where neu nookiedoo should not be taken from the table by his PR disinfo tricks… from his “>35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology” (2009-03-23).

      Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr. Adam Ruff wasn’t all that impressed with the rabbit-hole examples I provided of Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly. But if anything reflects his true integrity and (not) being a man of his words, than this quote from 2012-09-26 maybe ought to do it:

      You’re such a fuckin’ idiot {Señor El Once}, but you’re right about one thing; I don’t have to deal with you on T&S… I am seriously finished with you asshole.

      Mr. Rogue should put on his A.Wright sock-puppet, because it is almost Halloween and Mr. Rogue is in need of a whipping boy to help re-establish his legend.

      • Señor says:
        >”Mr. Rogue should provide the links and exact quotes to where he spoke to those issues.”
        . . . . . . . . . . . .

        No Señor should stop trying to force this nookiedoo bullshit down our throats on every single thread that comes up.

        Keep it up Señor, you are establishing your own “legend” as a crackpot.

        \\][//

      • The conversation goes like this.

        Mr. Rogue: “Señor is simply wrong in saying that Chemical Explosives cannot account for every one of these points. … I have spoken to every one of these issues.”

        Señor El Once: “Mr. Rogue should provide the links and exact quotes to where he spoke to those issues.”

        Mr. Rogue: “No Señor should stop trying to force this nookiedoo bullshit down our throats on every single thread that comes up.”

        It is an issue of integrity.

        If Mr. Rogue is going to say that I’m wrong, he should prove it.

        If Mr. Rogue is going to say that he’s spoken to some theme, he should prove it.

        If Mr. Rogue is going to say (or imply) that I have “false assumptions” and “irrational propositions”, he should prove it.

        If Mr. Rogue is going to label as “bullshit” the prospect that 9/11 was nuclear, he should prove it.

        And as long as we are re-capping the conversation in this thread, let us not forget how the renewed discussion of “neu nookiedoo” got started. Mr. Rogue begins his “New Wave 9/11″ thesis yesterday (October 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM) with the statements:

        I have posited that the gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is a disinformation campaign which I have identified as a New Wave 9/11 Movement. It is as I see it, a co-opting of the original movement by the same type of “new fad” advertising we see in the “marketplace of ideas” as products. Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled and put into question by newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models. I have identified these products as; ‘Video-Fakery’ – ‘No-Planes’ – ‘Holograms’ – ‘Dew’ – ‘Nukes’ and the new ‘Reassessment of the Pentagon’

        Mr. Rogue clearly brought up DEW and Nukes, and clearly tries to do a “a guilt by association” smear of them. Who is trying to “force this {no-nookie} bullshit down our throats” on many threads? Mr. Rogue.

        I will have the integrity to embrace my legend as a “crackpot” [if indeed this is how I'm assessed], but Mr. Rogue’s lack of proof to the above and his “hand-wavey weasel-words” — very much fitting to his legacy and legend — demonstrates the level of his integrity. Enough said.

      • Señor says:
        >”And as long as we are re-capping the conversation in this thread, let us not forget how the renewed discussion of “neu nookiedoo” got started. Mr. Rogue begins his “New Wave 9/11″ thesis yesterday (October 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM)…”
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Bullshit.

        No no Señor, you tried to sucker punch me with this nonsense as to my using a sock-puppet. I had no choice but to smack that leering mask off your face to illustrate what a screwball was behind it. You can’t blame me for instigating the hijacking of this thread. Your antics are in the record here, dated and time stamped.

        Señor, you are such an insufferable bore.

        \\][//

      • Señor El Once // – OCTOBER 26, 2012 – 5:03 PM

        This is where this whole thing started__in the post dated above, I am accused of being a sock-puppet by this fricking fanatic.

        I didn’t instigate this crap, and I don’t have to answer to any of this lunatics demands.

        \\][//

      • See the closing to my October 26, 2012 – 5:03 pm posting that Mr. Rogue claims “is where this whole thing started”? It says:

        bringing in the dog and putting out the cat

        Where does this come from?

        “Innocent” old Mr. Rogue complains that “he didn’t instigate this crap.” Yet on his home COTO turf, he was chumming the waters to bait me to make an appearance. Note the time stamps.

        – October 21, 2012 at 12:18 am
        – October 21, 2012 at 10:22 am
        – October 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm

        After I make my appearance and before he bans me (and deletes a posting of mine and several others), he specifically requests October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm the posting on T&S (that I delivered at October 26, 2012 at 5:03 pm):

        WTF Maxiloon? … If you’re bored go count the “slanders” I dished out on T&S, take your time to find each and every one, time stamp and dated in chronological order. If that’s not enough for you then an addendum of the same material in alphabetical order might be handy.

        Then at the first opportunity you can spring it on me as a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog.

        And when you finish doing that, bring in the dog and put out the cat…

        The sock-puppet sucker-punch? Sheee-et! I originally said: “Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.”

        Ah, but look what the guilty conscious did reap! Team Rogue in action doing damage control… ALL OVER THE PLACE! Three fronts. Even involved censure and banishment. Woo-hoo!

        So Mr. Rogue asked for “a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog”, and I delivered, albeit short a few words. Still, the sock-puppet charge didn’t have to go anywhere. And the sock-puppet actually stalled. And the sock-puppet was no longer the topic of the discussion. And then what does the “non-instigator” Mr. Rogue instigate?

        I had no choice but to smack that leering mask off your face to illustrate what a screwball was behind it.

        According to Mr. Rogue, he had no choice but to take a swipe at neu nookiedoo, which re-initialized the discussion. And now he tries to pawn it off on me. Mr. Rogue’s level of integrity is falling.

        If Mr. Rogue finds me “such an insufferable bore,” he already knows what he has to do.

        // bringing in the dog and putting out the cat AGAIN

      • “If Mr. Rogue finds me “such an insufferable bore,” he already knows what he has to do.”~the scarab

        Yes, I know the code; “ignore” you, in other words STFU.

        You are a dung beetle Maxiwhine, rolling little balls of shit one way and the other throughout this thread.

        You are spam master flash, turning into a troll with this relentless harassment.

        It has turned from aggravation to comedy and entertainment, let’s have some more of your Cimmerian spew.

        Let’s hear you dribble that bouncing party-head some more.
        Hell, bring on the donkey and the dancing chihuahua! Crank up that rickety calliope one more time for us…clone yourself and make a parade of little pink oinkers.

        It could be the best selling show!

        \\][//

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