Questions about 9/11 conference end with its cancellation: Pentagon proposal has to wait


Our presentation would have shown that this was the scene of a faked plane crash.

We would have shown this to be the scene of a faked plane crash.

By Craig McKee

An international conference on 9/11 being organized in France by a little known quantity within the 9/11 Truth movement, literature professor William Schnabel, has been cancelled for unknown reasons.

The conference was scheduled for Sept. 11-13 at the University of Lorraine in the city of Nancy. Schnabel, who teaches at the university, issued a “call for papers” last fall – with a Dec. 25 deadline for submission. Those wishing to make presentations to the conference were required to submit a 300-word abstract stating what their presentation would be about. Those selected would be informed by Feb. 1. Before that date arrived, however, we got the news that there would be no conference. Participants were informed in a brief email. No explanation was given.

I was part of a group that collaborated on one of the proposals. Had we been selected, our group would have made a presentation to the conference on our chosen topic – the evidence that no large plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Our group consisted of Paul Zarembka, an economics professor at State University of New York at Buffalo and editor of The Hidden History of 9-11; Dennis McMahon, a lawyer who has represented 9/11 families and who is a member of the Consensus 9/11 Panel; and Shelton Lankford, a retired pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. And me.

Noted truther Barrie Zwicker submitted his own proposal for a paper on the importance of language in shaping perceptions about 9/11. I would very much have looked forward to this presentation because I share Barrie’s views about the subject, which I have written about on Truth and Shadows. Zarembka also submitted a second proposal to the conference on the subject of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings, which took place in Sept. 2011.

Zwicker shared with me that he wrote to Schnabel recently to ask for details of the cancellation, but he has received no response.

I’m disappointed that the conference didn’t happen and that I’ll never know if our group would have been selected, but I’m not entirely surprised. There were questions about the conference from the beginning. The first concern I had was with the “call for papers.” This featured very troubling statements made as if they were uncontested facts. The first paragraph started things off in very problematic way:

“On September 11th, a series of airplane hijackings and suicide attacks were committed against strategic targets in the United States. Nearly three thousand people were killed in New York City, almost two hundred at the Pentagon and forty more died near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in the open countryside, shortly after 10 a.m. The United States and the world were taken by surprise that fateful morning when hijackers seized four jet airliners.”

Schnabel, perhaps in an effort to appease colleagues unsympathetic to the 9/11 cause, made several assumptions in that first paragraph that are at best unproven and at most flat out wrong:

  • The four planes were hijacked? – The evidence says no. In fact there is no proof that any of the 19 alleged hijackers ever stepped on any of the planes.
  • Suicide attacks? – See above.
  • Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville? – This is totally false. There was very little wreckage at the scene; just a ditch and some smoke. Oh, and a singed passport of one of the “hijackers.”
  • Strategic targets attacked? Calling them attacks suggests that it was external enemies who were behind the event. False.
  • The United States was taken by surprise? If he means the government, the evidence says otherwise. The military stand-down makes that clear.

That was just the first paragraph. Later, the paper makes this statement:

  • America’s law enforcement and intelligence communities have addressed the nation’s vulnerabilities, the result of which has been the reorganization of the federal government, notably with the creation of Homeland Security, new FBI focus, the implementation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and the Patriot Act, increased border surveillance, and so on.

Again, an assumption is made that shouldn’t be, that America was vulnerable and that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a genuine response to that.

Here are a couple of other softball points:

  • It goes without saying that not all researchers concur with the official version of the events.
  • Many questions have been raised concerning the Kean-Hamilton Report, not all of which have been satisfactorily answered.

Have ANY been satisfactorily answered?

If one were to give Schnabel and whomever else was involved some benefit of the doubt, one could note these statements might have been written the way to keep the focus broad – in other words not exclusively on the question of whether 9/11 was an inside job. He may have been dealing with hostile colleagues who opposed the conference altogether.

The document concludes with this: “… there are several avenues of investigation possible: historical, psychological, geopolitical, legal, architectural, social, cinematographic, economic, scientific, militaristic, journalistic, and so on. Papers supporting the American government’s position are welcome, as are those critical of it, or taking a more neutral stand.”

That’s about as broad as you can get. Perhaps too broad.

Schnabel contacted Zwicker last August to invite him to be a speaker. In correspondence between the two, Zwicker offered his suggestions on things to watch out for in organizing the conference, choosing speakers, security, technical issues like sound, etc.

Zwicker has plenty of experience in these areas, having been involved in organizing the six-day International Citizens’ Inquiry Into 9/11, held at The University of Toronto in May 2004. He also collaborated with Citizen Investigation Team in organizing a screening of their film National Security Alert the night of the closing of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings in 2011.

One thing our group found strange was that Schnabel wanted personal information from each individual or group that included not only a curriculum vitae, photo and contact information but also a photocopy of a personal identity card.

Not all truthers in France are big supporters of professor Schnabel. The country’s largest 9/11 Truth group, Reopen 911, is not communicating with him at all. One point of contention, apparently, is that Schnabel wrote a letter to the editor to a French publication in which he mentioned support for a number of familiar 9/11 Truth movement figures (it included David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley, Thierry Meyssan, Barrie Zwicker and others). But among those listed were two very controversial figures, David Icke and Eric Hufschmid (Icke for his “reptilian” views and Hufschmid because he is seen by many as being anti-Semitic). The group evidently felt that by endorsing the latter two, the Truth movement could be open to ridicule.

For this and other reasons, some people may feel that the cancellation of the conference may not be such a loss after all.

The submissions won’t lead to anything directly, but the exercise was still a worthwhile one. At least it was for me since I had never been involved in anything like this before. The collaborative process went very well, I thought, especially considering the fact that we were all located in different cities – and in my case in a different country.

The “no large plane hit the Pentagon” presentation won’t happen in France this September, but that doesn’t mean you won’t see anything noteworthy offered on the subject this year. It’s a vital 9/11 subject and a case that has to continue to be made.

201 comments

  1. Mr. Schnabel quotes David Ickes and Eric Hufschmidt in his conferences (Nancy- April 2010) and with journalists. I let you imagine his credibility. As former member of ReOpen911.info, I have tried to share views with him, as some others did too, but nobody has been able yet, to endorse his positions, mainly because everyone who now states that he belongs to the “911 international movement” should rely on credible and verified sources, and pay attention to the rightness of his statements.

    1. I do not understand how a “truth movement” can succeed if it blackballs some who may be in the position to clarify THE TRUTH–in this case, about the alleged Pentagon attack–by excluding and isolating them. This case place politics ahead of truth and commits the ad hominem and genetic fallacies: the truth of a position or the strength of an argument is not a function of its source. I spent 35 years offering courses to teach undergraduates how to detect and avoid these fallacies, along with a host of others.

      Another case: Craig mentions a planned event to discuss the Pentagon in Washington DC. I have been informed that Richard Gage has advised the program committee that, if I were allowed to speak, he would refuse to participate. This parallels my discovery that he had been in Vancouver shortly before The Vancouver Hearings and sought to persuade two key players on the ground there not to assist me in planning for this event. This suggests to me that there really are “reptilian” members of 9/11 Truth!

      The choice between us, presumably, ought to be based upon our knowledge and ability to deal with the Pentagon, about which I have authored and co-authored a series of studies, for example, “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, “Seven Questions about 9/11”, “The ‘official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy” and “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”. The BBC even came to my home near Madison, WI, and interviewed me for eight (8) hours about 9/11, especially about the Pentagon.

      They broadcast 7.5 minutes of that interview in “Conspiracy Files: 9/11”, which was largely devoted to discussing why anyone would hold such bizarre beliefs (where Dylan Avery and Alex Jones were the other two they interviewed). Years later, they asked to interview me again, which I agree to after explaining that I expected them to do a better job. This time they included more of my arguments, but switched the photos I was discussing to bias the viewer into disbelieving what I had to say,

      I exposed the charade in “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation”. Richard Gage, to the best of my knowledge, knows next to nothing about the Pentagon. He runs a “tight ship” and, in the past, has not allowed those working with A&E9/11 to discuss alternative views about the destruction of the Twin Towers beyond nanothermite. Even this past weekend at Conspiracy Con 2013, he made the point of speaking in response to Don Fox’s proofs that the WTC had been nuked by insisting–surprise, surprise!–it could have been done using conventional explosives and nanothermite! ”

      We have heard his song and dance before. What could he possible contribute about the Pentagon? When programs like this one are biased in such a fashion as to exclude those who are the most knowledgeable and capable of addressing them by placing politics ahead of truth, it is little wonders that the 9/11 Truth movement is having such minimal impact. I am afraid that those who are prevailing are not those who best understand the evidence and the science of 9/11, which is the grim reality we confront.

  2. “Anniversaries are reservoirs of sacred power,” wrote the American cultural critic Larry Ray. The Schnabel Schmozzle should remind us that the richly-resourced state psychological warfare apparatus always pays special attention to anniversaries.

    It’s on important anniversaries of politically-charged events such as 9/11 and JFK’s assassination that the infiltrated mainstream media’s cleverly-corrupted lying “documentaries” are trotted out for airing.

    And agents will be assigned to infiltrate anniversary-related citizen events, with the goal of discrediting them or hobbling them in whatever ways the agents and their handlers can come up with.

    I’ve just learned that some Truthers are discussing a major event on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 in Washington, D.C. If the organizers and their plans ring true it should be supported, but Patrick Henry’s saying that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” could be slightly paraphrased: “Eternal vigilance is the cost of activism.”

    1. Quote Barrie Zwicker “It’s on important anniversaries of politically-charged events such as 9/11 and JFK’s assassination that the infiltrated mainstream media’s cleverly-corrupted lying “documentaries” are trotted out for airing.”
      I think that criticism is a bit much coming from someone whose own documentaries contain so much distorted , inaccurate and misleading information. I have never seen you address or acknowledge these poor journalistic standards in your own work , which is the least I would expect of someone who criticises the journalistic standards of others.

      1. You’ve attempted this point before. You can comment on the substance of what Mr. Zwicker stated here, but I’m not interested in your recurring attempts to smear him. Frankly I haven’t found anything you’ve ever written here to be of any interest at all.

      2. OH NO !!! it’s Mr Wright !!! hahaha !!! what is going to happen on this forum next???
        Gosh !!!

        No really – Gosh!!!

        \\]!i![// … really

      3. @Mr. McKee
        I think it should be of interest to Barrie Zwicker. I think a journalist should get their facts right , or at the very least, point out that they didn’t get their facts right when they have literally had years and ample oportunity to do so. A good proportion of this blog , not least the previous article here, was about the media and accurate reporting. Someone who levels criticism at other journalists for their journalistic standards, or worse, makes thinly veiled accusations of their involvment in ,or cover up of, serious crimes, should be held ,or should hold themselves, to the same standards. I have criticised Mr.Zwicker here before, and he has not, so far, responded. I don’t know what’s stopping him.

        1. Mr. Wright,

          My recollection is that you took Barrie to task because he stated that planes were flying around for two hours without being intercepted. I found that criticism to be trivial because it was intended as an approximation. I’ve made similar estimates in my articles. If it’s really an hour and a half or whatever, is that really a fundamental difference? If you’re going to dwell on some point, then it should be something that you think really distorts the truth. If you have a point to make that shows how Barrie’s statements in favour of 9/11 being an inside job do not actually show that, then make the point. But I’m not interested in nitpicking for its own sake – particularly since you’ve been given the opportunity to make this same point before.

      4. > “I have criticised Mr.Zwicker here before, and he has not, so far, responded. I don’t know what’s stopping him.”~A.Wright on FEBRUARY 22, 2013 – 8:20 PM
        . . . . . .
        I can tell you exactly what is stopping him from responding to you Wright; You are an obvious idiot who buys the official 9/11 story in its entirety. And every post you have made on this blog EVERY ONE has proven that as FACT.

        So why should Mr.Zwicker stoop to playing any of your fruitcake games?
        You are like a frantic chihuahua snapping at his heels.

        The FACT is there was ZERO air response to the events of 9/11 until the claimed “crash” at Shanksville. It is a proven fact – on record. Your blather will not change such facts.

        \\][//

      5. If you read my previous comments about Barrie Zwicker and his videos and interviews I didn’t make a big issue about whether it was and hour and 45 minutes or two hours or almost two hours, it’s how he characterises what happened in that time and the misleading way he presents it to viewers and listeners. Did the first hijacking , of AA 11 take place at 7.45 in the morning? Was it a full hour before it crashed into the World Trade Centre? Did the first hijacking take place at 8am , an hour and 5 minutes before Andrew Card told George Bush at 9.05 that a second plane had hit the WTC? This is what Mr. Zwicker is saying in ‘The Great Conspiracy’ not 5 months, but almost 4 years, after the event. Saying that ‘during a drama in the sky that lasted almost two hours,not a single US interceptor turned a wheel- until it was too late’ is at best an ambiguous and misleading statement because anyone listening to it would think that no US interceptors took off for almost two hours, which is simply not the case. Mr. Zwicker went on the Steve Paikin show and didn’t include the ambiguous ‘until it was too late’ bit , telling the viewers that not a single US interceptor turned a wheel for almost two hours. Mr. Zwicker says in ‘The Great Deception’ that ‘Around 8.46 at the absolute latest, the secret service and the President would have know of all four hijacked airliners and that one had hit the World Trade Centre. ‘ Is that in any way an accurate statement? Had four planes been hijacked at that time? He also deals with the ‘incompetence theory’ of NORAD response by talking about the jet carrying Payne Stewart being intercepted, in 1999, with a total elapsed time between the military being informed and them intercepting it, of 21 minutes. It took 1 hour and 21 minutes, but here he is using all of this kind of inaccurate and distorted information to construct a specious version of events and inviting the now mis-informed viewers to do the same.
        Mr. Zwicker , with a certain amount of pride talks about how at noon on September 11th he was telling people that this was ‘Reichstag fire 2001’ , when he basically didn’t have any facts at all about any of the details of what had happened that morning, no more than anyone else had. It then took him five months to get his facts wrong. And eleven years not to point out that he had got them wrong, acting as if the details he based his conclusions on don’t matter, even if they were wrong.

        1. None of this changes anything about whether the official could in any way be possible. So unless you can explain why it matters on this blog at this time, we’ll drop this line of “discussion.”

      6. In the light of your response, since my criticism was directed at Barrie Zwicker I think it’s reasonable to suggest that he should be the one to decide whether he should respond to it, otherwise it’s now going to look as if he also thinks that it’s not important to get the facts right and to not base conclusions on distorted and incorrect information and evidence. I presume you won’t refuse to post a response from him.

      7. A.Wright on FEBRUARY 23, 2013 – 8:43 PM, misrepresents the facts substantially on every point he makes – and we went through every one of these points with him in close detail several times through several threads now.

        Mr Wright now makes the following claim:
        > “NORAD response by talking about the jet carrying Payne Stewart being intercepted, in 1999, with a total elapsed time between the military being informed and them intercepting it, of 21 minutes. It took 1 hour and 21 minutes.

        It is my understanding that the difference between the two claims is due to a Timezone confusion. It is my understanding that the first visual contact of a interceptor of the Lear Jet was only some 19 minutes from request, as the interceptor doing the sighting was already aloft [Alabama-Georgia border area].
        I would also point out that it is exceedingly absurd to suggest that a supersonic fighter jet would need anywhere near an hour to overtake a Lear Jet, or for that matter a passenger Boeing 767 or 757.

        Mr Wright has made his assertions without a single reference to where his information originates. If he has some definitive account of the Payne Stewart/NORAD event, let him put that forward for examination.

        \\][//

      8. Comparison:

        [1999-2000 era]
        Learjet: Maximum speed: 533 mph (463 knots, 858 km/h, Mach 0.81) (max cruise)
        Cruise speed: 500 mph (434 knots, 804 km/h, Mach 0.76)

        F-15 Eagles, twin-engine, supersonic, air-to-air combat aircraft, which can fly at more than twice the speed of sound, responsibility for protecting Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington .

        Conclusion: The military Interceptors can fly approximately 4 1/2 times faster than a Learjet.

        \\][//

      9. @Hybridrogue
        The source of the information about Payne Stewart’s jet is the NTSB report , exactly the same report Barrie Zwicker quotes from in his ‘Great Deception’ video. He puts the text up on the screen and you can see even where there is a time change from EDT to CDT, making Mr. Zwickers timing for the interception one hour out. It was over 20 minutes alone between ATC realising that they had lost contact and military interceptors even being instructed to try to intercept it.

      10. > “He puts the text up on the screen and you can see even where there is a time change from EDT to CDT, making Mr. Zwickers timing for the interception one hour out…”~Mr Wright

        And there it is right there Wright…it was the time change that put Zwickers timing one hour out…in other words it is that time change that added the hour.

        But to get to the kernel of all this Wright, the Stuart event is but one of many interceptions of errant aircraft in the period leading up to 9/11, it was chosen as an example because of the fame of Stuart. The real conflict is in the assertions made by government loyalists is; “that NORAD only looked out, not within the continental US.”

        And that contention is bullshit, deeper bullshit that the added hour to the Stuart interception. You have again stumbled in your assertions of proofs, but manifold to that is the nonrecognition of all of the other data proving lack of air response on 9/11.
        And as pointed out, we have been through all of that in the greatest of detail.

        Your purpose here is clear, to drag Mr Zwicker into a mud-pile of your own making.
        This is why your presence here is so onerous and insulting to our intelligence.

        \\][//

      11. I think it should be clarified as per the Payne Stuart-NORAD incident, that there were many responding interceptors throughout the entire four hour period of that Learjet’s flight.

        So which response is now referred to as THE RESPONSE?

        It certainly appears that the one chosen is the Elgin AFB plane that escorted the Learjet for some forty minutes, being the one to report the windows were frosted over, indicating the jet had lost the pressure in the system and the passengers had asphyxiated. This was the second interceptor to get a visual of the Learjet however, the first being the interceptor out of Georgia, which is reported as a 19 minute response from the time of notification. And there would be many more throughout the entire flight, making sure it wasn’t over populated areas.

        But all of this becomes farther removed from the context of 9/11 as to the fact that the in-flight transponder was never switched off on the Lear, and the signal continued until the crash. This was not seen as an ’emergency’ in the sense that the earliest indicators of the 9/11 event was.

        It should also be mentioned at this time, that a lot of information has been scrubbed from the web, having to do with 9/11, FAA, and NORAD pages in particular in this instance. Many things can only be found out in Paul Thomson’s 9/11 Timeline. And there is a great deal of mirroring to be had at the Jeff Rense site. But it should be kept in mind that Wiki is especially notorious in shifting things around to suit the official story.

        \\][//

      12. @Hybridrogue1

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Barrie Zwicker
        ‘The Great Deception’
        Commentary 2
        January 28th 2002

        “A common explanation as to why no US military interctors took to the skies on September 11th , until it was too late, is that it was simple incompetence. Well let me deal with the ‘incompetence theory’ , first by taking you back to October 26th 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the NTSB crash report:
        9.19 am, the flight departs .
        9.24 , the Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from Airtraffic Control.
        9.33 ,the controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 1/2 minutes the controller tries to establish contact. Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note, that he did not seek nor did he require the approval of the president of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely to call in the airforce when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost , or the plane departs from it’s flightpath, or anything along those lines occurs.
        9.54 , 16 minutes later, the F-16 reaches the Lear Jet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time? 21 minutes.
        So what does this prove? Well it proves that standard operating procedures exist for dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All personel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines, which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident illustrates. For large scheduled aircraft tracked throughout on radar to depart extravagantly from their flightpath would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre , and now one is speeding toward Washington DC. It flies over the Whitehouse, turns sharply and heads toward the Pentagon. Everyone and I mean everyone now knows these planes are very bad news. It’s been reported on all tv networks for more than half an hour that this is a terrorist attack.”..etc
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        So, the pilot of the Learjet fails to respond to an instruction at 9.33 EDT. The controller tries for 4 1/2 minutes to make contact. At some stage after that the military are alerted. At 9.54 CDT, which is 10.54 EDT, the interceptor reaches the Learjet. That is one hour and 16 minutes later. The total elapsed time , between the plane failing to respond and it being intercepted is not 21 minutes , it is 1 hour and 21 minutes.
        Mr. Zwicker says that the controller did not have to seek the approval of the President of the United States. The controllers on 911 didn’t either. He says the controller didn’t have to seek anyones approval. Where does it say that in the NTSB report? If you read the foot notes it says

        ‘8 This interception was at the request of the Jacksonville ARTCC mission coordinator through the USAF.’
        According to a Washington Post article the military ordered two F-16’s to divert and follow the Learjet at 10.08 EDT. This was 30 minutes after the controller realised there was a problem. These planes did not intercept it and it was intercepted by the other plane from Elgin.
        You can tell where I’ve mis-represented what Barrie Zwicker says here ,as I’ve quoted him directly.

        1. Mr. Wright,

          You’ve made your point numerous times now. You’ve received responses from Hybridrogue. I asked you to indicate how any of this has any bearing on whether the official story is possible and you have not done that. I’m tired of reading about this. No more.

    2. NTSB Payne Stewart Accident Report 1999
      Accident No.: DCA00MA005
      Operator or Flight Number: Sunjet Aviation
      Aircraft and Registration: Learjet Model 35, N47BA
      Location: Aberdeen, South Dakota
      Date: October 25, 1999
      http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/fulltext/aab0001.htm
      . . . . .
      There is simply no information whatsoever in this report that would indicate when a request was made for a visual inspection of N47BA.

      It is therefore entirely supposition as to how long a response time, as only the actual contact time of the interceptor at, “About 0952 CDT” is noted in the report.

      \\][//

      1. As I said before Wright:
        ‘There is simply no information whatsoever in this report that would indicate when a request was made for a visual inspection of N47BA.’

        Footnote 8, says, and I quote:

        [8] This interception was at the request of the Jacksonville ARTCC mission coordinator through the USAF.
        End quote.

        Do you see ANY indication of WHEN this request was made in that quote Mr Wright?
        If you do you are hallucinating.

        Furthermore, the WHOLE argument being made by the truth movement is that “standard operating protocol was NOT followed on 9/11” Otherwise there would have been interceptions. And we HAVE been through this in excruciating detail too many times to deal with your honking bullshit anymore.

        \\][//

  3. Dr. Schnabel,

    The February 2 cancellation of your proposed colloquium is discussed in this blog — https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/questions-about-911-conference-end-with-its-cancellation-pentagon-proposal-has-to-wait/#more-1262 . It is unfortunate that you did not thank us for presenting our submissions.

    In any case, regarding this blog’s report, I would welcome your reaction to

    “The country’s largest 9/11 Truth group, Reopen 911, is not communicating with him at all.”

    Also, what significance does Eric Hufschmid have for yourself that you would want to cite his support (indicated in the same paragraph)?

    If you like, you may respond on the blog, as it has an open comment section. I am copying to the blog’s comment section.

    Sincerely yours, Paul Zarembka

    On 2/2/2013 4:38 AM, William SCHNABEL wrote:
    > We regret to inform you that the colloquium on 9/11 at the University of Lorraine has been cancelled.
    >
    > All your files have been permanently deleted.
    >
    > Yours, Dr. William Schnabel
    >
    > _______________________________________________________
    >
    > Bonjour à toutes et à tous,
    >
    > Le colloque sur les attentats du 11 septembre a été annulé.
    >
    > Tous vos fichiers ont été supprimés de manière définitive.
    >
    > Bien cordialement,
    >
    > William Schnabel
    >
    >

    ==== Editor since 1977 of Research in Political Economy | webpage:
    Revitalizing Marxist Theory for Today’s Capitalism, with R. Desai
    The National Question and the Question of Crisis
    The Hidden History of 9-11 (2nd ed., Seven Stories Press)

    1. Cancellation announced on 2-2? But Craig’s article suggests that it was announced before 2-1.

      Anyway and for whatever this is worth, a 2-2 cancellation announcement would coincide with a 2-1 Email I sent Prof. Schnabel. It ended with the warning that should he promote deep 9/11 information, he would “displease individuals endowed with much power and little empathy [and expose himself] to swift personal retaliation.” Oh well…

      Love,

  4. Very odd indeed Craig, when something just turns to smoke with no explanation…

    Perhaps you and your colleagues could reorganize it by asking all who submitted for that conference to resubmit for another Canadian or northern US conference???

    There may be some very good presentations just waiting for a venue.

    \\][//

  5. “A supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”
    ~David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden Germany in June 1991
    . . . . .
    I would like to alert all concerned, to what is to my mind one of the most important essays on 9/11 to date:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013McMurtryVol35Feb.pdf

    “The 9-11 sacrifice is better understood within the deep-structural context of the unfolding plan.”~John McMurtry
    . . . . .
    This essay addresses the issues I have attempted to stress on the forum since I first arrived. Professor McMurtry’s sentence above put it in a nutshell.

    More:
    “The most influential of Rockefeller’s protégés in this regard is the “philosopher king” of the U.S. covert state, Leo Strauss. While he never worked in a philosophy department or has any training in logic, his concept of “natural right” fits exactly to the “supranational sovereignty” of private money-sequence rule of the world – what “the intellectual elite” Rockefeller refers to invoke as “moral anchor”, “right” and “justice”.

    The moral thought system is not unlike that of Mein Kampf without the racist rant, camouflaged everywhere in practice by the method of big lies – “noble lies” as Strauss exalts them.[xx] The innermost value driver is a perpetual war of dispossession of the weaker for the private transnational money-capital multiplication of the rich.

    Nothing in this doctrine is too mendacious, greed-crazed and murderous if it fulfills the plan of this limitless private-capital rule as ultimate moral ground and compass. In Strauss’s canonical teaching of U.S. national security advisers and intellectual following, the ruling moral absolute is expressed by the core master idea behind the “supranational sovereignty” of an “intellectual elite and bankers”:

    “limitless capital accumulation – — the highest right and moral duty”.[xxi]”~McMurtry

    \\][//

  6. A few words about Eric Hufschmid:

    I have been in the movement since the infant days of pre Loose Change, 2005, and have been closely following the history and evolution of the movement over that time as well as educating myself on the extremely early period before I was involved.

    Basically, Hufschmid was to America (and controlled demolition) what Thierry Meyssan was to France (and the Pentagon). Meyssan was the first person of note, anywhere, to write a book challenging the official account of 9/11 and suggesting that the event was staged; Meyssan put the spotlight on the Pentagon. (When I say “of note,” I mean that the US govt responded with an official statement condemning the book and that the media covered it.) Both Meyssan and Hufschmid wrote their books in 2002. Hufschmid’s book was called Painful Questions and a year later in 2003, he made a companion video called Painful Deceptions.

    Over the next 3 years or so (’03, ’04, ’05), Hufschmid kept any anti-Jewish prejudices and other eccentricities quiet; he let his 9/11 material achieve a sort of cult following; it was presented at numerous early conferences, and widely sourced in David Griffin’s original New Pearl Harbor book. It is impossible to understate the significance of Hufschmid in the infancy days. Early activist Jimmy Walter was fired up to join the cause after watching Painful Deceptions, and led him to spend millions of his own money on the cause, and organize the 2004 conference “Confronting the Evidence.” The maker of another viral video, 9/11 Mysteries, states at the video’s beginning that his epiphany, and hence his passion, was triggered by watching Painful Deceptions. Hufschmid’s work also had a powerful influence on the Loose Change creators.

    Then, in 2006, he started questioning the moon landing on his site, and I thought, OK, fine, that’s all good and stuff, but you’re now living up to the stereotypical image of a conspiracy theorist. Then my heart sank a few months later when he came out of the closet as not just a holocaust revisionist, but a person who clearly was starting to blame virtually every one of the world’s ills on “the Jews.”

    Just a few days ago, Kevin Barrett interviewed mid east expert Alan Hart on his show, and Hart said, (paraphrasing): there are three phenomena with the holocaust lens: holocaust denial (overtly and idiotically saying that the nazis didn’t kill any jews), holocaust revisionism (legitimate inquiries as to whether WWII victors exaggerated the numbers for their political agendas, as well as rational skepticism about whether there was really a program to murder millions of people in gas chambers), and then, finally, there is holocaust denial and anti-semitism masquerading as revisionism. In other words, a commenter on a blog might cite a nugget of revisionist truth and use that as an excuse to go off on a diatribe about how nasty dem jooz are. It was this last category that Hart was denouncing on Barrett’s show. Hufschmid definitely falls into this category.

    Among other offensive material on Hufschmid’s current site include hypothetical 9/11 memorabilia like “Jumper Earrings,” that is, earrings with figurines of people jumping to their deaths from the WTC.

    Is it possible that Dr. Schnabel is unaware of the post 2006 Hufschmid? What passages from Hufschmid did Dr. Schnabel quote? Could a person like Schabel have been impressed by Hufschmid early on and then fell out of the loop w/r to “inside baseball” and is not aware of Hufschmid’s transformation?

    Hufschmid himself has no credibility, and anyone who cites him should be made aware of Hufschmid’s more extreme and offensive public material.

    When Hufschmid jumped the shark, I immediately wondered if he had been a mole the whole time: gain credibility with the earliest seedlings of the movement, wait for a good long period of time during which time your work gets promoted widely and some even begin to see you as their hero (this was YEARS before any of us would hear of Richard Gage), then out yourself as an anti-semitic nut job. (Or a space beams nut job.)

    I have to run to work now, but I do have more thoughts I’ll share later.

    1. Mr Syed.

      I am not disputing nor agreeing with the assertions made here that Hufschmid is an antisemitic, Jew hater or not.

      What I would like to know is how the example you cite {below} is supposed to back up that assertion:

      > “Among other offensive material on Hufschmid’s current site include hypothetical 9/11 memorabilia like “Jumper Earrings,” that is, earrings with figurines of people jumping to their deaths from the WTC.”~Syed

      It may be impolite, crass, in bad taste and offensive, but I don’t see how it follows from such that Hufschmid hates Jews. Does being an all around offensive, insensitive jerk now qualify one as antisemitic?

      I ask because I have read of many people being labeled as “Jew Haters”, who I have gone on to read and to find out that the charges are simple liable. In fact I have found this so often to be the case that I have become dubious to taking such charges at face value without careful examination on my own.

      And as I am not particularly interested in Hufschmid at this time, I won’t be looking into it closer any time soon. So if you have something that you can cite that is actually substantial to the charges you level here, I would be most interested in reading such.

      \\][//

    2. adam,

      re “I have been in the movement since the infant days of pre Loose Change, 2005, and have been closely following the history and evolution of the movement over that time as well as educating myself on the extremely early period before I was involved.”

      great that you have that intiative and perspective. the whole cognitive infiltration game is most intriguing, and your perspective on who is what is always appreciated.

      to clarify, in the context of your post, “jump the shark” means what, exactly? the definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark does not seem to fit neatly.

      –d

  7. Adam Syed on FEBRUARY 19, 2013 – 4:22 PM, brings up a very difficult and complex subject to do with ‘revisionism’, ‘antisemitism’ and, not only the connections to 9/11, but in analysis of the NWO in general.

    There are knee-jerk reactions from all sides on this complex issue. One dynamic one is the mention of the Protocols of Zion, as automatically defining the one bringing it up as “antisemitic”. It therefore takes great care to lay out such an argument to avoid such automatic emotional reactions and characterizations.

    It is well to understand that Zion and Sion are in fact the same phenomena, and that the term has nothing to do with Judaism, but to do with the credo of “Might as Right” in the sense of the Talmud; which is not religious, but a book of Rabbinical “Law”. Zion is the Jewish term for the Anglo-Roman term ‘Sion’, having to do not merely with Jerusalem, but to do with political power as a whole.

    I do recall Hufschmid’s earliest work on 9/11, but haven’t kept up with him, and frankly find the field itself {9/11 Truth} to be far astray of the crucial issues; those of the Why, and What-for, that should have now transcended the technical issues of How. It is in the way that the world has been transformed by 9/11 and the crisis that is overwhelming any such trivialities. As such I again recommend John McMurtry’s essential essay above.

    \\][//

    1. Just a quick note to define what I mean by “trivial” in the sense of “how” 9/11 was accomplished physically. I only mean that in the present tense; in that it is concluded with finality that 9/11 was an inside job. That is established beyond reasonable doubt.

      The essential questions are now, “who and why”. We thus apply, MO, motive, and cui bono. These are also established beyond reasonable doubt, but this establishment in not acknowledged movement wide. One of the reasons is the holding onto clickish attitudes of How it was accomplished, which has fractured the movement – POSSIBLY – beyond repair.

      The critical question is, can we join together to defeat the fruition of the establishment of the New World Order? Can we see the broader horizon that looms before us?

      \\][//

  8. Schnabel quotes Hufschmidt’s first “decent” period. but the question is.. shall we put our movement in France at stakes with such a painful heritage ? Journalists are hardly aware of such subtleties…or even they don’t want to. The answer is NO. Besides,Schnabel has been reluctant to join or involve the reopen911.info association because “he didn’t know who we were running for”…. we objected that we were running for the 911truth movement, and not any dark foreign remote terrifying state or organization… and besides of this, we were trying to rise our own level of demand and standards, in order to gain credibility and a minimum of respect within the French speaking MSM… but he didn’t follow, and any project with him has been put at a standstill since then, to the great disappointment of many members of the reopen911.info group who were following his initiative with great expectations.

    By the way… don’t miss in your historical summary….Andreas Von Bulow and his interview in Jan 2002 with the Berliner Tagesspiegel, where everything is said. Don’t forget Alex Jones and Michel Chossudovsky, who raised their doubts on the very same day as events were unfolding… don’t forget in France a well known anonymous activist “Dominique”, who wrote the whole suspected story on the day of the events themselves too… (his site : mai68.org). In England, don’t forget Michael Meacher,even if he has altered his positions shortly after… not to mention Michael Ruppert or Webster Tarpley, whose books came later but whose expertise was ready on the first day of the events.

  9. It’s interesting to see discussions from 6 years ago, especially back then when fewer experts in relevant fields supported our cause. I was just looking back at an Amazon discussion I (kameelyun) was involved in back in 2007. A “debunker” started the thread to complain about an online document that had been published by David Griffin.

    http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Deceptions-Logical-Fallacies-Griffin/forum/FxN560U7AP4EHP/TxM9360MQBJURQ/1/ref=cm_cd_ef_rt_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=156656686X

    I have gone through this online document carefully and found some disturbing things. By way of example, Griffin uses as an authority on how steel is affected by fire, a man by the name of Eric Hufschmid.

    Any reasonable man would ask what qualifies Mr. Hufschmid to talk about such things. Is he a structural engineer or civil engineer or metals specialist? NO! He’s some guy who sells books and DVDs lying about 911 and who thinks we faked the Apollo moon landing. Griffin is guilty of the logical fallacy of ad verecundiam. He is relying on an inappropriate authority.

    Griffin also relies on a guy named Jim Hoffman, who, conveniently, is also not qualified to make credible claims about civil and structural engineering issues related to how the Towers came down. Hoffman is a “software engineer” according to his own website.

    And James B. of the ScrewLooseChange blog conveniently chimed in:

    Hufschmid is also a rabid anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Not exactly the sort of person who someone trying to potray himself as a distinguised theologian should be citing as an authority.

    Interestingly, back in the early days, Hufschmid and Hoffman were the two main people in the US advocating controlled demolition. Now that both figures are irrelevant (since there are numerous people with more relevant expertise who support us), it is easy to see how Huf and Hof functioned as opposite sides of the same coin: Cognitive Infiltration. Both created excellent work promoting controlled demolition. However, one outed himself as an over the top Jew baiter and promoter of other wackiness. And, the other styled himself as a “responsible” truther, a person who only promotes the most solid information and calls out other researchers on sloppy and misleading reporting. Naturally, when a person like Hufschmid jumps the shark and outs himself as a nut, people will strongly gravitate to someone of the likes of Hoffman. As we all know, Hoffman uses the “scientist and responsible truther” mask to try and convince people that the Pentagon photos are “in fact” reconcilable with a 757 crash. A few people have fallen for his schtick. Others disagree with his Pentagon position, but see it (as does David Griffin apparently) as merely an honest difference of opinion but would vouch that Hoffman deeply cares about credibility. (I held this position in ’07 at the time of the Amazon discussion.) Still others, myself now included, believe Hoffman is every bit as much of an agent as Hufschmid, just from the polar opposite end of the spectrum. Hufschmid and Hoffman both promoted CD. But, when history rears its head and looks back, Hufschmid will be remembered as the anti-semite, while Hoffman will be remembered for going out of his way to marginalize anyone who challenged (physical evidence wise) the official fairy tale on the Pentagon. At the end of the day, probably neither will be remembered for their good work on the WTC. For me, I changed my mind on Hoffman, going from respecting him but agreeing to disagree with him on the Pentagon, to thinking he’s a cognitive infiltrator posing as a 9/11 truther, when I saw the specific things he was saying to marginalize CIT. When, over time, the NoC evidence grew stronger and stronger, so did Hoffman’s opposition to it, in direct proportion. At that point I had my epiphany: “No REAL truther would act the way Hoffman is. This guy has jumped the shark and outed himself as a clear gatekeeper.”

    Going back to the original topic, the cancelled conference: I was also in the loop regarding the event, and while I was invited to participate in writing a paper for it, I respectfully declined, because my name would add no weight: I am neither an aviation expert like Shelton, nor a tenured member of a respectable university (Paul), nor a major 9/11 panel member (Dennis), nor a formally trained journalist like Craig. But I was delighted to be invited. I thought it was pretty creepy that Schnabel wanted us to go as far as to provide a photocopy of an ID.

    1. Mr Syed,

      I see the same things you do about early inside moles:

      > “it is easy to see how Huf and Hof functioned as opposite sides of the same coin: Cognitive Infiltration.” — as you say.

      It is weird that Hof and Huf seem some kind of inside code names for such monkey boys, I can think of another one with the same puffing packaging as those two. A recent encounter as it were.

      \\][//

  10. Hi Craig

    Just finished and posted 3 years of research on the Pentagon damage at Pilotsfor911Truth

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279

    My computer has been hacked twice and all images collected disappeared into cyberspace until I uploaded my work on to a separate offline unit (hard drive). I might be paranoid about this but I think I’ve touched on something here (and maybe I’m not aware of it?) but there’s new material that hasn’t been discussed before. Such as the near collapse of a large section of Wedge 2, deterioration of columns that were filmed days and weeks after the event and tagged as being subject to “directional damage”. Blatant proven lies by the ASCE Report. And evidence of isolated events – explosions – throughout.

    Enjoy!

    OSS

    1. OSS,
      I too am glad to see you have a new one on the Pentagon…and hope to find time for it when my current plate is finished.

      Is that URL complete?

      \\][//

      1. Thanks lads

        That url will bring you to the OP.

        It’s a lot of info but if you want a quick breakdown, go to the conclusions at the bottom of the link.

    2. OSS,

      Great to see you again, I will read your report as soon as I can and I am looking forward to it.

      I do not think you are paranoid at all, there is a concerted effort to supress the pentagon evidence in particular because it is so very dangerous to the perps. I recommend a few security measures for you and your work. First thing is to hide your IP address from prying eyes. This way when you look at controversial items on the net it will not be associated with you in particular. Check out (Hide My IP). This of course will not protect you from the NSA for example but it will make it harder for even them to keep snooping into what you are doing and it will prevent amateurs from tracking you at all. Next thing you can do is store your research on a removeable memory stick and unplug it when not in use. You can go further and connect from a public internet hub like at a coffie shop etc. The point is that you have a right to privacy and to keep your materials un-tampered with. You can also look into an encryption program for your e-mails and such. PGP used to be good but I don’t know if it is still worth a dime or not because I have heard they built in a back door that allows the NSA for example to easily read your encrypted material. Be smart and assume they are in fact reading and listening to everything you say because the truth is they probably are doing exactly that.

      At this point in my life I do not care if they are watching me and listening to me because it gives me a chance to convert those who are doing the snooping into truthers themselves. Besides the cat is out of the bag with me at least because I have gone public on video and online already. I just assume that they are waiting with baited breath for me to say or do something they can “get me” with so I never give them anything they can use against me. They can lie and fabricate stuff of course but that is more work for them and it might just fail.

      1. Hi Adam

        Thanks for the tips mate! Probably too late now but I’ll look into those security measures.

        Have you noticed just how quiet and stagnant the whole 9/11 “research” and “debate” scene has become in truther shill circles since CIT and Pilots have taken a sabbatical?

        DOD cutbacks?

        There’s some outstanding work being done at Pilots by researchers “elreb” and “kawika” on WTC7. That’s worth a look as well.

        Peace

        OSS

      2. Hey Adam,

        Just a note about the last thread over…I suggest we let the blowfish have the last puff, he has established his idiocy beyond a doubt.

        \\][//

      3. Have you noticed just how quiet and stagnant the whole 9/11 “research” and “debate” scene has become in truther shill circles since CIT and Pilots have taken a sabbatical?

        DOD cutbacks?

        Well, we know that Cosmos got reassigned to infiltrate Occupy Auckland in NZ…😉

  11. “What is required is logico-moral understanding of the institutional act of 9-11 as strategically rational from the regulating value system of global money-sequence rule. This is the ultimately ruling moral disorder, and it instrumentalizes and attacks human and natural life and life support systems to grow itself with no limit or regulation by life requirements. 9-11 embodies and exemplifies the supreme moral program in action to full spectrum control, consumption and profit by force of arms wherever it can. But its inner axiology evades recognition. Its agents no more examine or question it than the players of a kill-all video game. And its opponents have not penetrated its meta program or the principled life-ground to steer beyond it at the system level.”~Prof. John McMurtry

    \\][//

    1. “What part of the official conspiracy theory holds at even the level of the physical laws? It is
      difficult to find one step that does. Rather magical coincidences, transmutations and shell-games proliferate the more carefully the now known facts are examined. In the wider purview of the event, what physically possible executive organisational agency could have been responsible for all the coordinated cover-up and false reports before and after effectively fulfilling one design?
      All points to the only coherent through-line of 9-11 and this is what is not diagnosed even by critics – the ruling value program and its strategic enactment to which every stitch conforms.”~McMurtry
      . . . . . . .
      Who is McMurtry referring to here when he says, “what is not diagnosed even by critics”?

      He is speaking to the so-called Truth Movement, who are frozen–standing in place at 9/11.
      Who cannot see the forest with their noses firmly pressed against that one tree; the event of 9/11.

      The movement has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was an “inside job’ – but what is not acknowledged is what it MEANS in the deeper context; that context being the systemic structure within which the event took place and what it was meant to accomplish.

      9/11, although the critical event bringing on the 21st century, was a part of an ongoing series of deep systemic events cycling through postmodern history. If it is not seen from this larger perspective, nothing is learned and the Predatory System rushes on to fruition, while the “Truthers” play gleefully with their particular favorite hobby-horses while the world burns around them

      \\][//

  12. Adam Syed posted “When Hufschmid jumped the shark, I immediately wondered if he had been a mole the whole time: gain credibility with the earliest seedlings of the movement, wait for a good long period of time during which time your work gets promoted widely and some even begin to see you as their hero (this was YEARS before any of us would hear of Richard Gage), then out yourself as an anti-semitic nut job. (Or a space beams nut job.)”

    Somebody (I think it may have been Kevin Barrett) said that the truth is best hidden when revealed by a discredited source. This sums up nicely what you are saying.

    The problem is, anyone looking into Israeli/Mossad involvement on 9/11 is going to be labelled anti semitic.

  13. To be perfectly clear, I am not chastising anyone here who continues to refine their understanding of the event from there particular field of interest in it.

    What I am addressing is that 9/11 wasn’t the end-all event, it was the beginning of a acceleration of what was already in movement prior to 9/11, the agenda for a global rule by the banking elite, so well articulated by Rockefeller.

    Things are on Fast-Forward, and we should all keep our eyes on where this is headed, because the depot is not that far off now.

    \\][//

    1. Great posts Willy.

      I’ve long said that the decades before 9/11, where much more obvious, and in some cases admitted deep state operations, have been neglected, and that the decade after have been scrubbed from the psyche of truthseekers. 9/11 was an op that blew away all others.

      You go into any GL den and go off the 9/11 tracks and either mayhem or silence ensues.

      True, everybody has their own “hobby horse” and it’s that dogmatic, stubborn, inflexible insistence of each (well intentioned, authentic) researcher that has stifled us all.

      We were never meant to have a eureka moment where all of the pieces fell into place. Add the fact that most researchers, investigators and historians involved have to have that stubborn, almost maniacal streak to keep digging, and the ingredients are there for the dark side to corrupt and create paranoia.

      I think that the clutter needs to be cleared away. Start from scratch. Present all of the neglected facts from pre and post 9/11 that show that the powers that be don’t care. That they are monsters. Then let them look at 9/11. And by “them” I don’t just mean the lurkers and newbies but researchers and investigators themselves.

      That’s going to be my next venture.

      1. OSS,

        Thank you for your kind comments.

        As one considers speaking to the deeper taboos of a society, one must consider one’s approach very carefully. To be taken as being “impolite” is almost automatic. Challenging a society’s central assumptions is bound to be a rather thankless occupation.

        “Speaking Truth to Power” is well recognized as a most dangerous game for social critics – but speaking truth to ignorance is just as perilous; as Ignorance is Power’s best friend. And that is precisely the use of the manufactured taboos that political power designs; to enforce ignorance.

        So the subject I breach is fraught with danger and charged with ingrained emotions, which in fact defines the subject itself. It is a critical dialog, that must be attended.
        If any forum I know of is up to the task, it is this one at Truth and Shadows.

        \\][//

      2. oss, re “I think that the clutter needs to be cleared away. Start from scratch. Present all of the neglected facts from pre and post 9/11 that show that the powers that be don’t care. That they are monsters. Then let them look at 9/11. And by “them” I don’t just mean the lurkers and newbies but researchers and investigators themselves.
        That’s going to be my next venture.”

        from my perspective, that would be most welcome. sometimes around here, when i read how you, and ww, and others talk about this, it’s like i’m a freshman stoned on pot who wanders into a seniors honors class on political science. all i can think is, “wow! far out.”

        re david rockerfeller. he seems to be the key man. i’m told from a reputable source that he travels in and out of the country without a passport. if true, that pretty much says it all about his relationhip to government.

        –d

      3. Great to see you back on the forum here Dennis, and thanks for your complimentary input.
        It is my understanding that Armand Hammer had the same exemptions as Rockefeller has as far as not needing any passports or official papers from any governments.

        The Elite of the elite. The cream of the crap, so to speak.

        \\][//

    1. For those who prefer text [as I do] can go to the web site below, where the text to this video is available.

      This is a good digest of what is in a book titled: THE FINAL BATTLE, which should be required reading for anyone wishing to regain their Liberty.

      Forbidden Knowledge TV
      Subject: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

      \\][//

  14. @dennis

    “it’s like i’m a freshman stoned on pot who wanders into a seniors honors class on political science. all i can think is, “wow! far out.”

    Haha. I still feel like that myself mate!

    The last century of psyops should be the truthseekers kryptonite seeing as government loyalists always argue from incredulity and ridicule when getting beat round the head with facts.

    I’ll let you know when this project gets off the ground. I need the “old timers” to point me in the right direction. I have a lot of material but need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Peace

    OSS

    PS the elites and their control over the corporations and governments is a good place to start.

    1. OSS,

      THE COMING BATTLE by M.W. Walbert, is online as a free PDF

      So is: SKULL AND BONES by Antony Sutton

      And as mentioned above, the text to the video is superb as a chronological rundown:

      Forbidden Knowledge TV – Subject: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

      Carroll Quigley and Eustice Mullins are also treasure troves of great info.

      And perhaps the most important of all: THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION – Douglas Reed
      [PDF online]

      \\][//

      1. I am on your article at Pilots now. Very thorough…it will take some study to complete, but I want to commend you on this excellent presentation from the get-go.

        This should be submitted to Journal of 9/11 Studies as a rebuttal to some of the more recent garbage by Legge et al….

        Bravo sir!

        \\][//

      2. Dennis, You mention you are reading, “robert sungenis’ 41 page review of COZ here”

        Unfortunately “here” froze for me. Then loaded saying I need to update my browser the next try…then…yuk yuk…

        So I went to Bing and say “Sungenis on Reed” …that was another cirlce back to the catholic site you posted the URL for…but “hohoho” stops before “hehehe” because I noticed how that ‘white supremists’ have adopted [kidnapped] Douglas Reed…

        The entire subtext of Reed’s work in against supremism – any brand of it, as it is the “supremist view” of Talmudic Zionism that makes its villainy. The white supremists have also latched upon other critics of the Federal Reserve as their hero’s, despite the fact that nothing follows from the author’s works that would attend to an agreement with an exceptionalist view by any but the most outlandish stretching of the imagination.

        What I see is clear eyed gum-shoed investigative reporting of history from a clearly moral standpoint. Whatever else is taken from the book but the simple factual story told within is an interpretation of ones own views through that work. And deconstruction of such infamous misinterpretation is a revelation of such projections being made by more extreme readings of such documents.

        We even have some “scholars” who claim that Orwell, and Huxley were writing blueprints for tyrannical future’s rather than warning and showing the present parallel lines that could develop into what it has. A fair construction of either of these authors works will not find a valid contextual argument to be made that they had any favor whatsoever to despotism, and reviled it in the most stringent, if oft times satirical manner.

        This is a reason to read the authors works themselves, and listen to their own voices and their own words.

        I want to speak to Roosevelt, with a short intro to my personal take on him, knowing quite a bit of deeper history:

        The “New Deal” wasn’t the “Best Deal”. It was a practical compromise, with Wall Street, it’s ‘Federal Reserve’; and, most importantly, with constitutional law.
        The “Real Deal” would have crushed the ‘Federal Reserve’ and gotten rid of the yoke of Debt Slavery. Instead FDR expanded executive and judicial powers ultra vires {beyond law}. As the ‘deal’ wasn’t really going to work FDR manipulated the US into another world war…another feeding frenzy for the Banking Elite, FDR’s true patron and his own vested interest…this of course led to the boom in industry that led to the short term ‘prosperity’ and created the postmodern “middle-class”.
        It is those generations that have been the ones subjected to the mass psychological conditioning developed during the war, via the quickly evolving communications revolution that brought television into the equation. The medium became the message.

        \\][//

      3. ww,

        thanks for the analysis. yes, no doubt, “This is a reason to read the authors works themselves, and listen to their own voices and their own words.” i approached this with a cliff notes mentality, time being the scarce commodity it is. by the time i got to the review’s conclusion, much of my interest in the review had waned, especially this line,

        “My conclusion is this: the major blame for the rise in Zionist power is the Catholic Church herself. It’s a very simple formula: when the faithfulness of the Catholic Church decreases, the power of the Zionists and other worldly powers increases; and vice-versa.”

        ugh!

        sometimes shortcuts don’t work out. but at least i got some idea of what COZ is about. on my “to read” list.

        –d

      4. Yes Dennis,

        Some in the Catholic Church will put such a pox on Reed. By the same token, if we look at him from the perspective of the Masons, or the Zionists themselves, Reed is painted as “Anti-Semitic” with a broad brush without any proper critique of his work.

        This position taken from the Masonic POV, is itself telling, as far an intertwining rhetoric and agenda. It should not be forgotten that it was the Knights Templar who introduced Usury to Europe–under the banner of Sion. Again we find this nexus of credo and language.

        \\][//

  15. Onesliceshort,

    As to Sutton and his “Wall Street” series:
    What we find here in 1933 are “coincidentals” – or more readily seen on inspection as, designed and manufactured synchronicity: the coming to power of three world leaders; Roosevelt, Stalin, and Hitler. All three are products, or representatives of the identified Wall Street elites.
    As we find going back to earlier history, we find that these Wall Street elites are in reality agents of The Crown. And then it is necessary to define “The Crown”__for it is NOT the Royal family of Great Britain, but in fact the Center of the entire schemata; The City of London, ie; the Central Bank.
    This center, of course has tentacles that reach out through interlocking directorates to a global matrix. One of the most powerful actors in that matrix is the Bank of International Settlements [BIS].

    Although the history and the extant of all of this is certainly complex, the moral center of it is very simple: USURY v LIBERTY. The battle begun in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, and the Crown reaction to it.

    The effect of Usury is, ‘debt slavery’.

    The effect of Liberty is, ‘ individual freedom’.

    The equation is that simple. The story of the conflict is as complex as the moral is simple.

    \\][//

  16. Eric Hufschmid is considered very controversial because he is seen by many as being anti-Semitic, therefore if the conference on 9-11 being organized in France would endorse him, the truth movement would be
    open for ridicule.

    “Anti-Semitic” is a code word used by Jewish Criminal Network against the truthtellers.

    To accuse Eric Hufschmid is anti-Semitic just indicates that he is a truthteller and he is blatant honest.

    1. Boys ! Hufschmidt has proclaimed and adressed insanities. Full stop. Too late for him. He might be honest with himself, but for sure NOT with the 911 International Movement. let’s put him back in his place : a good forerunner until 2006. A nut ever since. And the Movement doesn’t need him any longer, anyway. Sorry to go straight. Have a nice Week End on both sides of the Atlantic ocean.

    2. Truth4ever99,

      Thank you for that alternate opinion on Hufschmid, to compared to another opinion here.

      Although I have admitted I don’t keep up with him, I certainly know the large brush so trendily splashing any and all with the charge of “Anti-Semitic”. I have had my share of getting that card played on me because of my critique of Israel, and for discussing Zionism.

      In my view the charge has spread so thin that like “conspiracy theorist” the term is useless as far as any consistent definition of it. A lot can be learned by understanding that “Semitic” is a language group that doesn’t necessarily apply to any specific race of people, but includes several. We are then thrown the canard that “the first time the term “anti-Semitic” as used was by so-n-so in 18’something-or-other, and this author meant specifically the Jews as the target of hate. But this, as true as it may be, does not give that original author carte blanc to own the term ‘Semitic’ in any way whatsoever. “anti-Semitic” then, can be seen as a term of Newspeak. As such it has that malleable character that such android languages have.

      \\][//

      1. I don’t care about digging antisemitism,zionism and so long and so forth. And YOU are loosing time as well with this. I just say that we don’t need these issues to interfere with 911 case. 911 case is difficult enough to handle in itself. There are 4 main entries with Israel and Mossad into the 911 case : ODIGO – URBAN MOVING – DOV ZACKHEIM – SILVERSTEIN. let’s dig those ones quietly and seriously, as we would do for any other part of the subject.

        Concerning Hufschmidt, I wouldn’t even imagine that someone HERE on this FORUM, would ASK me to give proofs / evidence for the insanities of this man !!! Gosh !!!

      2. Bluerider,

        Is English your first language? The applicable of the term of someone’s insanity is thus: “insanity’s”. I ask because I have read several issues you seem to have with syntax, which seem to be drawn from one of the romance languages.

        Do you know the term, “jejune”?

        \\][//

      3. Bluerider,

        The reason I have engaged you in this conversation is not to put you down, but as an attempt to raise you up to the level of discourse that takes place on this blog. A certain level of critical thinking is a requirement here. I spoke to this in my first responses to you: FEBRUARY 22, 2013 – 6:42 PM.

        I had inquired of both you and Mr Syed as to the reasons for holding Hufschmid as an Anti-Semitic. Mr Syed responded with substantive reasons for such. You simply asserted it was so with nothing substantial to back it up. You have in fact still not offered anything substantial on that matter.

        The point is to maintain substance in your dialog here. It is a good habit to acquire in reasonable debate. Having a strong opinion is not a mistake. Having nothing else is the mistake.

        \\][//

    3. Bluerider, on FEBRUARY 22, 2013 – 5:23 PM you say:
      > “Boys ! Hufschmidt has proclaimed and adressed insanities. Full stop.”
      . . . . . .
      My question is why this “Full stop”? Why not an example of these “insanities”{sic}?

      If you do not provide some substance as to what it is that forms your opinion, why should we respect that opinion? I do not claim there is no such substance, just that you have not put such forth.

      What is your definition of “Anti-Semitism”?

      Would the mere suggestion that one read ‘The Protocols’ be grounds for such a charge?
      Would the suggestion that the US “government” is a Zionist entity be ground for such?

      Make a case, not simple unfounded assertions.

      \\][//

  17. Truth4ever99,

    It comes across to most everyone as anti-semitic when a person conflates Jewishness and Zionism, as you just did. “Jewish Criminal Network” is a red flag, whereas “Zionist Criminal Network” would get the green light from me. As Joe Biden said, he is not a Jew but is a Zionist, and one doesn’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. Hufschmid conflates Zionist criminality with “the Jews” all over his site.

    For example, on his homepage, he says:

    Eric Hufschmid… Avoiding Zionist traps since 2002. Learn their tricks and join me!

    But shortly below that, he says:

    Our main enemy is the global, Jewish crime network, not the New World Order

    And on another page of his, he says:

    Tell the Jews to open up those Nazi camps, and allow us to analyze the gas chambers, the graveyards, the ovens, and all the other evidence.

    If the Jews refuse to let us see the evidence, we should dismiss their Holocaust as a hoax.

    This is not how a responsible truth teller behaves.

    1. Mr Syed,

      What you bring forward, in Hufschid’s own words, are the substance I look for in my mode of assessment.

      His sentence; “Our main enemy is the global, Jewish crime network, not the New World Order”: Is a clear indicator that he is off-beam and has crossed that bright line.

      Zionism is the obliteration of Judaism. It is in fact apostate. And anyone who has read the Protocols would understand this. With their talk of their “Lesser Brethren,” who are just as apt to be sacrificed to the cause of Zion as the Gentile. These “Lesser Brethren,” are no less to be used as fodder, and to be extinguished than the herds of “Goyim”.

      Anyone who knows the deeper history of the plan to secure Jerusalum for Zion knows the collusion between the Nazis and the Zionist during WWII, where the Zionist had special privileges under the German regime, and were the ones who had the fate of the Jewish population in their hands. They chose special Jews who would serve the cause of Zion, and let the “Lesser Brethren” parish in the concentration camps. Knowing that the blowback from that would lead to sympathy for the Jews as a whole, and be a push in the direction of securing Palestine after the end of the war.

      These issues are addressed in great detail in Reed’s work, THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION.

      \\][//

  18. HR1 You said in part to OSS in your post above “This should be submitted to Journal of 9/11 Studies as a rebuttal to some of the more recent garbage by Legge et al….”

    While I agree that OSS’s work is worthy of wide publication and does smash the hell out of a whole bunch of Legge’s red herings and misc BS I have to remind you that the Journal is basically under the control of Kevin Ryan who is a rabid anti CIT and P4T person. He will not publish OSS’s work at all I am fairly sure because of his bias against real pentagon researchers of which he is NOT one. Unless he has had a major change of heart recently he is firmly in the “plane hit the pentagon” camp. He is therefore an idiot or an operative in my opinion and has no credibility whatsoever. OSS’s work deserves better treatment than it will get at the hands of Ryan. Just my 2 cents.

    1. Mr Ruff,

      While I certainly understand your position on Ryan and Journal, I would point out that both of these articles have been published there recently and both dispute that a large aircraft could have possibly struck the Pentagon:

      > The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State
      John McMurtry, February 2013

      > The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham
      Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman, November, 2012

      \\][//

      1. I have read the second paper already and the one thing that stuck out in my mind was the extreme pains they went through to avoid talking about CIT directly as though they don’t even exist. They did put away Wyndham the windbag pretty well which is a good thing but as far as I am concerned the Journal is a dead end because Ryan is going to block all legitimate pentagon evidence such as CIT’s and P4T’s because of his big fat ego. Personally I don’t think he can handle the fact that someone else uncovered really important evidence that has nothing to do with CD. In my view he sees himself as a star in the movement and anything which shines star light on anyone else is bad as far as he is concerned. I have seen his work and despite what many people think his contributions have not been very impressive. Some of his efforts are even full of bad or misleading information. For example he goes WAY out of his way to avoid implicating Zionists in the demolitions of the towers when it is obvious for example that Silverstein was involved up to his greedy little eyeballs. Anyway I have heard Ryan “debate” Gov loyalists and he did a lousy job even when he had clear openings to decisively beat them he played softball. I am not impressed at all with Ryan and I regard many of the contributors here as much stronger voices for the truth movement. Oh and the stone walling thing that Ryan did to Adam S. and myself and many others tells me he is NOT the leader we are looking for, to steal a line from Star Wars.

        The same goes for David Chandler by the way. His contribution has been WAY overblown. He basically showed that WTC 7 did come down at free fall speed. Nice, and good on him for doing it, but EVERYONE in the truth movement knew that WTC 7 came down at freefall speed for years before he was even a truther. So all he did was the leg work to prove what we all knew already. Nice but NOT THAT BIG A DEAL to elevate him to Godhood. He is still an idiot or an operative when it comes to the pentagon and he is a stone waller to boot. I have no respect at all for a coward who will not even debate the very people he attacks. Chandler and Ryan both are COWARDS for not putting their positions on the pentagon to the test in a debate with CIT and/or P4T whom they attacked agressively. Absolute COWARDS!!! To sling mud like they have and then run away when challenged to back up their BS, I have zero respect for either one of them.

        END RANT

      2. Mr Ruff,

        There is certainly nothing in your “RANT” that I would disagree with.

        As I remarked to Mr Syed, it is my opinion that ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’ was originally organized by Fetzer with the intent to corral any and all “scholars” and academics that would begin speaking out from their positions of expertise; to mind them, and steer them in such ways as to eventually water down or extinguish there contributions.

        I am also of the opinion that when Jones broke off from ‘Scholars’ that Fetzer arranged for several of his minding moles to ‘stay behind’ [like Gladio] to continue the manipulation of those genuinely seeking truthful answers.

        It seems that Griffith’s idea’s for building a consensus were seized by these operatives as a further excuse to water-down, dilute and dismiss strong areas of research. I do not believe this was in anyway Griffith’s intent. The innocent intent of many actors on this stage are manipulated and manhandled by professionals at intrigue.
        — And I would add, rank amateurs at intrigue, such as our Mr Wright above.

        So again Mr Ruff you and I are in general agreement.

        \\][//

  19. @Adam S

    “Check out Hufschmid’s “humor” page:
    erichufschmid.net/TFC/Humor.html”

    Wow. Saw the lyrics of his “music” section. F*cked up!

    @Adam R

    Thanks for the kind words mate. Instead of the Journal of 911 Studies, I’d prefer the likes of Barry, Shelton, Paul and (almost) everybody else on this forum to look over the details of this research and put it through the wringer, ya know? More productive and I’d at least know that it would be getting an honest critique.

    @Willy

    Again, thanks for those links!

    Peace

    OSS

      1. “Yes indeed. How could a person (still) regard Hufschmid as a respectable source after seeing this?”~Adam Syed on FEBRUARY 23, 2013 – 5:32 PM

        Indeed..??

        I would suppose it would depend on how much historical information one has gleaned on Elie Wiesel. Wiesel in fact is a proven fraud and charlatan. And if one is not aware of such controversies, making snap judgments on such as this little illustration is simply judging from a stance of ignorance.

        It is a FACT that the term, “Anti-Semitc” is a well honed and manipulative slur created by the propaganda machine of Zion: Hasbara.

        If one is going to make judgments according to the “popular” consensus on these issues, it is much like those who deny the truth of 9/11 from the same “popular” POV.
        Again; having a strong opinion is not a mistake. It is in having nothing else that is the mistake.

        I am still uninterested in Hufschmid, and will not come to his particular defense. However the only thing compelling at all to indict him, is in his use of the term , “Jewish criminal network”. I think that rather than worrying over Hufschmid’s errors, one would find it more beneficial to mend ones own deficits in historical knowledge.

        \\][//

  20. “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”~Albert Camus

    Anyone of sane mind and lucidity who has seen the evidence, read the facts, and reasoned arguments addressing those facts cannot help but accept the conclusion that it is proven beyond the slightest doubt that the events of 9/1 were a internal systemic psychological operation. It is simply inescapable.
    Therefore those who attempt to rebut such an inescapable conclusion find themselves in the uncomfortable position of the need to use rhetorical trickery, and muddled circular arguments, and these almost exclusively boil down to appeal to authority, as a direct act of obedience to authority.

    And again, it is obvious to any sane and lucid thinking mind that the authority being paid such obedience is in fact fraudulent and illegitimate. And this is the bottom line in the argument between the ‘government’ loyalists and the defenders of Truth. This is a serious argument and confrontation. The issue of a fraudulent and despotic “government” is at the core of it, a life and death situation. The psychopaths ruling the planet at this time are bent on crushing Human Liberty once-and-for-all.

    Those, such as Mr Wright above, who have fallen for the lullaby of the Tyrannical PR panpipes that sooth their conscience, become blind to the critical damage to their own self interests by their own actions. They play the Supreme Chumps, ie; that of the stooge.

    I pity the fools, but cannot forgive their aiding and abetting of this tyrannical state. It is ultimately the majority that goes along to get along that is culpable, for tyranny cannot succeed without such mass acquiescence.

    \\][//

    1. Gosh! Mr Wright is still playing with words!

      Remember my analogy? Wright somehow equates military jet pilots without instructions circling an area until operations were carried out in Manhattan to a “military response”. Or sending military jets over the Atlantic until the Pentagon was blown up. Or tracking a blip that was allegedly Flight 93 for nearly FIFTY MINUTES.

      Now imagine cops had a warning that commandeered vans laden with explosives were identified as heading to an embassy. The leasers of the van in question are aware of this, inexplicably wait until the van is close to the embassy before contacting these same cops. The cops send the patrols out to circle the block around the station and finally send the patrols after the embassy has been blown to bits.

      Somebody, Wright, please explain to me whether the cops’ actions can be described as a “response”. Yes, the cop cars were in transit, but they had no instructions other than to circle the block.

      Wordsmithery Wright.

  21. A few words on Kevin Ryan (now that Hufschmid is out of the way):

    Kevin has done lots of good work and research re the WTC, and has woken up many people; on that basis, we can rule out “idiot.” Similarly, it seems unlikely that such a strong voice for controlled demolition would be an operative, but wait, haven’t I already declared that I think both Huf and Hof were moles?😉 Maybe he’s been gotten to. Maybe he’s under mind control.

    However, his position on the Pentagon is so disingenuous as to defy belief.

    When I noticed something wrong (back in 2010) with Ryan was after an experience on FB. I was fb friends with him, and had no doubts or suspicions about him at the time. I had no idea what, if any, his position on the Pentagon was.

    The day that Barrie Zwicker published his video endorsement of CIT (youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc), I took to posting that video on a bunch of truthers’ walls, including Kevin Ryan. I titled my posting to Kevin’s wall: “Barrie Zwicker endorses CIT, denounces critics as “tricky and unreliable.””

    A couple hours later, I was chatting with the Shanksville arm of CIT, Dom DiMaggio, and told him about my posting the Zwicker video to Ryan’s wall. (I probably asked him to go to Ryan’s wall and “like” my post.) He told me he couldn’t see the posting. “Shit, did he delete it?” I thought. So I pulled up Ryan’s profile to find out he had unfriended me! Why would he do this?

    I immediately sent Kevin an email:

    Dear Kevin,

    I am sorry to see that a short time ago, you appear to have removed me from your list of facebook friends, shortly after I posted a link on your wall of a video recorded endorsement from Barrie Zwicker for the Citizen Investigation Team.

    For the record, I understand that he does call out CIT’s critics very harshly (I don’t know if you watched the video), but I’ve never considered you to be a “CIT critic” and I was not posting that video as any kind of slight towards yourself in any way.

    The reason I’m posting this on peoples’ walls at all is because 911blogger silently declined to publish this story (the video was made over a week ago) despite the fact that Zwicker submitted it himself, from is own IP address and account (also one week ago).

    This amounts to the no. 1 9/11 truth information portal censoring one of the leading, indeed Canada’s top, 9/11 truth advocate. This should be of immense concern to us all.

    If you think this issue isn’t that important to you because your area of research is the WTC, just have a look at some of the latest discussions at truthaction.org where they’ve actually been saying that “focusing on controlled demolition harms the movement” and that “nanothermite is a red herring.” Seriously.

    And of course, we all know how it goes: “First they came for the Communists, but I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist…” et cetera.

    Once again I’m sorry my post, for whatever reason, seems to have upset you, but it certainly was not meant as a slight in any way; myself and a few others are determined to make this widely known though. Obviously it is your choice if you wish to re-friend me, but I just wanted to make the reasons for my actions clear, and hope to clear up any possible misunderstandings.

    Respectfully,

    Adam Syed

    Completely factual and civil, everyone here would agree?

    I got no response from Kevin.

    Later on, he wrote an essay denouncing the Rock Creek Free Press’ well written and highly sourced article about 911blogger’s banning and stonewalling people. For those of us who remember the inside baseball regarding this sorry chapter in the movement’s history, about three dozen of us were purged from 911blogger in 2010. I know for a fact that I always stayed civil and within the rules. I never received an explanation as to why I was banned, and neither did just about anyone else. The most logical conclusion was that the moderators had an anti CIT agenda and decided to purge all the supporters, regardless of whether rules were broken. Kevin insisted that everyone who had been banned had been violating the rules, applauded the moderators for doing an outstanding job, etc.

    He then wrote another essay, essentially dictating to the movement which avenues of Pentagon inquiry are worthy ones, i.e. ones “which will lead to justice,” and said that the idea of “what hit” (i.e. what really happened at) the Pentagon is the least useful area of inquiry, and basically denounced the many researchers (which includes Pilots) who go down this road. Lastly, in that same essay, he condemned CIT (without mentioning them by organization, even though everyone knew who he was talking about) for seeking endorsements for their presentation, insisting that they had somehow engaged in a “divisive” act by doing this, and were guilty of pitting people against each other in “camps.” As I said to him on FB when he and I bumped into each other on a mutual friend’s wall in November 2012:

    And I find it bizarre to the point of Orwellian that in that same essay, you suggested that CIT was engaging in a “divisive” act by seeking blurbs of praise for their documentary. Perhaps, then, Richard and AE are trying to drive a wedge into the core of the world’s a’s and e’s by pitting architects and engineers into “camps” with their petition… after all, many a’s and e’s in the world accept the official story with no problem. And perhaps Howard Zinn was being divisive when offering a back cover blurb for one of Griffin’s books… after all, not all historians agree with Griffin.

    Of course, he did not respond to this either, just like he didn’t respond to my entirely civil email from 2 years prior.

    When somebody in a “leadership” position begins to stonewall legitimate points from genuine activists, their presence as a “leader” goes from smelling like a rose to like a beer fart.

  22. Mr Syed,

    It is my opinion on Kevin Ryan, that Frank Legge got to him. Not that it is in anyway an excuse for Ryan. But I do believe it was Legge’s influence that took him to that side. I saw a “hostile buyout” of Journal with Jones leaving. Jones had already been stabbed in the back once by Fetzer, and as Fetzer split, he left behind another minder for Jones; Frank Legge.
    Jones obviously smelled the scent and bailed, and Ryan was likely already a turncoat that had stood with Legge over the issues that developed between Legge and Jones.

    It seems Jones was always the wild card in a Mole Op, that was meant to contain him right from the get-go, when he first began looking into the tower’s destruction.

    Jones has some issues, and those are mainly his bias towards academics, and not wishing to defame another “professor” – he even handled Fetzer with kid-gloves considering the huge damage Fetzer brought to the table.

    As far as the intrigue of all this, I can only analyze from what I see from a close view from the outside. But there are those emails between Balsamo and Jones that hind to part of the tale – these took place in the weeks just as Jones had decided to move on from Journal.

    Regardless, the movement is obviously in a shambles at present, and seemingly stuck in the mud going nowhere. This is why I feel that dealing with the crisis that the event has lead to is the crucial path to take. We are in a tight fix here in this maximum security state. And cognizance of that is the prime issue now.

    \\][//

    1. HR,

      It seems that the MO of the controlled opposition people was to create both the “wacky” and “responsible” factions from the outset. We’ve already discussed Hufschmid and the wacky portion.

      Jim Hoffman was the “responsible” truther from the early days. If I’m not mistaken, it was Hoffman’s site that turned Jones on to controlled demolition. Hoffman’s wife Vic Ashley, who imo is where the stink really originates, was given web control of Scholars for Truth and Justice.

      Ashley goes out of her way to be a self-appointed credibility policewoman. She’s a more subtle shill than the extremely blatant ones; she doesn’t spew the same overt venom and vitriol that people like SnowCrash, YT and JohnA do. She’s much more apt at fostering the “careful researcher, responsible truther” mask; as a result, she and Jim have long had the respect and support of S. Jones.

      A good clue that she’s an op is that she fancies herself an authority as to who should be accepted in polite company in the 9/11 truth movement. (This is necessary to a degree; for example, Hufschmid has not been accepted in truther circles for years and rightly so.) I am a professional musician in multiple cities. When David Griffin learned of this, and as he liked my reviews of his books on Amazon and considered me very well versed on 9/11 truth, he himself asked me to be the coordinator of Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth, back in the formative days in 2010. (Howard Cohen is in charge now after I chose to move on.)

      However, in Vic Ashely’s eyes, I am a heathen to be shunned. In a comment at 911blogger.com*, she said (long after I’d been booted off without explanation and couldn’t defend myself): “BTW, re: 911artists, it’s unfortunate that the 9/11 Artists and Actors site continues to feature people like Ace Baker (no planes hit the WTC) and Adam Syed (CIT advocate).”

      In this comment she is combining two classic Cointelpro tricks. First, she is speaking bad about me and trying to convince others to feel the same. Secondly, she is lumping the WTC NPT claims in the very same sentence as the real, legitimate claim that no plane crashed into the Pentagon. This kind of lumping the two together is standard Cointel.

      Now, in later years, particularly 2012, Steven Jones started waking up, once the Truthaction gang started attacking him just as hard. He actually said to me in an email:

      THANKS for the heads-up, Adam.

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

      Steve

      After he acknowledged this epiphany, I informed him that Victoria Ashley, who may still be working with the STJ911 and/or the Journal of 9/11 Studies, is (or was) part of the Truth Action clique, and had behaved like a gatekeeper for years. I let him know that as website controller at STJ911, she failed to respond to my repeated requests to join the group (I have a collegiate Master’s degree so I figured I qualified), and that all of my many attempts to reason with her, speak with her, or engage her constructively had been met with stonewalling and/or failure to respond.

      However, he never responded to that one. I wonder how he is these days.

      *911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole#comment-243932

      1. Dear Mr. Syed,

        Interesting history report. You wrote:

        Ryan apparently deserves hero worship status because he’s the courageous employee who disputed his bosses at Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and got fired for it. Chandler apparently deserves hero worship because he’s the Joe Schmoe who got NIST to admit freefall. And of course, Richard Gage selflessly risks his life every single day to spread truth, so don’t you dare say one critical word about him!

        You continued:

        Nobody should be elevated to godhood, but discovering the NoC flight path is surely far more qualifying for such elevation than anything David Chandler has done.

        On one side of the scale, Mr. David Chandler’s (video) work at analyzing the free-fall stages in various WTC building destructions is being woefully underestimated by your statements. They alone could have, should have, would have (with a fair media) turned the understanding of the nation and world. On the other side of the scale, the same Mr. Chandler lent his name to some pretty sketchy “research papers” with Dr. Legge associated with the Pentagon. And more telling to me, his analysis of free-fall pulverization purposely stops short of hinting at the energy sources that could accomplish the deed (e.g., neutron nuclear DEWs) and dogs around conventional chemical explosives as being the primary mechanisms of destruction.

        Which brings me around to the complaints I have against Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, both of whom have two sides to their balancing scales. They worked really hard on the PR tour at convincing the world of the involvement of highly energic materials. Proof of their involvement alone could have, should have, would have (with a fair media) turned the understanding of the nation and world. But on the scale’s other side, these two have glazed over what mathematics reveals of their physics and logistics with respect to quantities of highly energic materials [with any combination of conventional chemical explosives] required to meet the diametrically opposed goals [e.g., observed outcomes] of (a) sudden and rapid pulverization and (b) long duration of under-rubble hot-spots. All of their PR takes a further beating (a) by the faulty assumptions and stilted nature of Dr. Jones’ “no 9/11 nukes” work and (b) by Prager’s analysis of the dust [that Dr. Jones did not do] proving fission ala a fission triggered fusion device, which a neutron nuclear DEW essentially is; the neutron device(s) would not have copious amounts of lingering radiation — except for the proven elevated tritium levels.

        I am grateful for the research efforts of all mentioned 9/11 truthers. But to follow any single individual’s beliefs to their wacky limits without question is to get yourself led around by the nose. Nuggets of truth must be mined, refined, and re-purposed.

        //

      2. Señor El Once,

        Again I must object to your defamation of Professor Jones. We shall not “debate” this issue on that perpetual carousel yet one more time here. But I do want to make it clear that I strongly disagree with your conclusions. My own assessment is that such conclusions are without merit.

        And as I fully expect your beancounter explosion of links that supposedly prove my inadequacies on this regard, let it be known that I have seen these dozens of times and they have no valid effect in this conversation.

        \\][//

      3. Dear Mr. Rogue,

        You did not read my posting closely enough (as is typical), because I went after Kevin Ryan ~and~ Dr. Jones for the farce they pulled individually and together with their nano-thermitic work. (The entire work isn’t a farce, but the gaps and the leaping to conclusions are.)

        And if you weren’t of such an advanced age and autodictat mindset that can’t be taught nuthin’ by nobody, you would have acknowledged a lot sooner the purposeful skew and spinning by Dr. Jones in his no-nukes & nano-thermitic work.

        But amaze me you do, Mr. Rogue, in your ability to sing and dance around the issues in Dr. Jones 9/11 papers, which high school math, physics, and chemistry clearly expose — but those subjects were bumped from your academic schedule from the JFK era in favor of art.

        Gee, the theme of several posts was the PR tours that various 9/11 leaders took before pulling a Fonzie and “jumping the shark.” You’ll be hard pressed to name a single 9/11 truther in the limelight who hasn’t been towed and manipulated to their own shark jumping area. And this goes for Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood.)

        If your postings were cowbells (ala “The Blue Oyster Cult” meets SNL), Christopher Walken (acting as record producer) would be telling you (acted by Will Farrell): “We need less of your cowbells.”

        // Less cowbells

      4. And something else about your cowbells, Mr. Rogue, you beat out the following old canard-ic rythm:

        Again I must object to your defamation of Professor Jones.

        I must object to your objection because it is unfounded.

        I did not defame Dr. Jones, but I did legitimately criticize Dr. Jones’ work. And I am defaming you, Mr. fookin’ no-nookin’ a$$hole Rogue.

        My, my, Mr. Rogue. To what do we owe the repetition of your “defamation” ploy? Smokin’ sum of that whacky-tabackie in your Cigs so that you don’t remember getting thrashed in the past for the exact SAME offense: your inability to distinguish between legitimate criticism of someone’s work and criticism of someone? Or maybe, genius artist that you are, your skin is a bit too thin and any criticism of YOUR WORK is equated in your feeble old mind to be a criticism of YOU, and this you’ve inappropriately extrapolated to everyone else?

        Maybe you, Mr. Rogue, should use this opportunity to set up an appointment with your doctor… Early detection of diminished mental faculties probably won’t improve anything that is diminishing with each COWBELL POST, but it may give you time to put your affairs in order before the clacker falls out of your cowbell and you’re sent to the pasture at the Soylent Green factory.

        For the benefit of lurker readers, Mr. Rogue’s coughed up hairballs about me “defaming Dr. Jones” won’t be found on this thread or any other. He knows this (in his more lucid moments.) If he continues with this spurious dinning cowbell charge, he better have a clacker in the form of URL links.

        Or he better STFU in lieu of being sounding brass, tickling cymbals… the very cowbell this forum could use LESS of.

        //

      5. Why, that was downright poetic Señor.

        And not a one-eyed pea in your pad.

        But you did fall prey to that “weakness” of making two posts…
        Why on earth don’t you think of EVERYTHING you want to say before posting??

        \\][//

      6. And so two for tea Señor,

        I notice that the only time you choose to address this blog is when you see an opening to give a sales pitch for your nookiedoodoo plop-tart. And without fail, this is what your post to Mr Syed ends up as.

        \\][//

      7. Dear Mr. Rogue,

        Yes, I did bring up neu nookiedoo, the one-trick pony that remains for me to ride as I try to circumscribe my passions and limit the internet time-suck that has distracted me from for-profit endeavors.

        And neutron nuclear DEW was brought up legitimately as per the context and provides much needed perspective on the scope of those involved in managing our perceptions.

        After all this time, all my repetition, and all the valid chinks exposed in Dr. Jones’ work, it is noteworthy that all your rusty cowbell clacker could ring up was unfounded and unsubstantiated defamation charges (again… ho-hum.)

        If you want to be fair to Truth, then you can’t go brushing aside the faulty assumptions, numerous misdirections, and the analysis not performed (e.g., of the dust) that are mixed into the foundation of your hero’s work.

        At this point in time, I am hard-pressed to name a single outspoken leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement who hasn’t in some ways compromised their ideals, or been manipulated, or been marginalized, or been forced to “jump the shark”, or been conned into limiting the scope of their inquiry for the sake of “concensus” and not offending. They’ve been played; we’ve been played.

        //

      8. Señor El Once,

        Let me make this very simple:

        Your attempt to prove that the WTC was a nuclear event — BECAUSE there was so little radiation detected, is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever read.

        And yes, you have had need to defame Jones in putting together your bullshit chowder.

        \\][//

      9. Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

        Let me make this very simple: Your attempt to prove that the WTC was a nuclear event — BECAUSE there was so little radiation detected, is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever read.

        Your efforts to make things “simple” involves you not using your rational mind.

        Chapter and verse has been provided under what conditions nuclear mechanism(s) could be deployed that (a) would not release large amounts of lingering radiation, (b) would release radiation in altered forms that deviate substantially from the Jones framing of fission or fusion thermonuclear devices, (c) would have the benefit of coordinated agencies to keep out independent researchers with measuring equipment and to scope-limit reports on measurements in a disingenuous manner.

        And yes, you have had need to defame Jones in putting together your bullshit chowder.

        Let me put this in a form that your simple mind will understand: Fuck you, Mr. Rogue, and your bullshit chowder about defamation of Dr. Jones.

        It could very well be that your definition of “defamation” differs from my definition. If criticism of Dr. Jones’ work casts him into a bad light, so be it, but it isn’t as if I’m calling him names or incompetent. In my opinion, the criticism I’ve had of his work could have been rectified and apologized for, in which event the bad light would have been no more.

        For lurker readers (and not for Mr. Rogue who ignores these facts in his bellahoo to dominate this forum):

        When Dr. Jones wrote his paper that (to the scientifically challenged) “reputiated” the use of nuclear weapons, he relied on a tritium report from a private agency working for the government, a report that had its own (valid) limited-scope, assumptions, bent, and skew. [It should be noted that Dr. Jones later laments about the slow-walking, incompleteness, and even blatant errors in other government reports, yet this tritium report is accepted by Dr. Jones unchallenged in any way.]

        The issue is that the bent & skew from this scope-limited tritium report makes it unsuitable to be used as by-near the sole authority regarding no 9/11 nukes. If you read & grok that report, their tritium measurements (a) were performed a few days to over a week later [after much delution from fire hoses and rain], (b) only measured from certain drainage points off of the WTC, (c) did not measure tritium at any of the hot-spots in a timely or systematic fashion, (d) stopped their already haphazard measurement of tritium when values were coming in at miniscule levels. A bent & skew there is that miniscule levels with respect to adverse health effects is one thing, but it is a completely other thing when those miniscule levels were at far-flung drainage measuring places 55 times greater than was expected and that even the hoop-jumping of the scope-limited tritium report could not explain in its wild-ass speculation about airplane exit signs, watches, and sites from weapons stored in certain buildings.

        At this point, we already have some fodder to defame Dr. Jones, because his reference to this tritium report ignored the context and blatant limitations of that report. For shame, for shame. But it doesn’t stop there.

        Nuclear physicist Dr. Jones did not analyze the dust or even tabulate the published measurements from others (like Mr. Jeff Prager did). Had Dr. Jones performed this fundamental task, as any nuclear physicists worth their salt (or not trying to be sneaky) would have, various elements found in correlated quantities would have been screaming that a fission reaction happened (ala fission-triggered fusion device.)

        And that is not all, Dr. Jones did not do; that is not all. Dr. Jones “discovers” energetic materials in his dust: nano-thermite (NT). Alas, the chemical properties of NT make it alone unsuitable to account for the brissance required for sudden pulverization. So Dr. Jones says much later that NT was likely used in combination with something like RDX. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones did not test the dust for OTHER things, like RDX… Neither did A&E for 9/11 Truth. [I suspect that whether or not tests were performed, the results would have been largely negative and thus leaving 9/11 neu nookiedoo still on the table.]

        Moving forward in Dr. Jones (and Mr. Ryan’s) propping up of NT, they write a paper that strongly suggests it may have accounted for certain spikes in the temperature and release of certain gases from the rubble pile. Unfortunately, NT (used in any combination with conventional explosives, like RDX) cannot explain the energy/fuel source that maintained the under-rubble hot-spots (between those spikes) for as long as they burned without resulting in absolutely ridiculous and obscene quantities of such chemical weapons being installed. Just this last October 2012, Dr. Jones admits that something else maintained those hot-spots (not just NT), yet no research or even speculation into what that something was.

        If this analysis of Dr. Jones’ work has further defaming elements, they might just be found in the slight of hand in the framing of Dr. Jones no-nukes argument. He uses incomplete and stilted radiation/tritium reports while at the same time writing about large thermonuclear devices. Surely Dr. Jones has heard of both “tactical nukes” (1960 Davey Crocket) and “neutron bombs” (1961 Big Ivan) [and all nuclear advancements since then to 2001], yet any verbiage that would lead a reader to contemplate such nuclear variants is blatantly missing from his work.

        We can bet that Mr. Rogue’s response is going to key off the fact that I call him “simple-minded” with respect to nukes and write “fuck you, Mr. Rogue” (because I know him so well.)

        However, if Mr. Rogue was applying the same critical thought to 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW as he does to the big powers-that-be conspiracy that is pawning us into a police state among other bad Agenda-21 side-effects (which is admittedly a gross over-simplification of Mr. Rogue’s words here and on COTO), he would grok that this fits the trend line, as does employing the services of a BYU nuclear physicist in 9/11 damage control.

        It is rather noteworthy that Mr. Rogue has issues with Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood (and others) being to Truth less-than- genuine, and then gives Dr. Jones not just a free pass for the proven instances of Dr. Jones being less-than-genuine in his stilted work, but also a rousing defense that ignores the issues and tries to frame the criticism of Dr. Jones’ work as a personal or defamation attack on the man.

        Honest evaluation of Dr. Jones’ 9/11 work does more to smear the man than anything I could or would write. Dr. Jones’ never having corrected the record while allowing misconceptions and misapplications of his work to propagate is what allows the defamation to raise its hydra-head.

        //

      10. Señor fookin’ nookin’ a$$hole in La La Land, with your mirage of meanings meandering into a circular feast:

        It is Ed Ward, Prager, Anonymous Physicist, Fetzer’s gang, including Morgan Reynolds and Wood; who are the frauds and charlatans in this instance, and of course you—yourself, who have joined in with this infamous cabal of knucklefuk krakerjax, in this long and tedious affair.

        If you are having an identity crisis at this point maxmixer, call mommy.

        EPA Tritium standard levels are not enforced by God Señor, landfill leach systems do not contain it. Therefor claiming that high levels are unaccountable for any other reason but a nuclear device is absurd. It is like saying murder is impossible because it is against the law.

        What you have is a 300 mile-long garden hose packed with bullshit.

        \\][//

      11. Surely it is well understood here that the EPA is just a subsidiary of corporatist industry; and as such their regulations are toothless. Therefor everything is polluted to hell, from GMO’s in the fields, to groundwater boiling with chemicals and biotics from landfills.
        The Tritium at WTC ground zero wasn’t from the towers in any large part, it is already in the groundwater. It is likely that every large metropolitan area with substantial industry within and without its area has the same sorts of pollution problems, which are hushed up and spun off with corporate PR. Postmodern industrial pollution has turned the whole planet into a cesspool.

        \\][//

      12. Dear Mr. Rogue,

        I suggest that you stick with areas that you have a genuine aptitude for, like art. As for science, your ability seems to be limited to what you can copy-and-paste from others. It clearly lacks personal understanding, otherwise you would grasp “applicability” (or lack thereof) to what you post.

        Case in point, you quote from the EPA:

        “A recently documented source of tritium in the environment is tritium exit signs that have been illegally disposed of in municipal landfills. Water, which seeps through the landfill, is contaminated with tritium from broken signs and can pass into water ways, carrying the tritium with it. Current treatment of landfill leachates do not remove tritium.”

        Whereas the above may be valid, it does ~not~ equate to items “illegally disposed of in municipal landfills” leaching back directly to the WTC on or after 9/11 and accounting for the published tritium measurements. In fact, the tritium was measured in drainage ~from~ the WTC, not ~to~ the WTC. (So you fail, Mr. Rogue, with the implications you make with this inapplicable quote.)

        Moreover, when that famed but stilted tritium report was trying to account for the potential sources for tritium at the WTC, they speculated that the sources were (a) the exit signs in aircraft that hit the towers, (b) sites of weapons stored at the WTC, and (c)_ watches and time pieces. They never once speculated about tritium leaching back from landfills. It should be noted that they, by their own admission, failed in their speculative efforts. But this was okay for them and their scope-limited efforts, because their concern was for tritium levels sufficient to impact human health. When their spotty and haphazard measurements were recording miniscule levels, they easily threw up their hands and said: “No need to measure any further, cuz these levels are so tiny and won’t make even a mouse sick.”

        Mr. Rogue goes on with his red herring argument:

        When I was researching all of the products and that Prager was pissing about, I found that all of them are a natural part of the environment. The balance of the natural arrangements have been dangerously altered by industrial pollution however.

        The WTC was not a Uranium mine. So even though Uranium is found in nature and the environment (e.g., Uranium mines), why was it — among other elements — found in the WTC dust?

        Of course, the real issue isn’t that a whole laundry list of “strange” elements (or industrial pollutants) were measured in the dust. The issue is that they were found in CORRELATED QUANTITIES.

        Mr. Rogue wasn’t to frame the discussion as: “Element A and element B are a natural part of the environment, so it should be no surprise when they are measured there.” However, when the analysis of the measurements always finds, say, “3 parts element A for every one part element B” and when the natural environment does not produce them in such correlated quantities, then the conclusion is that (a) something unnatural (or man-made) brought them together as such and (b) their combination had something to do with the destruction. Worse, the correlations take on a recipe, one used for nuclear devices.

        Mr. Rogue tries valiently to conflate points (tritium measurements with dust samples), such as contamination of the environment and what wind & rain & human activity would do. When collecting the dust samples, extra effort was made to locate pristine samples; their sampling methodology is all documented very well in the reports. As an example, they would skim off dust from an otherwise untouched window sill. Therefore, all of Mr. Rogue’s “La La Land” talk of contamination and leaching industrial pollution DOES NOT APPLY to the dust samples.

        Mr. Rogue writes:

        It is Ed Ward, Prager, Anonymous Physicist, Fetzer’s gang, including Morgan Reynolds and Wood; who are the frauds and charlatans in this instance…

        I do not disagree. Every single one of them has had issues in some part of their analysis, as would be expected for their PR tour. For example, Dr. Ward to this day keeps promoting “deep underground nukes”, when clearly the destructive devices were above ground in the towers. Dr. Wood keeps promoting “free energy from space” when “energy from nukes” would have been more relatively cheap and easy to come by, but she discounts. This is in addition to “the Hutchison Effect” that she gives too much PR. Dr. Fetzer has his unproven holograms. The Anonymous Physicist has many great points, but failed to make the leap to neutron bombs which is required to explain the quickly dissipating radiation levels.

        But every single one of these “frauds and charlatans” has had nuggets of truth that supported their case. Extract those and re-combine, and the story changes.

        As 9/11 Truthers, we can all laugh at the ludicrous nature of what 19 alleged Muslim-extremist hijackers did with mere box-cutters. Yeah, well, to those with some understanding of physics and logistics, any explanation of the decimation of the WTC that relies on exotic chemical explosives as the primary destructive means is just as ludicrous, because they cannot account for what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots (among other things like tritium and correlated elements in the dust.)

        Because Mr. Rogue is too scattered to complete a thought in a single posting, a second one tries to introduce the lie:

        The Tritium at WTC ground zero wasn’t from the towers in any large part, it is already in the groundwater.

        Okay, “lie” is a bit harsh. Indeed, Tritium is already in the groundwater and as Mr. Rogue later writes: “Postmodern industrial pollution has turned the whole planet into a cesspool.” I’ll even agree that “tritium wasn’t from the towers’ (content) in any large part” despite the song and dance from the original tritium report that tried to spin it as such.

        The “lies” from Mr. Rogue are (a) that the tritium measured after 9/11 was ALREADY at those measured levels and (b) that NO TRITIUM came from the towers, or more correctly, from the mechanisms within the towers that were involved in their decimation. Although Dr. Ward is a bit crazy, his comments about “measured tritium being 55 times greater than it should have been is a proven fact. Neutron nuclear DEW can explain it. Nano-thermite

        Mr. Rogue charges:

        … you—yourself, who have joined in with this infamous cabal of knucklefuk krakerjax…

        Nice inappropriate guilt-by-association smear, Mr. Rogue! Kudos! Your best argument yet! (Not.)

        Alas, you are the one that this forum should be worried about and the faulty PR that you spew in overbearing quantities from your limited understanding.

        Your hatred of me appears to be outmatched only by your hatred of being proven wrong. You’ve spent many months on a carousel of your making trying to brush off the copious amounts of evidence — data point after data point — that says 9/11 was nuclear. And if you were being truthful to yourself in seeing where this neutron nuclear DEW data point aligns with the trend line created by EVERYTHING ELSE you write on COTO & here about “the true nature of things”, then WTF? You’re not just being a clueless idiot; you’re being a purposeful a$$hole whose motives we’ll need to question for why you are here… in overbearing quantities.

        You ought to just let me make my sparse one-trick-pony comments without engaging me and while STFU-ing. When you engage me with re-hashed weak arguments (e.g., about industrial pollutants leaching back from far-away landfills to account for correlated quantities of elements that together spell “nuclear hijinx”), you lose and make the leap easier to make into suspecting your bullying dominance in this forum as something less than genuine “from a retired genius autodictat artist.”.

        And because you were the one who introduced this forum to “pincer attacks” and “controlled opposition”, your carousel engagement of Mr. AWright (a loving namesake for you, I know) begins to look more and more staged and fake. He, too, deserves the STFU treatment from you.

        //

      13. Aw poor Señor Mini-Zorro is upset and dumped his diaper..Lol

        ..there is no “debate” Señor, I simply point out your butt-cheese coated delirium, so spit on it and sin.

        Becquerel Crackers and cheese anyone?

        \\][//

  23. “Our disinformation program will be complete when everything the American public believes is false.” ~William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” – George Orwell
    . . . . .
    I am posting this here, as the last thread over is overfed and loading truncated:

    “[My staff] and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” –Connecticut Medical Examiner D. Wayne Carver II, MD, December 15, 2012 press conference.
    The assistant M.E., under Carver waw; Frank Evangelista was accused in April 2012 of committing perjury in Massachusetts in giving false testimony in a murder case. http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/M-E-facing-perjury-charges-staying-on-the-job-3456612.php
    Carver tendered his resignation in February 2012 (then inexplicably withdrew the resignation), it was because the office was hopelessly corrupted and incompetent.

    “His department also had its national accreditation downgraded by one agency and dropped by another, problems that Carver said would be rectified.”
    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/State-M-E-Carver-withdraws-his-resignation-3323521.php

    In his role as assistant to Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, Evangelista was paid $244,152 last year to perform autopsies on people who died under unusual or criminal circumstances. He has been arrested for perjury and is awaiting trial. The entire operation is corrupt!

    http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/02/23/pbs-defies-basic-journalistic-standards-to-push-sandy-hook-propaganda/

    \\][//

  24. Adam Ruff made an interesting point about how certain people in the movement are “elevated to godhood” because of their contributions. I couldn’t have said it better. Ryan apparently deserves hero worship status because he’s the courageous employee who disputed his bosses at Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and got fired for it. Chandler apparently deserves hero worship because he’s the Joe Schmoe who got NIST to admit freefall. And of course, Richard Gage selflessly risks his life every single day to spread truth, so don’t you dare say one critical word about him!

    Mr. Ruff also makes an excellent point that while Chandler getting NIST to admit freefall was commendable, it was merely the cherry on top with that issue. Everyone in the movement could already see with their own eyes that the building fell at freefall and were using video of it to wake people up. By contrast, investigators like CIT discovered something not previously known, namely how the flight path at the Pentagon, reported by witnesses, didn’t match the physical damage. Nobody should be elevated to godhood, but discovering the NoC flight path is surely far more qualifying for such elevation than anything David Chandler has done.

    Unfortunately, where CIT lacks skill is in getting their evidence to go viral. I’m not sure how to make a video go viral, but it needs to be done. For example, the YouTube of NSA has been uploaded since 2009 and still has less than 500,000 views. By contrast, the “Sandy Hook Exposed” video received 11,000,000 views in ONE WEEK! There has to be a reason for this. I have no idea what the reason is, specifically, but I do know that <500,000 viewings (some being from the same people, including myself right now when I went to check the view counter and gave it another "view" in the process) in 4 years is disappointing given how earth shattering the evidence is. If NSA had gone as viral, as fast, as the Sandy Hook Hoax videos, the "ripple effect" of the NoC evidence would have been so powerful that we would have long ago toasted a very firm, decisive victory against the detractor shills and possibly even the perps of 9/11 themselves.

    1. I think YT played a part in downplaying the video views Adam.

      While the Sandy Hook video contents got aired on MSM.

      NSA never even made it on to Alex Jones. Ventura snubbed it (and went for the missile crap).

      Controversy is needed. But when the same controversy is tagged by expert wordsmiths who follow the discussion all over the net and want nothing more than to confuse and bore onlookers to death (Good, Hill, Snowcrash, etc), the argument appears circular and repetitive.

      The NOC information has been hemmed in, twisted and muddied from day ONE.

      I suppose that’s why I go into JREF from time to time to “poke the hornet nest” just to get 10 or 20000 more hits on the information. We have to do it the hard way mate!

    2. @Adam Syed
      The problem with CIT and the conclusions they promote is that they are not logically arrived at. If people have convincing evidence they should be able to convince people because it’s the evidence that convinces people not how it’s presented or if it ‘goes viral’ or whatever. Videos or kittens falling into baskets can go viral. Convincing evidence should convince people. The trouble with the CIT people is that they are so convinced by their own arguments that they can’t seem to imagine that anyone else could not be convinced by them. The only reasons they seem to be able to come up with as to why other people disagree with them is that they are either agents trying to obfuscate their evidence, or they are jealous, or victims of group-think etc., everything except that they might not be right. This just feeds back into the idea that they are right – why else would people be attacking them? -and so it goes on.

      1. Wright,

        It is simply impossible that the damage to the Pentagon could have been caused by an aircraft coming in at the angle of the official flight path. End of story, all the other evidence is just cherries on top.

        You claim:
        >”If people have convincing evidence they should be able to convince people because it’s the evidence that convinces people not how it’s presented”…

        But YOU have been presented convincing evidence throughout your entire tenure here on this blog, and yet deny it and refuse to be convinced because you prefer your own delusions. There can be nothing more clear than that the official story of 9/11 is an absurdity from top to bottom. Every aspect of it is bullshit through and through, and all you are capable of here is repeating that official bullshit. You are an obvious stooge for fraudulent authority. And as such complicit in the ongoing war crimes committed by this tyrannical empire built on deceit.

        \\][//

      2. And the OCT on the Pentagon is airtight, right?
        @Wright

        See if you can answer two questions on the Pentagon damage and the ASCE Report on a “yes/no” basis

        Did the ASCE Report wrongly label Column 18AA?

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807805

        Was the ASCE Report at a loss to explain the lack of damage to the facade by the wingtips and vertical stabilizer?

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807806

        I’ve many more but I just want to see your logic.

      3. A follow up on what Willy rightly said about Wright.

        Wright says..

        >”If people have convincing evidence they should be able to convince people because it’s the evidence that convinces people not how it’s presented”…

        Not only 9/11, but almost every controversial event handled by governments and their puppets are nothing but “presentations” rolled out by the whore media, padded out by government paid “scientists” and yes men.

        Any time you want to discuss TWA800 and the OKC bombing John Doe 2 (and 3) and how that pile of crap was “presented” and apparently swallowed by the likes of you, let me know.

        When it gets into the nitty gritty, and I mean deep down analysis borne from years of countering the lies, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, your posturing is as empty as your argument. That’s why you’ll always run away from real evidence.

        Man up. Let’s talk about evidence.

      4. Agent Wright,

        You are so ignorant that you do not see the cynical sarcasm of Western Intelligence naming the new 21st century boogeyman; al Qaeda…which means in street Arabic, “the western toilet”. Hahahahaha….oh yes.

        You are as stupid as the Arab jihadists who continue to play their parts in this phony “war on terror”.

        You should be well aware that your preposterous bullshit isn’t going to fly here.
        After encountering you on 9/11 threads for at least the last five years, you have yet to learn the most simple aspects of the 9/11 fraud…nothing. Now that sir, is idiocy.

        \\][//

  25. So now the Gossip Columnists here say that; Hufschmid, Kevin Ryan, and perhaps Richard Gage should be dethroned and that CIT is now elevated to godhood.

    Frank Brutal steps in and says, “get your heads out of yesterday’s ass, join the present moment {which is after all close to twelve years beyond now} — and catch a frickin’ clue.

    . . . . .
    The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.

    The DOJ memo states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/doj-memo-outlaw-and-confiscate-all-guns.html
    . . . . .
    Also this:

    Why The Banking Elite Want Riots in America
    Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones – February 11, 2013

    Every indication clearly suggests that authorities in the United States are preparing for widespread civil unrest. This trend has not emerged by accident – it is part of a tried and tested method used by the banking elite to seize control of nations, strip them of their assets, and absorb them into the new world order.

    There is a crucial economic imperative as to why the elite is seeking to engineer and exploit social unrest.

    As respected investigative reporter Greg Palast exposed in 2001, the global banking elite, namely the World Bank and the IMF, have honed a technique that has allowed them to asset-strip numerous other countries in the past – that technique has come to be known at the “IMF riot.”

    In April 2001, Palast obtained leaked World Bank documents that outlined a four step process on how to loot nations of their wealth and infrastructure, placing control of resources into the hands of the banking elite.

    One of the final steps of the process, the “IMF riot,” detailed how the elite would plan for mass civil unrest ahead of time that would have the effect of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies.
    . . . . .
    Mr Brutal also reminded me that this is not a popularity contest here, when he advised that I post this comment.

    So be it.

    \\][//

  26. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
    . . . . . .
    Now some News:

    New anti-piracy system will hit U.S. Internet users next week February 24, 2013

    So much for the 2nd Amendment, now we will see what they are going to do with the 1st.
    As we all should know, the Powers that Be have been devising ways to blunt free speech on the web. So, we must ask ourselves, what is this euphemism “anti-piracy” really going to mean upon application.

    Some of the warning signs are in debates already held in Congress and the various “think tanks” wherein it is noted that much of the material on the blogsphere is reposted articles, and as such can be defined [if they so wish] as “piracy”. And it is blatantly obvious that they do, so wish.

    Just remember, it doesn’t matter what the law says, what matters is who interprets that law.

    \\][//

  27. So now the Gossip Columnists here say that; Hufschmid, Kevin Ryan, and perhaps Richard Gage should be dethroned and that CIT is now elevated to godhood.

    Um, no. I never said that.

    And this thread is mainly about the Pentagon and what would have been a presentation showing evidence of a faked plane crash.

    1. Sitting here having a cuppa java and a ciggie at FRANK BRUTAL’S BAR AND GRILL.

      I look across the table at Frank {a close friend of mine} and I notice “No Flies on Frank”..
      He glances up and says the word “subtext”…hmm??

      I yank your chain to remind it is still attached to your collar.

      “This thread is about….” …Eanie meany miney moe…my mommy told me to pick this very best one”

      Thank you again Mr Syed, for some more of your marvelous advice.

      \\][//

  28. It is my understanding that above all, freedom of speech is held in high regard on blogs dealing with sociopolitics, when they are administered justly. {as I believe this one is}

    The issue then boils down to the particulars of that speech – candid, or candied?

    We each have our distinct tastes when it comes to that choice.

    \\][//

  29. THE RISE OF THE DRONES

    It reads like something from George Lucas’ STARWARS doesn’t it? No, this is not something from a universe far far away. This is today USA.

    It’s not fantasy, it is from DARPA, and is the beginning of the future wars, the era of ‘The Terminator’. Under the strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance the entire planet is the battlefield. Each and every one of us – YOU are on the front line in this war against humanity.

    \\][//

  30. Supreme Court blocks challenge to anti-terrorism law 26 Feb 2013
    “One of the most controversial anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks may be beyond normal judicial review, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. In a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative justices ruled that lawyers, journalists, human rights activists and others lacked standing to challenge a law passed in 2008 that increases the government’s ability to intercept international communications.”

    Right — that much is OBVIOUS: NO ONE has “standing” to challenge ANYTHING the so-called “government” does. And THAT is the very definition of TYRANNY.

    \\][//

    1. Yes it is absolute tyranny and might I also add that the tyrants have granted themselves immunity from many if not all of the tyrannical measures they have implimented on us. They are not subjected to TSA grope and rape checkpoints. They are not subject to insider trading laws and can therefore steal and pillage with impunity.

      1. Yes Mr Ruff,

        Amerika is saddled with a two tiered “legal system” – a social contract analogous to National Socialist Germany: Those who write the laws are above the laws.
        And the PATRIOT Act, actually bearing such textual similarities as to almost be seen as plagiarized from the Enabling Act passed after the Reichstag Fire.

        But this situation has been so for generations covertly – what has changed is that it is so overt now. Which is all due to how effective the PR enchantment has become in putting the masses into trance.

        The sad fact is that widgets like Agent Wright are in the vast majority here. Which means a rocky road ahead…especially when the petro-dollar finally bursts in flames.

        “How long? Not long; For ye reap what ye sow..”

        \\][//

      2. While I agree that we do not have long before we are all faced with the reality of our situation I do not think stooges such as A.Wright are in the majority. Yes there are a lot of entranced people out there but they actually do not make the situation any worse than it is because they are not involved on either side of the struggle. My point is they literally are a herd of sheep who happen to be in the middle of the battlefield. They do not affect the outcome of the battle one way or the other they are just there milling around.

        The real battle is taking place between the actors who are implimenting the tyranny and the small percentage of us who are aware of what is happening and are actively resisting it. Although we are only a small percentage of the population, I estimate around 2% to 3%, we still vastly outnumber and outmatch the bad guys. We simply have to realize that the herd of sheep is not on their side or our side, they are not involved. This reality lifts a lot of weight from us if you think about it because what we tend to do is count the sheeple as being against us which makes the opponent appear to have the upper hand. They don’t have the upper hand, we do. The sheep are simply going to sit there and go BAAAAAAHHH BAAH BAAHHHH while the battle is fought.

        The good news is that even if we are only 2% of the population that adds up to over 6 million awake alert and most importantly smart people committed to defeating this tyranny. That was roughly the same percentage of people involved in fighting the revolutionary war by the way and we won that war as you well know. We will win this war too because the sleeping giant, the 2%, is mobilizing now and fully awake. The sheeple are just observers and they will follow whoever emerges as the winner of this battle like sheep do.

  31. All we 2% need to do is lead the way with some good strategy to defeat the NWO. They have glaring weaknesses you know such as their dependence on our cooperation to pay taxes for example. We actually have them by the juggular right there if you think about it. We simply stop paying them. It is not that hard any more to impliment a good old fashioned tax revolt simply because the bad guys have milked most of us dry already and we couldn’t pay them any more if we wanted to. They are about to experience a massive shortage of cash regardless if we the 2% organize the effort or not. If we were to organize the effort and focus it like say these people are: http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php Then look out NWO you are in for a rough ride.

    I quote from the truth attack home page:

    “Dare to look behind the Wizard’s curtain and you’ll discover the “Great and Powerful Income Tax” is a monumental fraud. Cleverly built over decades amid the swamp of a single misunderstood word (“income”) not to mention boxcars of false data heaped on school children, what your “income” actually IS — as guaranteed by the US Constitution — and what you think it is, are two separate things. Read on as Attorney Tom Cryer delivers you out of the IRS catecombs, toward a deeper appreciation of your own cherished freedoms and economic rights.”

    1. Yo Mr Ruff,

      I actually agree with this analysis you have put forward. I have in fact made such an argument forth myself elsewhere.

      Yea the sheep will be milling around ‘bahing’ for sure, quite a few of them milling about behind barbed wire too.

      I do see victory for Liberty as the eventual outcome, like you. It is yet going to be one hell of a struggle.

      Viva Liberty.

      \\][//

  32. “A recently documented source of tritium in the environment is tritium exit signs that have been illegally disposed of in municipal landfills. Water, which seeps through the landfill, is contaminated with tritium from broken signs and can pass into water ways, carrying the tritium with it. Current treatment of landfill leachates do not remove tritium.”
    http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.html

    When I was researching all of the products and that Prager was pissing about, I found that all of them are a natural part of the environment. The balance of the natural arrangements have been dangerously altered by industrial pollution however. Putting the WTC remains under a microscope made that obvious, as well as explaining the dust from the towers in particular. These are two separate issues that are difficult to parse – the actual pre-event environment and the added particulates and materials from the event itself.

    The WTC dust itself is identifiable by particular markers [Loy], but once this material has been contaminated by mixing with the set environment__especially when mixed in water, it is no longer the pristine product of the 9/11 event. Wind and rain and human responder activity would have a fairly quick effect on this situation. Nothing is frozen in time!!

    \\][//

  33. It would probably benefit the readership to understand the truly minuscule amount of radiation that a Becquerel is Señor el Ploptart,

    Would you like to make that presentation, or shall I?

    \\][//

    1. Mr. Rogue writes:

      It would probably benefit the readership to understand the truly minuscule amount of radiation that a Becquerel is Señor el Ploptart. Would you like to make that presentation, or shall I?

      “Relative,” Mr. Rogue. It is all “relative,” and that is where the emphasis should be.

      Becquerel is indeed tiny. Tritium in such amounts is determined by the EPA to be well below their thresholds of what is considered a health risk. This is why those who produced the 9/11 tritium report STOPPED taking more measurements when what they were measuring was consistently coming up at benign levels to human health. This is also a tact used by Dr. Jones to dismiss tritium measurements. “Oh, so teeney tiny small; a flea wouldn’t get sick from it.”

      Here’s an analogy. Imagine that your daily habit was to walk down the street with your head down looking for stray lucky pennies, and on regular days you’d find one, which fit neatly in your Levi’s watch pocket. Then 9/11 happened and when you went looking for your stray lucky penny, instead of one, you found 55 in a pile.

      The argument that Mr. Rogue, Dr. Jones, and the authors of the tritium report make is that, whether 1 penny or 55 pennies, you can’t buy shit. It won’t get you a cup of coffee, a candy bar, or a can of pop. It was hardly worth your time to stop and pick them up. Forget about them. They are insignificant when contemplating what can be purchased.

      Given that your daily habit tasks you with finding your lucky penny, the counter-argument is that finding 55 pennies in a pile instead of 1 is life-changing. They no longer fit into your Levi’s watch pocket. They consume the whole front pocket of your jeans. They weigh you down a little bit and jangle so much when you walk, your thigh feels bruised. They are significant regardless of what can or cannot be purchased with them.

      More importantly, where did those extra 54 pennies come from?

      In conclusion, I find Mr. Rogue’s closing arguments so profound, so meaningful, so succinct, and so convincing (not), I just had to highlight them again.

      Aw poor Señor Mini-Zorro is upset and dumped his diaper..Lol ..there is no “debate” Señor, I simply point out your butt-cheese coated delirium, so spit on it and sin. Becquerel Crackers and cheese anyone?

      //

      1. > “This is why those who produced the 9/11 tritium report STOPPED taking more measurements when what they were measuring was consistently coming up at benign levels to human health.”~Señor Mini-Zorro

        So we see that Señor now claims to read minds…Lol

        A TRILLIONTH !!

        A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively.
        http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf

        A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity. Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb.
        Tritium levels at WTC were in the Billionth of a curie range.
        Pretty simple, in the Billionth of a curie range – verses – Millions of curies of tritium, in fact equals a Trillionth of what would be found in a nuclear reaction.

        A TRILLIONTH !!

        So even at 55 times the normal count as claimed by Ed Ward; that is still a Trillionth of what would be found in a nuclear reaction. The amount of Tritium is simply trivial and utterly inconsequential.

        Pointing to the Tritium level as a smoky gun for a nuclear powered event at the WTC is in fact grotesquely preposterous. One might as well postulate that the towers were blown-up by Voodoo.

        \\][//

      2. “benign levels to human health”~Sinyor Oonciewooncie

        “Benign” means; ‘good’, adj. |[< L. benignus, 'good', 'good natured' 'kindly' 'favorable', etc, etc…

        Surely thou meant otherwise wiseguy.

        \\][//

  34. After studying monetary history, I am in favor of a totally Fiat system of money, just like the original Colonial Script and the Civil War Greenback. No metallic backing whatsoever. Silver coin would be good for “change”.

    The problem with Gold is that it has been horded by the Banking Cabal. Any attachment to a currency thus would fall back to their favor.

    Study the History of Money — it is always just a state of mind, and agreement; and essentially an extension of Barter.

    Metals will always have ‘worth’ as useful in industry. But as an exchange medium it turns into a basis for control and the medium for usury.

    \\][//

  35. Analogies:

    Say you are on an Internet blog faced with an overwhelming argument against a case that you are too stupid to give up…???

    What is the answer to get out of that bind?

    Why, an ANALOGY!
    It matters not whether it makes any sense, it is a made-up story to fit the needs of a rhetorical moment. This is why Fetzer was so fond of analogies…until one took him down in flames.

    So say, you find a penny in a knapsack carried by a migrant riding a camel in Pasadena, and the cops stop you for speeding – do you walk to school or carry a lunch? Maybe just complain about bruised thighs and return them to the Colonel…

    \\][//

  36. “There are no other known sources of tritium in industrial or consumer products that would cause elevated levels of trutium in landful leachate. Thus it is apparent that tritium exit signs, which contain up to 25 curies, or 25,000,000,000,000 picocuries {pCi} of tritium, are entering landfills via municipal or residual waste streams. A single exit sign has the potential to cause the tritium levels observed.”~2004 Report

    That is 25 TRILLION picocuries {pCi} in ONE TRITIUM EXIT SIGN.

    25 TRILLION picocuries {pCi} in ONE TRITIUM EXIT SIGN.

    http://www.dep.state.pa.us/brp/Radiation_Control_Division/Tritium.htm

    25 TRILLION picocuries {pCi} in ONE TRITIUM EXIT SIGN.

    1 picocurie (pCi) = 37 millibecquerel (mBq)
    [milli (m) 0.001 = 10^-3 = 1 thousandth]

    \\][//

  37. O’ some may say I am kicking a dead horse. This is not so. Sinyor’s hobby horse was never alive to begin with. It is all in his imagination, a delusion of delirious suppositions, and preposterous stirrings of yacky oinks from charlatan party clowns in drag. Nothing but potato peals slick and turning black in an old trash bag.
    The mighty steed “Tritium” turned out to be a plastic horse head on a stick. Putting his full weight on it, the stick broke and Sinyor’s ass hit the tiles.
    He wants a pass? He wants me to shut the fuck up? Maybe a spin on his uranium pony this time? No dice, the funeral procession for “high’o’tritium” has moved beyond the graveyard into the twilight. We set a stone with no epitaph. Let the prince of braggarts weep alone.

    \\][//

  38. Here we see Mr. Rogue three-to-one spinning his wheels and flooding this forum:

    March 1, 2013 – 3:27 pm
    March 1, 2013 – 3:53 pm
    March 2, 2013 – 6:25 pm

    Mr. Rogue claims that the following passage from me is an example of me being able to read minds:

    This is why those who produced the 9/11 tritium report STOPPED taking more measurements when what they were measuring was consistently coming up at benign levels to human health.

    In actual fact, the above is an example of me “being able to read THE REPORT (and understand it and remember it)”, while at the same time demonstrating that Mr. Rogue did ~not~ do the same.

    Mr. Rogue then tries to make hay out of the word “benign”, that I correctly understood and applied. He gets all bent out of shape with “A TRILLIONTH!!!” He is purposely placing emphasis where it does not belong when putting the 9/11 evidence into context.

    My analogy with the pennies from March 1, 2013 – 12:59 pm evidently didn’t make things clear to Mr. Rogue, nor when I said the important point is “relative”, as in:

    Relative to what they expected to measure (1 penny) for background tritium, they measured 55 times that amount (55 pennies.) These enhanced levels are benign with respect to human health (neither 1 penny nor 55 pennies are going to buy you a can of Coke), yet still they require an explanation and source.

    The tritium report admitted failure in its speculation as to the source, because their mathematical models did not match historical trends, and were based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding potential sources (e.g., air craft exit signs, gun weapon sites, time pieces) and their original distribution in the towers that could lead to the measured outcome.

    Mr. Rogue, in his ignorance and stupidity, tries to do that report one better by postulating that tritium from far-off landfills leached back into the WTC and account for the elevated levels. [In my previous postings, I purposely neglected to mention that elevated tritium levels were measured downwind from the towers and were taken from plant samples that would have absorbed it from the fallout from the WTC dust clouds.]

    What was important for the PR produced for public consumption regardless of whether or not the agency (or Mr. Rogue) could account for the tritium source was that these enhanced levels were still benign to human health.

    But what is important when trying to determine the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction is that elevated tritium levels is a data point that cannot and should not be brushed away, as Mr. Rogue attempts with this:

    Pointing to the Tritium level as a smoky gun for a nuclear powered event at the WTC is in fact grotesquely preposterous. One might as well postulate that the towers were blown-up by Voodoo.

    Mr. Rogue is welcome to postulate that “the towers were blown-up by Voodoo.”

    You see, other valid data points to a nuclear powered event at the WTC include:

    – Analysis of the dust proving fission.
    – The energetic nature of the destruction.
    – The duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
    – The draconian secrecy that swept over the WTC that punished all unauthorized photography or measurements.
    – Likely configuration of such nuclear devices (neutron bombs).
    UNLIKELY implementation by chemical explosive means due to the massive logistics task that would have been undertaken in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a holiday prior to 9/11. Also, that such chemical explosive cannot explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
    – First Responder Ailments resembling that of Hiroshima.
    – The song-and-dance by agencies to spin the evidence.
    – The song-and-dance by Professor Jones to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement.
    – …

    I encourage Mr. Rogue not to engage me in this discussion any more, or rather any more, period. He is proves himself a liar, a cheat, and an agent by being unwilling or unable to acknowledge true cause-and-effect as he continues to provide lip-service to prevent revelation of means-and-methods: the great shocker that the US military has tactical nukes that do not produce large amounts of lingering radiation. Mr. Rogue sullies the other words of wisdom with which he floods this forum with.

    //

    1. “The tritium report admitted failure in its speculation as to the source, because their mathematical models did not match historical trends, and were based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding potential sources (e.g., air craft exit signs, gun weapon sites, time pieces) and their original distribution in the towers that could lead to the measured outcome.”~Sinyor el yocto-brain
      . . . . . . .
      Sinyor claims that the report “admitted failure” and then has the gall to use the word “unsubstantiated” while feathering his cock-pit with preposterous and truly unsubstantiated claims.

      From Said Report:
      “It was determined by the Federal Aviation Administration, that Boeing 767 Serial Number 21873, operated by the United Airlines, Tail Number 767-222 N612UA, was delivered in February, 1983 with 43{.2} Ci of tritium in emergency EXIT signs and handles (Sabatini, 2002). The 43{.2} Ci of tritium is contained in 4 emergency EXIT signs (10 Ci each) and 4 emergency slide/raft handles (0.8 Ci each). The same activity of tritium was present upon April, 1987 delivery of a second Boeing 767 Serial number 22322, Tail Number 767-223ER N334AA, operated by the American Airlines. Since neither of these aircraft were modified after their delivery (Sabatini, 2002; Cashdollar, 2002), the total activity from the aircraft was 34{.3} Ci at the time of attack, accounting for [the]radioactive decay of tritium [was accounted for].
      Weaponry was another likely source of tritium. As described in Section 1, several federal and state law enforcement agencies were housed at WTC, in buildings 6 and 7. ATF had two vaults filled with tactical weapons and guns (Miller, 2001; WPVI, 2001; Gardiner and Hurtado, 2001; note: the ATF vaults were in WTC 6, where our sequences 6,7 were measured).
      It would take only 20 weapons destroyed to obtain approximately 1 Ci of tritium (Section 4).”
      . . . . .
      And as a note of FACT, I did indeed read and understand the report itself as well as applicable information surrounding the issue. The report actually says:

      “We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.”~Paul Lioy et al.

      These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC.

      I have also studied the charts and product amounts in this report that are conflated groundlessly by Prager, Deagle, Ward, and others to suggest substances such as strontium were isotopic, when they were not. The nuclear assertion as to the destruction of WTC is in fact manufactured entirely out of unsubstantiated twisting of the actual data.
      . . . . .
      Having gone through this futile routine with Sinyor el Fruitcake over and again for more than a year now. I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now. And I encourage Sinyor Slapshtick to continue his raving mad dialogs, as I agree with Ted Nugent who said:

      “I don’t mind it when stupid people say stupid things. Stupid people should be encouraged to say stupid things, that way we always know who the stupid people are.”

      So go on flappin’ your yapper Sinyor, be my guest.

      \\][//

  39. I do have one more comment for the readership of this forum concerning Señor El Once,

    As I began this exchange with him saying, that he is indeed: Arguing that Lack of appropriate radiation is Proof of a nuclear device used at WTC. And I point out that this is grotesquely preposterous ie: ‘Lack of proof is proof’.

    TRITIUM STANDARD
    United States: 740 Bq/L or 20,000 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) (Safe Drinking Water Act)
    >Ed Ward*
    *55 x 740 = 40,700 Bq = 0.000000001 Ci a ten millionth of a Curie.
    An astronomically minuscule amount of radiation.

    \\]i[//

  40. And one more as well, just to flip out the beancounter’s skull into tabulating my much too numerous postings:
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` `
    >“Dr. Jones is a fraud.”~Prager
    . . . . . .
    And this is the real motive behind Prager’s efforts.

    Just like Wood, Reynolds, Fetzer, Señor el Kabong, Ward, Deagle, and others pushing these New Wave 9/11 theories: it is the attempted character assassination of Prof. Jones.

    Why?

    To bury this – The Smoking Gun:

    “The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.”~Prof. Jones
    . . . . .
    Goodgawdy’all !!

    So let’s get back to the future – Now – it has been more than 12 frackin’ years.
    \\][//

  41. TYRANNALUDI: ‘The Game of Tyranny’ – * – MONDO CARNE: ‘World of Meat’

    And the Law: ‘Might is Right’ and it’s adjunct, ‘The Ends Justify the Means’
    This credo is also called ‘Realpolitik’.

    I propose that it is in the nature of the quest for Truth to grasp the need of understanding the enemy of humankind. Is not the obvious next page for the ‘Truth Movement’ to gain this understanding as deeply as possible?

    That which is ‘Right’ is a moral question answered by reason, not ‘might’. Reason claims Liberty as ‘Right’ and sees Life, and reason knows “Might” as the path to mordancy; Death. Reason also knows that ‘Means’ define ‘Ends’ as proximate cause. And it is thus revealed that the game of tyranny is the lie of predators with no moral convictions of any sane caliber.

    This dog eat dog world, where one is so likely to be eaten by these dogs, is the very result of these dogs attaining the seats of political power, it is the world of ‘meat’ and the purely material things that they have engineered. This ‘world’ has been created and sold by deceit by mad despotic maniacs.

    Do we naively see this view as ‘cynical’? Or do we face what are the open facts and recognize what is really before us?

    The clock is ticking…

    \\][//

  42. Oh goodie. Mr. Rogue has lost so badly, he has upped his responses from three-to-one to four-to-one.

    March 1, 2013 – 3:41 pm
    March 3, 2013 – 1:31 am
    March 3, 2013 – 1:34 pm
    March 3, 2013 – 1:58 pm

    The time stamps do not tell the whole story, because they were not published until after my March 3, 2013 – 11:06 am, but they demonstrate an absolute eifer on the part of Agent Rogue to not only kick up shit but to get in the last word, and to control the discussion, the forum, and the PR.

    The second one (@1:31 am) is such is such a gem in proving himself a cheat by not addressing anything specific but attempting to frame me as crazy while also poking fun at my name. Too funny! After proclaiming:

    He wants … Maybe a spin on his uranium pony this time? No dice, the funeral procession for “high’o’tritium” has moved beyond the graveyard into the twilight.

    Twelve hours and three minutes after penning such a wonderful eulogy, Mr. Rogue becomes a liar with his subsequent March 3 postings that go to the graveyard and resurrect the dead uranium pony.

    I called Mr. Rogue a liar, a cheat, and agent, and I stand by that assessment.

    Here’s another great example of Mr. Rogue being all three. In the pincer discussions with Dr. Fetzer who argued that only holograms could have flown the speeds of the WTC planes, Mr. Rogue legitimately countered that the aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft, because they were souped-up models with obvious enhancements to their engines, wings, and computer-controlled accuracy which would then enable them to achieve some of the feats that Dr. Fetzer claimed was impossible of the alledged commercial aircraft. [I called them “drone missiles with the lipstick of commercial plane,” but let’s not go there.]

    The point is that here Mr. Rogue was, arguing as if his life dependent on it in a very overbearing and obnoxious manner with Dr. Fetzer, and stating that the WTC planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft. But now when it comes to the tritium discussion, he backpeddles and is using a [faulty] government report that states how much tritium is in the exit signs of the alleged commercial aircraft. Hello-ooooo! Drones pilots don’t need to stinkin’ exit signs, Mr. Rogue!

    And even when we entertain that the aircraft were souped-up Boeing 767 that left the exit signs in tact, the authors of the tritium report admitted failure in their mathematical models to explain how that tritium would disperse and be account for — not at the towers’ craters — but at drainage points from the WTC. Thus, they reached for other speculative sources (weapons and time pieces) without specifics on where those weapons were at the time of decimation and how they could account for the distribution of tritium. The whole tritium report started with a hypothesis regarding speculating what could have causes elevated tritium levels. They failed to answer that hypothesis but concluded it didn’t matter, “cuz the tritium levels were so small, anyway. If it don’t impact health, who freakin’ cares?”

    I stand by my statement:

    The tritium report admitted failure in its speculation as to the source, because their mathematical models did not match historical trends, and were based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding potential sources (e.g., air craft exit signs, gun weapon sites, time pieces) and their original distribution in the towers that could lead to the measured outcome.

    Mr. Rogue continues with cutting-and-pasting of inapplicable passages (from unreliable government sources) to support his mere “belief” in no-nookie. (Having passed through a second round of chemtrail enduced ailments and fever in two weeks) I’m too lazy today to post the links to my exact words elsewhere in this forum that address Mr. Rogue’s lame-ass re-hash. Suffice it to say, neutron nuclear DEW explains why radiation of all forms would be low. Still, Mr. Rogue boldly states:

    These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC.

    Neutron nuclear DEW, neu nookiedoo, Mr. Rogue. It doesn’t rule them out. And you would know this if you paid attention to what Dr. Jones did ~not~ address in even the slightest fashion in his no-nukes paper. Talk about an omission of gigantic proportions!

    Because Agent Rogue’s superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate, he gives us this PR tour:

    The nuclear assertion as to the destruction of WTC is in fact manufactured entirely out of unsubstantiated twisting of the actual data.

    The only problem with this is that if neu nookiedoo didn’t do the WTC, the alternative explanation that Mr. Rogue champions — Nano-thermite with RDX and lots of other chemical explosives — completely boggles the mind with respect to the logistics just to get pulverization, let alone several weaks of under-rubble hot-spots. Don’t make no Occam Razor sense!

    Liar, cheat, and Agent that Mr. Rogue is, he has to come back with:

    Arguing that Lack of appropriate radiation is Proof of a nuclear device used at WTC. And I point out that this is grotesquely preposterous ie: ‘Lack of proof is proof’.

    Such a fine example of those three traits in Mr. Rogue. “Lack of appropriate radiation” implies “no radiation.” This has never been my argument. And as for “appropriate radiation”, one needs to understand nuclear weapons to then make the call for what is appropriate or not. Mr. Rogue is always grasping at LARGE fission devices and LARGE fusion devices (and ignoring fission-triggered fusion devices configured as neutron devices and SMALL.) Were he not a liar, a cheat, and an agent, Mr. Rogue would have seen the light a long time ago.

    An analogy was given for when a quantity of something insignificant (pennies) becomes significant (55 of them in your front pocket) despite the purchasing power of such remaining insignificant. So it is with tritium radiation; the measured amounts were insignificant for human health impacts but remain significant compared to where they should have been and when understanding what destroyed the WTC.

    Agent Rogue, where’s your little pincer buddy Mr. AWright? You need him to rescue you about now in some pointless discussion to validate your truther credentials.

    Please keep with your already broken promise:

    I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now.

  43. “I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now.”~Señor El Canker

    Ah but this is another ride, this “agent” bullshit again, and this after a series of baseless and groundless rhetorical allegations backed up by hot air. It is simply baseless defamation as a last line of futile defense of a proposition that there is zero evidence for.

    I also posits that no one cares. I don’t think a soul is reading this blog since this BS nuke/DEW topic came up…

    I register this at this time as my response and complaint, as there is nothing to be said to Señor, who is simply spitting vile venom like a cornered snake.

    \\][//

      1. Well then Al,

        I am pleasantly surprised to hear that from you. At least someone likes the music of a Calliope, the smell of cheeseparing and greasepaint – and can imagine the planets in those colored balloons.

        I always wanted to write…well, in fact I have always written, by Whitten!..but for the bulk of my years I wrote private journals. By hand, ink on real paper, in real bound books. These are real treasures to me now. Fifty some-odd year collection, which rivals my library of printed works by other authors.

        But, good-heavens! To have an audience, a readership!! That brings out my rarely used exclamation points, sighs…and yes, a tear of joy.

        So to slip in a word about “Drone Pilots” and their lack of need of exit lights and pathways…assuming the lack of these things is no more a banking surety than a thought of impurity. The only thing one can take to the bank is that there was not radiation TO SPEAK OF in the aftermath of damning dawn. And that is the truth in this song.

        Always nice to hear from you Al.

        ~Willy
        \\][//

  44. I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent… each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is.

    Here’s his latest lie. Agent Rogue attributes to me a quote & a broken-promise that is his very own: “I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now.” Actually, it is sort of a double lie. The first is that he would attribute it to me when my usage of it clearly shows it belonging to Agent Rogue, and he was too stupid to recognize his own words nicely formatted as a quote with a gentle introduction of it being his words. The second lie is him continuing to break the promise of those very words of his; he has yet to get off the carousel.

    As for the “agent bullshit,” Mr. Rogue should do some beancounting to find out what his tally out of 142 (so far) is. Seventy-Five (~53% of all postings). Overwhelming. And flooding, bullying, and dominance has been consistent for the agent since he entered these forums in late January 2012.

    Or we could look at my nine postings (not including this one) and tally how many responses Agent Rogue made: eighteen.

    Or we could look at the nature of his two-for-one response ratio. The first posting is almost always a shoot-from-the-hip personal attack (e.g., “vile snake venom”), which is always a good indication that the agent has nothing substantial to reply with — until he’s had time to confer with superiors and then re-post some quote that inspection & understanding reveal is inapplicable and him trying to cheat readers with a misdirection.

    I’ve been calling Agent Rogue an agent for a l-o-n-g time. It started as he played the cheat and tried to give repeatedly his “good, bad, and ugly” book review of Dr. Wood’s textbook from the lofty position of not owning, not borrowing, not otherwise having the book, let alone cracking its cover. Out of my own pocket, I helped him overcome this handicap. He’s had the book since June and still hasn’t read it cover-to-cover to give a chapter-by-chapter “good, bad, and ugly” review, as was the agreement that he has thoroughly welched on. [With 20/20 hindsight, it is no surprise that the liar agent Rogue would cheat on this agreement.] It is not a question of the book containing some bad and ugly; it is more of a question of Agent Rogue failing an integrity test, because each chapter for sure has some amount of “good” that Agent Rogue is too stubborn, proud, and stupid to admit exists. Although Dr. Wood’s words do their own PR tour to lead readers astray, the evidence is still neatly collected that points towards neutron nuclear DEW.

    Mr. Rogue continues playing the agent to suppress nuclear means-&-methods by spouting the lie:

    [T]here was not radiation TO SPEAK OF in the aftermath…

    We’ve been speaking of tritium, so… FAIL.

    That Mr. Rogue would use such bombastic and imprecise language is just him demonstrating what a lying cheat he is.

    Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are dependent on the device(s)’ design. Notice how Agent Rogue refuses to talk about neutron radiation? It is because he doesn’t understand it nor do his supervisors (or heroes) feed him with anything to help with his deficit. It, too, wouldn’t have been measured in any great quantities because it was directed upwards and into the sky, but it is key for why other forms of radiation were suppressed in the nuclear design as well.

    Lying, cheating agent Rogue wants to keep framing things as minuscule and “a trillionth” and to steer readers into believing it means “nothing” and is equivalent to “zero.” In the sense of Newtonian Calculus limits that agent Rogue never studied, I find it apropo that “a trillionth” approaches zero but isn’t zero. And its non-zero value and the fact that it is 55 times greater than it should have been, combined with correlated quantities of other trace fission elements in the dust, screw with Agent Rogue’s agenda to steer this forum away from neutron nuclear DEW.

    Agent Rogue suggests that I my posting tally of nine was me “simply spitting vile venom like a cornered snake.” Nope. Liar and cheat that Agent Rogue is, he conflates my 9 postings with half of his 18 responses to me, thus demonstrating who is the cornered snake.

    Agent Rogue tries to conclude his one-up-manship with the oxymoron “… as there is nothing to be said…” I agree there was nothing for the agent to have said, but he went ahead and said nothing anyway. Next time he should STFU while saying his nothing and spare us any posting whatsoever.

    //

    1. Butt-cheese Sinyor Beanstein, you serve nothing but butt-cheese and becquerel-krackers, served on a plate of exaggerated self-opinion.

      Lack of Proof is NOT Proof.

      No matter how you twist and wring the data, there was no radiation to speak of: The radiation you speak of is inconsequential in the context of a nuclear device.

      \\][//

    2. “…because it was directed upwards and into the sky…”~Sinyor el yocto

      Hahahahaha…yeaaaah that’s it…shuuuurr…they beamed it up to Scotty in the Enterprise and he scuttled it into deep space via warpdrive…and we now discover it was the fukkin Klingons who actually did 9/11.

      Great work yocto…one. two, three little posties – four, five, six little posties…all for mr plop-tart’s game.

      \\][//

    3. But seriously folks…if I can maintain ‘serious’ for any length of time after the latest from el Sinyor Grande Plops…ahem.

      Okay, the actual truth of the matter is I told Sinyor I would send his stupid book back to him. Sinyor refused. I supposed at the time that it had to do with his paranoia, that he didn’t want me to know his address.

      Well, the shelf life of even this offer has expired. I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.

      Speaking of papers…shouldn’t you be grading your student’s work rather than making up stupid bullshit here on the forum Sinyor Sheetfarts?

      \\][//

  45. For the pleasure of Mr Whitesands the Calliope plays another tune:

    “Neutron nuclear DEW, neu nookiedoo”~Sinyor Beanstein
    . . . . .
    Forgetting for the time being the added absurdity of the DEW portion of the equation, let us look at the radiation effects of Sinyor’s infamous “Neutron Nuclear” aspect:

    “A neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW) or weapon of reinforced radiation is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed and constructed specifically to deliver a large dose of radiation over a broad area to increase the lethality .

    The “usual” nuclear weapon yield—expressed as kT TNT equivalent—is not a measure of a neutron weapon’s destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. Compared to a fission bomb with the identical explosive yield, a neutron bomb would emit about ten times the amount of neutron radiation. In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. Furthermore, the neutrons emitted by the latter type are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1–2 MeV).”
    (Wiki)

    So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.

    \\][//

  46. I think it is really unfair, and I am going to write my mom a long email to complain, because Sinyor Twatspeak did not inform us he was writing the script to a new Star Trek film:
    KLINGON 9/11.

    I wonder if it is going to be with the original cast, done as digital actors in their prime like the original TV series? If so, I would suggest Humphrey Bogart, as Osama bin Klingon. He is one of my favorite actors of all time. Maybe Peter Lori as George Bush Jr…??

    [gotta keep that 53% ya nose]

    Hohohohehehehahaha

    \\][//

  47. Agent Rogue does not disappoint us with a further example of his lying and cheating ways.

    To be fair, his Wiki quotes are accurate about neutron bombs and how scientists had ~publicly~ envisioned using them from the 1960’s through 1980’s with the hay-day of the Strategic Defense Initiative. The quotes he provided are ones that I’ve even fed him myself in some of our earlier exchanges not all that long ago. How quickly that cheat forgets?

    Alas, just because the inventors of such devices ~publicly~ envisioned neutron bombs as LARGE thermonuclear devices that were detonated in the atmosphere such that their neutron radiation would penetrate fortified defenses (e.g., armored tanks) while also spreading other forms of radiation, this DOES ~NOT~ EQUATE to newer and more novel uses of the devices.

    [History is littered with lots of inventions that found novel uses in ways never envisioned by their creators. As an example, just recently I read on Facebook that good old Coca-cola is a great solvent to remove rust from bicycle handlebars. Or how about the EMT trick of using a Bic pen as the tube for a trachaestomy? Or brown paper bags to help green tomatoes ripen? Or, or, or… ]

    Agent Rogue knows that I’ve been talking about novel uses for the technology, because the carousel has brought these lessons up for his edification many times. [In fact, he was PWNed twice in a major way on his home court on this very topic: 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2012-11-22) and 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2) (2012-12-21).] But because he is an agent with an agenda to PREVENT knowledge of nuclear means-&-methods, he goes on with his merry, cheating, lying ways to mislead this forum. [I am a bit tired of it.]

    So what are the differences in implementation that Agent Rogue purposely leaves out with the cheating games he plays?

    The first is that these (newer) neutron nuclear DEW devices are not battlefield instruments. Their purpose is not to knock out fortified defenses and armored infantry. Their purpose is not to lay waste to large arrays of battlefield troops or create “Lebensraum” in lands occupied by genetically inferior enemies. Instead, their purpose is of a tactical nature.

    Thus, the second difference is that these 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW devices are significantly smaller in yield.

    The third difference is that they were configured to direct the escaping neutron radiation in a useful manner. Rather than having it spread radially and indeed killing life forms within that radius, the neutron radiation was directed toward the sky.

    This serves two useful purposes: (1) significant yield down-scaling of the blast and heat wave and (2) massive reduction of lingering radiation of “traditional forms.”

    Specifically, fission devices are way too large and would have leveled significant chunks of Manhattan with their blast & heat waves; the same is true for (fission-triggered) fusion devices. Tactical size nukes are extremely difficult to design, implement, and carry out: the smaller the yield, the greater the probability of the device “nuclear fizzling” or otherwise not meeting its expected design yield. Moreover, the probability of nuclear fizzle increases when devices are used in tandem, as the nuclear radioactive (alpha, beta, gamma) yield of one can cause fracticide in neighboring nukes before they are detonated, thereby failing their objective. And even should the tandem devices meet their design criteria, fission and to a certain degree fusion produce unacceptable levels of lingering radiation whose duration in cases would be measured at the detonation point in centuries. [And of course, this is the song-and-dance that Dr. Jones enlightens us with to “prove” that fission or fusion nukes weren’t used. This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to.]

    Fusion devices generate their large energy yields by having an encasement that reflects neutron radiation back into the nuclear process to keep a chain reaction going and to get explosive yield to expand.

    A neutron device is similar to a fusion device ~except~ that its encasement does not reflect neutron radiation back into the chain reaction; instead neutron radiation is allowed to escape. Because the chain nuclear reaction is prevented, its explosive yield is significantly reduced. When the neutron radiation is focused and channeled via the materials of the device, control over the debilitating effects of neutron radiation can be achieved. The application goals — kill life forms or spare life forms — dictates then how the design & implementation are tweaked to allow the neutron radiation to escape in a tactical manner.

    In the case of 9/11, the escaping neutrons were directed skyward. The devices detonated in the towers top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fracticide of nukes lower in the tower.

    Here’s another analogy.

    A fusion device is like a tire. When the nuclear reaction starts, the tire suddenly expands and expands with air until it explodes in all directions.

    A neutron device is that same tire, but with one or more nail holes in it. When the nuclear reaction starts, the pressurized air takes the path of least resistance and blows primarily through the nail holes ripping them into much larger holes. Sure, the sudden influx of pressurized air does cause the tire to fail in all directions, but not as violently or massively or broadly, because the air is primarily directed through the preconfigured nail holes.

    The “nail hole” is the twist to the fission-triggered-fusion application that (a) allows the radially explosive yield to be significantly reduced to a tactical level, (b) allows explosive energy to be channeled in a useful direction, (c) allows escaping neutron radiation to decrease (or increase) casualties to life, and (d) prevents tandem neutron devices from knocking each other into nuclear fizzle.

    The Wiki quote from Agent Rogue is a touch inapplicable, because it is still framing matters as LARGE nuclear devices.

    And as expected, here is a “fucking lie” from Agent Rogue

    So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.

    The reason it is a “fucking lie” is that Agent Rogue — owing to his cheating ways — does not clarify what that “enhanced radiation” is. He wants to scare the readership with the boogey-man phrase “enhanced radiation, oh me, oh my!!!”.

    The two questions to be asked are: (1) What type of “enhanced radiation” is produced? (2) How lingering is it?

    The answer to both questions is dependent upon the neutron bomb’s design and application. You see, in a battlefield configuration, bombarding neutron radiation — which itself is “enhanced radiation” that is not lingering — can induce more or less alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in impacted materials. But in other designs and applications (such was 9/11) when the neutron radiation is directed elsewhere [and when evidence is carted off without inspection], it no longer holds true that alpha, beta, and gamma radiation achive any significant magnitude, nor for very long.

    Gloating Agent Rogue, as is true to his lying and cheating ways, isn’t patient enough to wait for a response from me (above) and wants to solidify his bullying dominance in this forum. Before I could even finish this, he posts an ad hominem second posting that adds absolutely nothing to his argument. In fact, guess what it does to his argument when the above proves the lie and cheat of his efforts? Guess who deserves to have his modified words rammed back into his mouth?

    Butt-cheese Sinyor Beanstein [Rogue], you serve nothing but butt-cheese and becquerel-krackers, served on a plate of exaggerated self-opinion. [Lack of understanding is NOT understanding.] No matter how you twist and wring the data, there ~was~ radiation to speak of: The radiation ~is~ consequential in the context of a nuclear device.

    Oh, and two more things: (1) Banker’s Trust and (2) Embrittlement.

    Banker’s Trust Building was across from the WTC and had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, they decided to tear it down. Why? Embrittlement, perhaps?

    Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. … Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.

    It ain’t as cheatin’, lyin’ Agent Rogue frames it: “Lack of Proof is NOT Proof.” The proof is there. Neutron radiation isn’t lingering, but embrittlement would be.

    Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too.

    Lest there be any doubt, I’m a religious zealot, so therefore have some carousel parallels, but the difference is I’m religiously fanatical about TRUTH. As such, I’m open-minded enough to consider the counter-argument and will even concede a point or stop promoting a position when TRUTH is revealed elsewhere. I’ve changed my tune on lots of things, the extent of 9/11 video fakery and NPT being just two of them.

    When an agent is paid to promote an agenda, he can never admit fault or error; he can never give an inch; he can never allow his target (e.g., me) the last word on the agenda topic; he has to dominate the forum; he will pull out every nasty trick in the book in order to hold the line given by the agenda…

    And let me tell you, approximately every other posting from Mr. Rogue to me has been some crafty ad hominem which did not address the subject but instead attacked me personally. Mr. Rogue’s libel against me has been consistent, substantial, and not reciprocated except in a few rare personal breeches in decorum. Mr. Rogue has done little to demonstrate an open-mind on this theme. Mr. Rogue has in fact grasped unwaiveringly at tainted sources refusing to even acknowledge the blatant issues those sources have at being “the whole truth.” Mr. Rogue isn’t free to think for himself or to consider drawing different trend lines through the data points that are present. Agents never tire of going through the same merry-go-round points over-and-over, which Mr. Rogue has done not just with me, but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc.

    I stand by by assessment that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent, as well as being an asshole. I’m sorry. The luster of having an agent as a sounding board has wore off; Mr. Rogue belongs back on this COTO crew-cut home court.

    //

  48. And alas, after all of this, Sinyor still has NO RADIATION and continues to claim that this lack of proof is proof.

    Here he is describing some weapon he has designed in his own imagination and passing it off as though it was real.

    And I agree the luster has certainly worn off, in an assay of his ‘nuggets’ we find all are nothing but turds wrapped in gold colored foil.

    Tell ya what ploptart, you ‘shut the fuck up’, and I won’t make fun of your stupid bullshit anymore. Otherwise, I got all the time in the world.

    \\][//

  49. “And let me tell you, approximately every other posting from Mr. Rogue to me has been some crafty ad hominem which did not address the subject but instead attacked me personally. Mr. Rogue’s libel against me has been consistent, substantial…”~Sinyor

    Yes indeed, this is so, because I think you are a total crackpot and butt-cheese wrangler.
    There is no “debating” crazy, there is only pointing to it and saying, “Yup, he’s crazy”

    Yup, your crazy Sinyor.

    \\][//

  50. > “Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too.”~Sinyor FlippedFarts

    Another wad of butt-cheese direct from the pooter-extruder.
    It would be funny if it wasn’t so STUPID.

    I’ll tell ya Sinyor el yocto, you got a lot of gall to call me ‘scientifically challenged’ when you are the one dancing naked in the moonlit night around a cauldron of boiling bat wings, frog eyes and dragon teeth. You are one crazy sonuvabitch mutter forking dingus. And arguing with you is like trying to make sense with an escapee from a looney-bin.

    > “But before the building could be occupied, they decided to tear it down. Why? Embrittlement, perhaps?”~Sinyor

    Yea, “perhaps”, “maybe” – supposition, guesses, presumptions; secret weapons made up in his own fevered imagination, nonexistent radiation…all the bla bla blatherings of a yocto brained monkeyboy floating sky-high in a tritium daydream.

    \\[3]//

  51. > “I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent”~Señor El Once

    Yes you have Señor, and that is why you will get no quarter from me.

    I shall not allow a single turd of your bullshit pass – count on it.

    \\]i[//

    1. I’m definitely and wholeheartedly on the side of Senõr El Once. I too call raisin rogue a liar, a cheat, and an agent. But i will go a step further by also calling him a demagogue.

      The proofs are many.

      I think it’s about time this poor sod put a smelly sock in his enormous gob, and return to his usual blog, where none can differentiate between a clear blue sky from a smoggy fog.

      (Hope everyone can see from the above that if nothing else, at least i’m a true blue ‘prodigy’ poet of ‘distinction’)!

      When and if Mr. raisin rogue finally start to realize he has long ago overstayed his welcome here, i truly hope that all the intelligent people, who over the many months wisely have kept away from this blog, will return back again stronger than ever!

      Cheers

      1. Well aren’t you as dense as a brick Mr Tamboring man…Lol

        Señor calls you an agent as well [MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM]:
        ..”but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc.”

        So are you in agreement? You are admitting you are an agent in your post.
        Hahaha…what a fruitloop you are T-man. “A poet”? Lol

        \\][//

      2. Tamborine man – HR1 posts I read, yours I almost always skip along with SEO’s. HR1 is an MVP around here so please do not ever speak for the rest of us when you declare who is and is not welcome here. Your posts more often than not trail off the topic into ancient Voodoo mystical riddles or channeled messages from the alien entity Tarlack from Alpha Centari so please spare me the BS where you presume to speak for the membership of this blog. You do not.

      3. Thank you for your remarks Mr Ruff,

        They are appreciated.
        I was beginning to feel as if I were in the wilderness calling into a careless wind.

        \\][//

  52. Señor El Once again repeats these scurrilous and unfounded charges:
    > “This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to.” on MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM
    . . . . . .
    I repudiate these charges. And I feel no need to comment as they are utterly without foundation regardless of any tales told by this anonymous shank-wielding stutterfuk.

    But I do have more to say about his bullshit sales pitch…

    So now Señor El Topo (the mole) who has no radiation as proof of his imaginary weapon, is seriously trying to convince us that, the weapon was built to generate all of this energy so that they could turn around and vent the majority of this radioactive energy “into the sky”.

    This is a ‘Kings New Clothes’ scam – as blatant as it can be put. It is hard to tell if Señor is really this stupid, or if he just takes the rest of us as that stupid.

    But then he argues that there were “Hiroshima like” ailments in the first responders…who I guess we are now to believe, simply didn’t get the memo that the radiation had been vented “to the sky”.
    This “now you see it – now you don’t” biz is the hallmark of shysters and bullshitters such as this anonymous twat calling himself Señor El Once; who claims there are “special” nuclear weapons, and their ‘shit don’t stink’ (ie; they leave no radiation).

    All of this smoke and mirrors rather than accept that the Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:

    “*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in “typical” indoor dusts.”
    ~RJ Lee report

    This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

    \\][//

  53. So let us revisit where this latest round on Señor’s dipshit carousel began on this thread…

    On FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 1:36 PM, I said the following:
    ‘Again I must object to your defamation of Professor Jones.’

    And Señor claimed [FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM]:
    >”I did not defame Dr. Jones, but I did legitimately criticize Dr. Jones’ work.”
    . . . . .
    But this is a lie!
    Señor does NOT “legitimately criticize Dr. Jones’ work.” – but in fact mischaracterizes, misframes and ignores portions of Jones’ work by disingenuous cherry-picking. That is willful defamation and dishonest argumentation.
    . . . . .
    Recently:
    “The song-and-dance by Professor Jones to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement.”
    . . . . .
    Accusing Jones of steering the movement is a slur and defamation regardless of Señor’s rhetorical ‘song-and-dance’.

    Again on -FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM
    >”proven instances of Dr. Jones being less-than-genuine in his stilted work, but also a rousing defense that ignores the issues and tries to frame the criticism of Dr. Jones’ work as a personal or defamation attack on the man.”

    >”Honest evaluation of Dr. Jones’ 9/11 work does more to smear the man than anything I could or would write. Dr. Jones’ never having corrected the record while allowing misconceptions and misapplications of his work to propagate is what allows the defamation to raise its hydra-head.”
    . . . . .
    If one reads these stanzas by Señor Beanstein, we see clearly that he is defaming Jones all the while, and denying defaming Jones as he denies it. Quite the twisted twatspeak from this…what? Liar? Cheat? Agent? Simpleton idiot?
    Take your pick, whatever it is, his lack of intelligence, his burning ego, or his pay ration; he is singing putrid songs of bullshit and defaming Dr Jones.

    \\][//

    1. Agent Rogue demonstrates that he is a convincing liar and cheat, because if he were being truthful, he would have taken his time and posted a detail report with original passages from Dr. Jones and the corresponding analysis from me (with URLs) that demonstrates where I:

      (a) mischaracterize, (b) misframe and (c)_ ignore portions of Jones’ work by (d) disingenuous cherry-picking.

      Nope, it ain’t there. It’s all shoot-from-the-hip conjecture.

      And the reason it ain’t there is that Agent Rogue gets more mileage out of innuendo, false accusations, and libel than he would out of any form of accurate re-publication of Dr. Jones’ work side-by-side with my criticism that point out its weaknesses. Ooooo, can’t have that!

      If Mr. Rogue wants to continue with his games, the onus is on him to fucking prove his contentions… with URLs, with appropriate passages, with correct analysis.

      Until then, his posting is just another fucking cowbell without a clacker and a fitting underscore to Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and an agent.

      Meanwhile, we have to ask the question: “Why is Agent Rogue defending Dr. Jones so viciously?”

      Why must Agent Rogue always frame any criticism of Dr. Jones’ work as being a “personal defamation?”

      The answer is that by shifting the terms of debate into being about “personal defamation” [and by dishing out copious amounts of his own], Agent Rogue can avoid the specifics from Dr. Jones’ work that truly highlight its errors and omissions and prove it unfitting to serve as the final word about there allegedly being no-nukes and about there allegedly being combinations of super-duper-nano-thermite and RDX (?) that can account for the evidence.

      //

  54. And this goes back a year and more now. Within the very first exchanges on T+S Sinyor was calling me a “NSA ‘Q Team’ Agent”…

    Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean.
    I looked it up on the web one day out of curiosity. The only thing I found was a bowling team for NSA called Q-Team or Team-Q…something like that.
    The point was obvious from the start. Max is a cop, and he is out to spot bloggers who are well informed and capable of lucid argumentation.

    He’s got some very deep games. He can be very convincing to the uninformed.

    The defamation of Jones lies in Sinyor’s false assertions that he has proven Jones wrong, and then claiming that Jones is culpable for not mending his ways. Sinyor has proven nothing but that he himself is utterly full of shit, and that Jones has nothing to mend or apologize for. Like Prager the charlatan claiming Jones is a fraud; it is ludicrous considering the source. Prager is one of the culprits setting the stage for Sinyor’s mad dancing, and Prager has nothing more than Sinyor other than the preposterous DEW aspect, which is Sinyor’s delusional brainchild.

    The whole thing hangs on the fact that there simply was no appreciable radiation. Assertions that there were are proven poppycock. The excuse that the neutrons were beamed into the sky is utter bullshit. There is no evidence of such an effect during the event, none. There is no evidence in the aftermath, just rhetorical kaleidoscopes and fan dancing.

    I will say this as many times as it needs to be repeated, because the facts concerning tritium are well established in my arguments above. Regardless of his posturing Sinyor has not made a successful challenge to those facts.

    And if “Hiroshima” was successfully beamed to the sky, the ailments of the first responders being blamed on the radiation that wasn’t there is another indicator of the circular aspect of Sinyor sales pitch.

    Arguing with him is like being on the stage of a play of the theater of the absurd, something written by Samuel Beckett…

    “Zero zero zero” – END GAME.

    \\][//

  55. Don’t I feel special with Agent Rogue’s eight postings to my one? Amazing how precious little of his collected unhinged verbiage is worthy of being addressed.

    March 4, 2013 – 6:04 pm
    March 4, 2013 – 6:23 pm
    March 4, 2013 – 7:10 pm
    March 4, 2013 – 8:31 pm
    March 4, 2013 – 8:45 pm
    March 4, 2013 – 9:28 pm
    March 4, 2013 – 11:25 pm
    March 5, 2013 – 9:30 am

    None of them take anything way from the real prospect of neutron nuclear devices being deployed on 9/11, despite the exhuberance of Agent Rogue’s ridicule. If anything, his postings prove what a cheat Agent Rogue remains with his mischaracterization of the nuclear concepts that my postings make clear.

    Also, none of his eight dispell my charge that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent. Quite the contrary.

    A great example is Mr. Rogue’s re-writing of history with regards to Dr. Wood’s textbook.

    The lying cheating Mr. Rogue was (and still is) offering book reviews here without having (read) the book. I called his bluff and secured permission to send him his own copy in exchange for an objective and thorough review: chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly. He agreed to the terms but has been skipping out on the deal ever since without as much as a single chapter review. Weasel, weasel, weasel! My, does Agent Rogue squirm!

    Lack of integrity is to be expected from the lying cheat, but I had to go through the motions with Agent Rogue in order to get him to thoroughly discredit himself, which he does gloriously.

    I find it totally funny that I have discovered many issues with Dr. Wood’s book, so it isn’t like I would have been defending every point to the death if Agent Rogue would have flagged those same issues. But no! Evidently despite the issues, the nuggets of truth contained therein that he would have been obligated into preserving are so damning, Agent Rogue could not risk even the tiniest acknowledgment of their validity. Even today, Agent Rogue can’t give an inch in his all-or-nothing mantra sans-substantiation, writing to one of his COTO Crew-Cuts: “Judy Wood is simply bullshit. Junk PR, not science. She’s an utter charlatan.”

    As the story continued, Agent Rogue received several figurative bloody noses from his very own copy of the book for his reluctance to give good, bad, and ugly details of his assessment, so the lying cheat tries to change the deal by claiming he’s in the poor house and proposed sending the book back to me. [What a fucking genius! If he was so cash-strapped, mailing the book back to me would not help his wallet, nor the 9/11 discussion.]

    However, a deal is a deal, and I was more than satisfied with the conditions and the ongoing outcome.

    And before I forget, here’s another example of Agent Rogue’s fucking “genius” (not). First of all, Agent Rogue was informed IN ADVANCE of accepting the offer what I was going to do (e.g., postings like this) until I received that which I commissioned: good, bad, and ugly reviews. He walked right into it, and continues to step in it and track neu nookiedoo all over the place from the treads of his black jack boots.

    Second, the deal obligated him into paying-it-forward or passing-it-on to someone else depending on the merit found therein. When he made contact with Dr. Jones, that would have been the ideal opportunity to get rid of the hot-potato. But no…

    Agent Rogue proves that he was lying about being a “genius” in any subject at any point in his life.

    By golly, the gift of Dr. Wood’s textbook was one of my best 9/11 investments of all time and pays dividends to this day in proving what a lying fucking cheat Agent Rogue is!

    Agent Rogue wrote yesterday:

    I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages.

    My money is betting that the above is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, so for today let’s assume that it’s true.

    It really says a lot about the character and integrity of Agent Rogue that he would violently pull the thick & heavy pages out of Dr. Wood’s hardcover book in lieu of properly understanding the good, bad, and ugly that were depicted therein (or in lieu of passing-it-along to an appreciative human audience.)

    It says a lot about Agent Rogue that rather than appreciating the high quality collection of images of WTC destruction and their correlation to map positions (which truly is Dr. Wood’s book REDEEMING VIRTUE and one that he praised upon receipt of the book), Agent Rogue defaces the book for the benefit of his bird.

    True, true, true, this thread shouldn’t be about Dr. Wood’s book. The discussion should be about (… errr, … maybe 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW?)

    However, Dr. Wood’s book stands like a beacon of light that no useful or productive discussion on any subject will be forecoming when lying, cheating participants of Agent Rogue’s character are allowed to bully and dominate. Mr. Rogue, you are and have been T&S’s govt infiltration, no doubt.

    [*Ear-to-ear grin with middle-fingers raised in an appreciative salute to Agent Rogue*]

    Time for you to get a new assignment.

    1. My March 5, 2013 – 3:28 pm posting said that Agent Rogue posted eight postings to my one. Before that posting could see the light of day, two more hairballs from Agent Rogue are coughed up!!!

      March 5, 2013 – 11:12 am
      March 5, 2013 – 3:23 pm

      Ten-to-one. TEN-TO-ONE!!! Agent Rogue never shuts the fuck up!!!

      He’s burying the criticism of his dubious actions by flooding this forum!!! Do we need look any further at why I call him a lying cheat? Ten-to-one puts it into our face pretty clearly!

      Agent Rogue writes the following hypnotic PR assertion:

      The whole thing hangs on the fact that there simply was no appreciable radiation.

      Nope, it does not. Agent Rogue ignores…

      – the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.
      – the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.
      – the pulverized remains.
      – the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
      – the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.
      – the damage to Banker’s Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been “fixed”.
      – the first-responder ailments.
      – the security around the WTC.
      – the rapid destruction of evidence.
      – the lack of testing on the evidence.
      – the elevated tritium levels.
      – the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can’t be brissant explosives).

      Agent Rogue makes his living by saying “no” and ridiculing other’s work. He fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories, like in estimating the quantities of chemical-based explosives required for (a) pulverization and (b) hot-spot duration. He fails to grasp the obscenely massive quantities that spills out of the simple high school math, how utterly unrealistic their logistical implementation would be (particularly when compared to neutron nukes), and how they can account for neither the vehicle damage nor the Banker’s Trust anomaly.

      Agent Rogue worships the hero Dr. Jones, yet the above is the reason Dr. Jones never substantiated his hypothesis of nano-thermite (mixed or combined in any conceivable way with other chemical explosives) with calculations BECAUSE THE MATH, CHEMISTRY, & PHYSICS DO ~NOT~ ADD UP!!! Even Dr. Harrit in his calculations of iron spheres hints at the utter obsurdity of it.

      Agent Rogue and his clackerless cowbell needs to be put out to pasture.

      [Señor El Once] is a cop, and he is out to spot bloggers who are well informed and capable of lucid argumentation.

      Happy to burst Agent Rogue’s bubble, but the weaknesses in his scientific reasoning and mathematics proves that he is ~not~ “well informed”. Moreover, what Agent Rogue refers to as “lucid argumentation” has been proven to be lies & cheats, like his TEN-TO-ONE flooding of this forum with ad hominem. Agent Rogue may technically have his own blog, but if he doesn’t use it, he’s a liar to even consider himself a blogger.

      Agent Rogue, tired of being called an agent, calls me a cop as if that will cancel out the agency accusation. Okay, I’ll be happy to be wrong about Agent Rogue being an agent, but that leaves two-out-of-three charges that I’m still right about: Rogue is a liar and a cheat.

      P.S. Agent Rogue acts the innocent: “NSA ‘Q Team’ Agent… Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean.” It was explained several times, thereby proving Agent Rogue lied about being a genius artist among countless other lies to steer this forum.

      Operation Mockingbird: “was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s.”

      – The PNAC manifesto “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”: “If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.” The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict… “

      “The Pentagon’s War on the Internet”: “The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet… The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative…”

      – “The US government has allegedly set up a special security wing (Q Group) with the sole task of distancing Washington from any involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.” According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen

      //

  56. Again Señor has zero but a grin for his mirror and a count of beans.

    “Zero zero zero” – END GAME.

    \\][//

  57. So now that Señor is left grinning holding his last flimsy card, the “Agent/Liar” gambit, which is no less a zero than the rest of his squattle, let’s look at the other so-called “radioactive elements” found in the WTC Dust:

    THE PRAGER PSYOP

    >“The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance “~Prager

    Bullshit, Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The “fission pathway” is nothing but it’s natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.~ww

    >“Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm.”~Prager

    “Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm … Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm…Yttrium is used in the production of a large variety of synthetic garnets,[51] and yttria is used to make yttrium iron garnets (Y3Fe5O12 or YIG), which are very effective microwave filters.[4] Yttrium, iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3(Fe,Al)5O12 and Y3(Fe,Ga)5O12) have important magnetic properties.[4] YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer.[52] Yttrium aluminium garnet (Y3Al5O12 or YAG) has a hardness of 8.5 and is also used as a gemstone in jewelry (simulated diamond).[4] Cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals are used as phosphors to make white LEDs.
    Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount.[40] With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations.[40]

    The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs.[5] Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium

    The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission.*
    Ferrite magnets and refining zinc.[2]
    Strontium titanate has an extremely high refractive index and an optical dispersion greater than that of diamond, making it useful in a variety of optics applications. This quality has also led to its being cut into gemstones, in particular as a diamond simulant. However, it is very soft and easily scratches so it is rarely used.[2]
    Strontium carbonate, strontium nitrate, and strontium sulfate are commonly used in fireworks for red color, and sometimes for other colors too.
    Strontium aluminate is used as a bright phosphor with long persistence of phosphorescence.
    Strontium chloride is sometimes used in toothpastes for sensitive teeth. One popular brand includes 10% total strontium chloride hexahydrate by weight.
    Strontium oxide is sometimes used to improve the quality of some pottery glazes.
    Strontium ranelate is used in the treatment of osteoporosis. It is a prescription drug in the EU, but not in the USA.
    Strontium barium niobate can be used in outdoors holographic 3D displays as a “screen”.[40]
    Strontium phosphide is an inorganic compound with the formula Sr3P2 and is used as a laboratory reagent and in the manufacture of chemically reactive devices.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

    *In 2001 most personal computers were still using CRT displays {same as TVs}. It wasn’t until 2003 that the price of flat screens became compatible with the CRT. I was still using a CTR at work all the way until 2008.

    All of the substances found it the WTC dust are in fact ubiquitous with modern industrial uses, and are also a major portion of the contaminants at municipal landfills.

    \\][//

  58. And now just this short dismissal of Judy Wood, as it is obvious that anyone with the slightest grasp of the sciences realize; she is a cheap charlatan of pseudoscience.

    Her DEW “theory” is and has been utterly debunked__and long before her stupid book came out, as there was nothing at all in that book that wasn’t already available on her website. It is false advertising to claim otherwise.

    As all of these New Wave 9/11 theories, the hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex.

    “Why were military-grade explosive chips found in the towers’ dust throughout Lower Manhattan?”

    This is the the question that is become the ‘Smoking Gun’, physical ‘hard evidence’ that fits as the keystone to the arch of all the other evidence that this event was a systemic military-industrial state operation.

    Now the question arises, why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact ‘Best Evidence’ such as this?

    \\][//

  59. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    – March 5, 2013 – 4:55 pm
    – March 5, 2013 – 5:14 pm
    – March 5, 2013 – 5:29 pm

    What’s funny is that I don’t even have to hit any of the cheat’s latest three attempting damage control. I can simply reference one of the following two postings.

    The cheat Mr. Rogue wrote on March 3, 2013 – 1:34 pm:

    I will indeed get off [Señor El Once’s] Crank Carousel now.

    I’m sorry, which of the Agent Rogue’s 20 postings since then demonstrates him getting off the Carousel? Either I seemed to have missed it, or Agent Rogue offers 20 examples of himself lying.

    The second posting comes from March 5, 2013 – 11:12 am, where the cheating Agent Rogue offers some hypnotic assertions where I supposedly:

    (a) mischaracterize, (b) misframe and (c)_ ignore portions of Jones’ work by (d) disingenuous cherry-picking [Dr. Jones].

    I told him to prove his contentions with URLs, with appropriate passages, with correct analysis on March 5, 2013 – 5:23 pm. Did he do it? No. His cowbell remains clackerless except for the clang of him getting it to ring off of his thick head.

    But oh, well. Triple-zero cheat Mr. Rogue insists on going through Prager’s dust. Fine with me. The methodology of dust collection is given in the USGS’s report, and conveniently rules out that they “dug deep in their collecting of dust samples to scoop up Uranium from the environment”, which is a stretch in and of itself what with the WTC not being a Uranium mine. Due to the number of samples collected and how they correlate, it is safe to assume that measured elements came either from the WTC buildings themselves or the mechanisms of destruction. Correlated quantities from sample to sample and this not being likely in the construction of the WTC buildings themselves therefore leads to the conclusion Uranium came from the destruction mechanism. Cheating Mr. Rogue should enlighten us how Uranium is used in super-super-nano-thermine mixed with RDX. Oh, before that, I suppose cheating Mr. Rogue should explain how Uranium is even an element that would be expected in the dust.

    Then cheating Mr. Rogue needs to prove how edible plants were brought into either the concrete or the destructive mechanisms… But not just any edible plants, but those with Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum. Man, evidentlly, edible plants is the secret ingredient to the super-duper-nano-thermite mixture with RDX that pulverized the towers… and helped maintain the under-rubble fires.

    As for the cheating Mr. Rogue’s assessment of Dr. Wood? Check out this funny quote from Agent Rogue:

    it is obvious that anyone with the slightest grasp of the sciences realize; she is a cheap charlatan of pseudoscience.

    First of all, Mr. Rogue does not have the “the slightest grasp of the sciences”, because if he did, he wouldn’t always be tripping over a several hundred THOUSAND mile long garden hose packed with super-duper nano-thermite “and edible plants” that sciences tell us would be required to maintain under-rubble hot-spots for their observed duration.

    Secondly, Mr. Rogue admits to not having finished reading Dr. Wood’s textbook. In fact, he admits to violently defacing the contents of this hardcover book so that his bird could have pretty, high quality pictures for the bottom of his cage.

    Thirdly, cheating Mr. Rogue has proven repeatedly his unobjective bent by being unable to list (a) good, (b) bad, and (c)_ ugly examples chapter-by-chapter. To him, it is all bad. Guess what? Disinformation doesn’t work that way; it can’t all be bad, or it never gain traction.

    Here’s a great lie from Mr. Rogue that puts his agenda on display for all to question:

    [T]he hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex.

    If that smoking gun evidence was so convincing, Dr. Jones would have produced the calculations on the estimated quantities required for (a) pulverization and (b) maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots, and these quantities would be less than several hundred THOUSAND miles of garden hose.

    What the hell? I can be gracious and give lots of latitude to the mere “possibility” of super-duper nano-thermite being involved with the WTC destruction. Tell us, how do correlated quantities of Uranium and exotic elements “from edible plants” fit in with nano-thermite’s deployment?

    The answer is: they don’t. Just Agent Rogue doing a lying cheating yoga stretch “to obfuscate.”

    Why would anyone — like lying, cheating Agent Rogue — want to obfuscate the true causes of the WTC destruction?

    Could it be that “9/11 nuclear anything” would have sent panic through the public and would be very hard to keep the hands of the USA government clean? Could it be that nuclear means-&-methods are considered state secrets, particularly when these nuclear versions produce only low-levels of radiation that are also non-lingering? Other governments in the world might get a bit nervous.

    Here’s more proof of my contention that lying, cheating Agent Rogue does not have the “the slightest grasp of the sciences”. The meat of his latest postings are in actual fact copy-and-pasted re-postings from elsewhere, right on down to any alleged “analysis or insight” on the topic by Agent Rogue. He didn’t understand them before, and still doesn’t understand them now, but that doesn’t stop him from flooding this thread with their inapplicable re-posting.

    Hey, Agent Rogue! If you weren’t such a lying cheat, you might have been able to demonstrate some integrity very early on by sticking with your promise to “get off [Señor El Once’s] Crank Carousel now.” In the immortal words of SNL’s John Belushi, “But, No-oooooo,” you had to go opening your mouth, inserting your food, and removing all doubt of how you cheat and lie. Talk about totally discrediting yourself!

    Guess you ain’t such a genius after all.

    Time for you to get a new assignment, Agent Rogue.

    //

    1. The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.

      Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially “dissapeared” thus the title of her book “Where did the towers go?”

      Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas. Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.

      JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.

      SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.

      If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is “missing”. She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can’t do that can she? You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!

      If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.

      1. Dear Mr. Ruff,

        Proving yourself a liar, too, because you said you didn’t read my postings and that they didn’t merit responses. Whatever. I won’t make hay on your backpeddling and will do you the favor of a serious response. You wrote:

        The bottom line with Judy Wood is that she is putting out disinformation either knowingly or unknowingly.

        Agreed. The foundation of all disinformation is a copious amount of truth. “Nuggets of Truth”, I called them. If you don’t take the effort to sift the disinformation from the nuggets of truth, then you are playing right into the hands of disinformation.

        Her very first statement in her book and the basis of her whole argument is that the materials of the tower essentially “dissapeared” thus the title of her book “Where did the towers go?”

        If you want to frame it that way, so be it.

        Her entire foundation for making that claim is as bogus as a three dollar bill simply because she does not quantify the amount of material left behind at ground zero and so she cannot say with any degree of certainty that material vanished or that there is not enough debris to account for the towers volume. This is the whole basis of her argument and it is a bogus claim without a doubt. She cannot say how much material was on the ground because it is impossible to quatify it without knowing the entire parameters of the debris field including debris that filled up basement areas.

        You overstate your case if you think this is “her entire foundation”. Reeks to me as if you don’t have her book, nor have you read it.

        Be that as it may, I’ll grant you your point, for indeed she does not qualify the amount of material left behind. And she has another grave error in pointing to the “spire” as an example of dustification when other view points of that expiring spire clearly show it falling over. She’s made gross mistakes in her analysis that she never corrected going from the website to the book; she never addressed the valid criticism of her work (website) nor any of the valid ideas of others (e.g., the Anonymous Physicist).

        Next she cannot quantify how much dust was spread all over manhatten, in fact she cannot even come up with a reasonable approximation because the dust cloud flows were far too complex and dynamic to even estimate. Next issue is that she does not define the size of the debris field at ground zero because again it is a far too complex situation to even estimate since debris was blasted out in all directions and spread out over a wide area.

        Because I’m not defending 100% of Dr. Wood’s work, I’ll grant you the validity of this criticism as well.

        But what you are failing to note is that she rightfully points to the energy requirements needed to produce that dust. Obviously gravity didn’t do it, but not so obviously is that chemical explosives could ~not~ have done it either ~WHILE~ also addressing the observed outcomes of under-rubble hot-spots and a very short logistics period when bomb-sniffing dogs took several pre-9/11 holidays. Occam Razor says it wasn’t conventional bombs, period.

        JUDY WOOD IS FULL OF SHIT!!! Her entire foundational argument is based on total speculation from her. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? They fell to the ground after they were blown up Judy and the debris and dust was all over manhatten to prove it. Nothing dissapeared Judy except perhaps your adherance to the scientific method.

        Again, the above appears to be written by your lofty position of not having her book nor having read it. Her book actually makes few predictions or statements of cause-and-effect. If anything, she throws lots of ideas out but does not definitively connect them together under one grand theory.

        If you had any scientific background, you would not be writing so ignorantly: “[The buildings] fell to the ground after they were blown up.” What blew them up? How much would it take? How loud would that be? The fact of the matter is, the buildings were pulverized in such a spectacular manner that defied historic trends in conventional explosives and controlled demolition, such simplistic reasoning doesn’t cut it.

        For all of the faults in Dr. Wood’s textbook and website that I will readily concede, she is still right on the money to call our attention to the manner in which the buildings were decimated. And Dr. Jones led us astray.

        SEO you sir are FULL OF SHIT as well…

        Prove it. Where am I wrong?

        9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
        http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/

        9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
        http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/

        … and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.

        This is just plain ignorant, Mr. Ruff. If you want to debunk Dr. Wood, it has to be done chapter-by-chapter, if not page-by-page. Why? Because it is not all bad and the nuggets of truth have to be preserved. Because there is not a single (highly) public member of the 9/11 Truth Movement who doesn’t have skeletons in their closet, who doesn’t have purposeful disinformation mixed in with truth, who isn’t knowingly peddling incomplete truths.

        If you aren’t willing to get your hands dirty and sift the truth from the error, then you are no adherent to truth; you’re just another disinfo agent trying to steer us away from considering the true mechanisms of destruction.

        What are you afraid of in Dr. Wood’s book, Mr. Ruff? Afraid you might find something that is actually valid yet doesn’t fit the paradigm of what the other 9/11 PR hacks are promoting? Afraid it will jar your understanding and take it into new realms?

        If Judy Wood had a leg to stand on she could and would explain in detail how much debris was on the ground and how much dust was spread out over manhatten and describe in detail how much is “missing”. She would also be able to explain how she calculated her answer. But she can’t do that can she?

        Now replace “Dr. Judy Wood” with “Dr. Steven Jones” in your paragraph above. Seems to me that he is “missing” such calculations as well.

        You know why SEO? Because it is completely impossible to calculate that and she just pulled the whole meme out of her ass. JUDY WOOD HAS BEEN DEBUNKED TOTALLY SO GET A GRIP ON REALITY SEO!

        Where’s your chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where’s Dr. Jones’ chapter-by-chapter debunking? Where’s the 9/11 Truth Movement’s chapter-by-chapter debunking? Doesn’t it seem strange to you that ignorant people such as yourself get on their soap-boxes and decry things as disinformation from hearsay alone and without the benefit of specifics?

        I’ll be happy to provide you specifics of where Dr. Wood got it wrong — and there are lots — but it will be at the expense of also acknowledging what is right and deserves some attention.

        It isn’t that I’m propping her up as being the whole story. I’m propping up her as providing important pieces to the story that you ignore… Hell, you haven’t even read her book, so how objective are you really?

        If anyone around here is an agent it is you SEO for pushing this crap and trying to bait us into wasting our valuable time doing a line by line debunk of her book. HR1 was absolutely right to line his bird cage with the pages of her shitty book. It is really a shame that people like Jesse Ventura got suckered into her BS.

        Mr. Ruff, first of all, I’m still betting money that Mr. Rogue was lying to us when he said he used it to line his bird cage. Keep that in mind as but one example of his character, someone willing to pass little lies as truth.

        Secondly, her book is proving to be an excellent test of one’s integrity and objectivity that Mr. Rogue has spectacularly failed, and you are failing as well. You are obviously afraid of the VALID evidence that will turn up.

        If you don’t have the smarts or courage to reach into the jaws of the disinformation source and snag the nuggets of truth, then you are no friend of truth. Nope, you become a pawn of the disinformation.

        It’ll never be about proving Dr. Wood’s work 100% correct (or even 50%), because I don’t even do that. It is about the collected evidence, which any objective review of her efforts ~has~ to readily acknowledge and address. I grab what is valid and move on.

        Dr. Wood was correct that directed energy weapons were involved. Among her failings was giving short-shrift to the nuclear evidence (e.g., hot-spots, etc.) and any intelligent review of the nuclear means that could accomplish it.

        A gross omission by Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones is consideration of neutron bombs and how they could be configured as tactical nuclear weapons that don’t take out entire city blocks and don’t pollute the detonation point for centuries to come with radiation.

        Get with the program, Mr. Ruff. If you think I’ve been promoting Dr. Wood because you think I believe she doesn’t have disinformation, you haven’t been reading what I’ve been writing. You’re just going off half-cocked and making things up, maybe because strawmen are easier to knock down than truth.

        And as a final point, you better throw some grains of salt into your unwavering support of Mr. Rogue, because he doesn’t merit it. The instances of him lying and cheating in this very thread are pretty obvious. The saying goes that you have to be faithful in the small things before you are worthy of being entrusted with the bigger things. Mr. Rogue fails that test, and your attitude has you about to make the same mistakes. Grow-up.

        P.S. I’m so confident that Mr. Rogue was “lying about the small things” when he wrote that he defaced his copy of Dr. Wood’s book to line his bird’s cage that I suggest you contact him so that he can send you his copy. Admission of this lie will be a small price for him to pay to “get the monkey off of his back” that expected him to have some integrity in following through with that which he promised in terms of the objective good, bad, and ugly review. Passing-the-book on to you could help him fulfill obligation and prevent the book from bloodying his nose further.

        //

      2. It is also well worth mention Mr Ruff,

        That this anonymous troll calling itself “senor el once” calls anyone who disagrees with it “a liar”.

        The creature also can’t get it’s head around the term; “Insignificant”…really a rather elementary concept.
        – Funny..as in peculiar, hahaha, or psycho?

        Take your pick, they are all up for grabs at this point.

        \\][//

  60. Raisin rogue wrote:

    “Her DEW “theory” is and has been utterly debunked__and long before her stupid book came out, as there was nothing at all in that book that wasn’t already available on her website. It is false advertising to claim otherwise.”

    Please reader, pay special attention to this wording:
    “Her DEW “theory” is and has been utterly debunked”…..

    Apart from the usual mob at ‘jref’, and others of similar sort at f.ex. ‘ats’, there are two other ‘entities’ worth mentioning, who also often over the years have used this particular phrasing in their arguments without any substantiations of their claims. They are known as ‘snowcrash’ who single-handed managed to leave ‘truthfraction’ diminished to a barren desert, and ‘broken sticks’ who equally managed to leave ‘pumpshitout’ ending up to be nothing but an aberration, and a sorry joke.

    Raisin rogue is obviously here in “very good” company with these two other agents, as
    well as ‘others’ mentioned above.

    As it is my sincere impression that many good people are staying away from contributing to
    this blog out of sheer exasperation, caused by raisin rogue’s conducts, i think the question we now must ask in all seriousness, is how this blog might end up if raisin rogue is allowed to continue with his infantile rantings, his hijacking of this blog, and his continuing cheats and lying???

    Cheers

  61. Mr. ruff wrote:

    “Tamborine man – HR1 posts I read, yours I almost always skip along with SEO’s. HR1 is an MVP around here so please do not ever speak for the rest of us when you declare who is and is not welcome here. Your posts more often than not trail off the topic into ancient Voodoo mystical riddles or channeled messages from the alien entity Tarlack from Alpha Centari so please spare me the BS where you presume to speak for the membership of this blog. You do not.”

    MVP = Megalomaniacally Vituperative Persona ….. i presume you mean.

    Well, if so, i agree!

    And i see that you’re faithfully following in the footsteps of dear raisin rogue:
    Cheating, lying and fabricating in order to make yourself looking “good”!

    So henceforth, you got no respect from me, Mr. ruff; and i agree not to speak for you,
    but only for all the good honest people who hopefully still retain their membership to this
    sadly abused blog.

    Cheers

    1. I am crushed TM.

      For the record MVP stands for (most valuable player) as of course you already knew along with everyone else in the civilized world who has ever watched a baseball game. Do not alter the content of what I said TM. You can say whatever the hell you want when you are representing yourself but you do NOT have the right to represent your own words as though they are my words. Your distortion of my comment is not acceptable. MVP = Most Valuable Player, get it? Got it? Good!

      1. I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page. I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for “nuggets of truth” in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.

        By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods “where did the towers go” meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD’s have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!

        Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out “nuggets of truth” from her garbage pile. Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.

      2. Mr Ruff,
        Hmm…I find it most curious, that it is suggested that I have some sort of “obligations” as per this piece of junk book by Judy Wood. No such obligation exists.
        Only the utterly mad could think I would feel any obligation towards someone who has gone off on me like this lunatic.

        I don’t have an obligation, nor the desire to ever address this nutwab again. I have no need to defend against the ravings of some cracked actor.
        You shoulda seen the doinky circus that went on at COTO due to this freak…jeeeeze.

        I am trying to keep my posting count to a minimum here so as not to enrage the animal{s}.

        \\][//

      3. At least you got ‘some’ sense of humour Mr. ruff – as surely you must be joking! Right?

        Cheers

        PS!
        And no, as i’ve never watched a baseball game in my life.

      4. Mr. Rogue writes the following lie:

        That this anonymous troll calling itself “senor el once” calls anyone who disagrees with it “a liar”.

        No, I call anyone liar who is proven to have done just that.

        Don’t want to be called a “cheat?” Then don’t cheat in your debate techniques.

        Don’t want to be called a “liar?” Then don’t be offering up what quickly unravels to be not true.

        Now if Mr. Rogue wants to redeem himself in some way from having been exposed repeatedly telling “lies,” a good place to start is his new promise:

        I am trying to keep my posting count to a minimum here so as not to enrage the animal{s}.

        Try harder, please.

  62. Hi Señor El Once,
    and your very intelligent rebuttal of Mr. ruff’s tirade is at least very welcomed by me! ;o)

    Just one point though. You wrote:
    “……
    And she has another grave error in pointing to the “spire” as an example of dustification when other view points of that expiring spire clearly show it falling over. She’s made gross mistakes in her analysis that she never corrected going from the website to the book; she never addressed the valid criticism of her work (website) nor any of the valid ideas of others (e.g., the Anonymous Physicist).
    ……”

    In this clip, Dr Wood shows us the ‘spire’ in more closeup, and it certainly appears to me
    that dustification IS taken place.

    Please forward to 2:19 in the clip and watch ahead to 4:10, and please let me know where
    or what it is that i’m totally missing!!!

    As with your good self, i too got no problems with being shown my ‘assumptions’ to be in
    error.

    http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php

    Cheers

    1. Hi Señor El once,
      just noticed that the link in my previous post don’t go straight to the clip i referred to,
      so i better let you know that it’s Dr. Wood’s part 2 lecture i would like you to have a look at,
      and which you can click on a little bit further down the page that comes up!

      Cheers

    2. Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

      We have been through the discussion of the decimating spire before, I believe. At the time, I corrected you in your belief that WTC-1 and WTC-2 both had “spires” left over in their collapses. Nope, only one did.

      You write:

      In this clip, Dr Wood shows us the ‘spire’ in more closeup, and it certainly appears to me that dustification IS taken place.
      http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=143&part=1

      Sure, it “appears” to be dustifying, but that doesn’t mean it is. The resolution on that video is particularly poor. I’d be willing to buy that some of the “glue” elements between steel sections got zapped and turned to dust, but not the steel itself.

      What you are missing are several other views of the WTC-1 spire that Dr. Wood has never included in her analysis or acknowledged their existence, despite being available between when her website went live and when her book was published or when this presentation was made.

      It is well that she points to the spire, but not so well the stilted evidence that she presents to indicate the ~steel~ turning to dust. Nope, in other views (and not static images run together), I clearly saw the steel of the spire falling over, albeit when copious amounts of “glue” elements kicking up dust.

      And actually, “falling over” is also incorrect. When the “glue” elements got zapped and kicked up their dust, the steel in question did more of a “telescoping” action.

      The fault from Dr. Wood is not presenting the videos that show the steel of the spire ~not~ turning to dust.

      //

  63. The spire crappola has been debunked so many times TM that you must be intentionally avoiding the truth. It falls, it does not “dustify”. Look up the debunks yourself I am sick of repeating them over and over to people like you who refuse to acknowledge the truth because they have an agenda to push disinformation.

  64. Dear Mr. Ruff,

    You want to bestow the MVP title onto Mr. Rogue. That will only be true if MVP equals Most Vocal Participant. Mr. Rogue is proven to have no integrity and gets by through cheating and even lies when he has too. Just yesterday, he lied twice about what words were attributable to me versus him.

    A more deserving recepient of the MVP award is Mr. OneSliceShort.

    You wrote:

    I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page.

    I love your backhanded “declination of my bait” as the lead-in to nibbling on it.

    You misjudge the assignment. You don’t have to waste a single second debunking Dr. Wood page-by-page.

    What is required of you is to have the cajones to acknowledge nuggets of truth, however few and far between they may be spaced, in Dr. Wood’s work. Working towards this goal will get the 9/11 Truth Movement much farther along than any thrash-and-burn debunking effort.

    In a moment you’ll have you’re first assignment, but first, here’s a lovely quote from you:

    I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for “nuggets of truth” in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.

    I defy you to find a single high-profile PR wonk in the 9/11 Truth Movement whose “foundation ~isn’t~ cracked and broken.” Just because someone hasn’t been exposed to you (or your satisfaction) as a “charletans” doesn’t mean that they aren’t. Dr. Jones is no exception.

    Your brain-dead defense of Dr. Jones proves you haven’t read what I wrote about him. Give it another try:

    9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/

    9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/

    Tell me where I error.

    Meanwhile, you write from your ignorance:

    By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods “where did the towers go” meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD’s have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!

    Whereas controlled demolition using essentially chemical explosives could account for the dust clouds, it cannot account for:

    – the damage to 1400 vehicles, some at a considerable distance.
    – the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
    – Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe

    – Multiple pieces bent

    – Horseshoe Beam

    Kindly have Dr. Jones explain the configuration of super-duper nano-thermite (e.g., where it was attached, how close was it to the depicted beams, etc.) that would result in the above images, compliments of Dr. Judy Wood’s image collection. Don’t get me wrong; Dr. Wood’s analysis of these beams is whacked out. (I say that one of several neutron nuclear DEW devices achieved this.) The point is that the evidence is there, can’t be ignored just because it sits inside of a “disinformation vehicle”, and all theories-du-jour must address all pieces of evidence in order to be considered complete and valid.

    Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out “nuggets of truth” from her garbage. pile.

    And which garbage pile are you going to go digging in to get “nuggets of truth?” You’re starting to sound “pretty ignorance and closed-minded” there, Mr. Ruff, you are.

    Please enlighten me as to the perfect source or repository of 9/11 Wisdom & Understanding that, as but one example, addressed the lucky horseshoe beams linked above? [Busy work warning: that is a fool’s errand, because control of the 9/11 message is so complete, there isn’t a single, reliable source.] But because you believe, cough it up. Prove me wrong, hombre.

    Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.

    Shit, then I guess the proven instances in this very thread of cheating and lying ought to have you snatching back the MVP crown that you want to nail to Mr. Rogue’s head.

    It is easy for you to dismiss sources of (dis)information for x-number of instances of proven bull-shit. But that’s not really how it should work (unless you want to admit to being duped and playing right into the hand of disinformation.) Nope, when the (dis)information source is proven tainted, the appropriate response is to flag the instances of such and to then have initial, healthy distrust of all further (dis)information from that source, but all the while given each nugget its due consideration and not throwing those babies out with the bathwater.

    Try again.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue wrote:

    I find it most curious, that it is suggested that I have some sort of “obligations” as per this piece of junk book by Judy Wood. No such obligation exists.

    This is Mr. Rogue demonstrating what a cheat he is, not living up to his part of the bargain and deceitfully trying to change the terms of the agreement in a one-sided fashion midstream. No dice.

    Pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were two options given but with the caveat that they happen after an objective “good, bad, and ugly” review.

    At this point, Mr. Ruff, you lay your cards squarely down in the “ignoramous camp” that says “we don’t need to read no stinkin’ books and we don’t need to crack no stinkin’ covers in order to pass our holy judgment of the (de)merits of the entire work.”

    *Clap* *clap* *clap*

    I didn’t think it was possible for a worthy participant to expose himself as an ignorant red-neck hill-billy for your close-minded attitude, but evidently Mr. Rogue is your hero, too, and your role-model for action in this forum.

    I was contemplating the option of relieving Mr. Rogue of his obligation were he to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along to you, but you out yourself as far less than open-minded or objective. Doesn’t really matter; important nuggets of truth were cherry-picked from Dr. Wood’s work and are a published in this very comment in the form of the links to the horseshoe images. Explain.

    Oh, and take your time, Mr. Ruff. Late next week I’m leaving on vacation and may have limited access to the internet for over a week.

    //

    1. Regarding Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood:

      One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining any proposition
      with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant.
      -John Locke, philosopher (1632-1704)

  65. Let’s get it straight about THE BOOK, once and for all:

    I offered to send the book back to the provider of said book. This offer was refused.
    Upon such a refusal to resolve the issue, any and all “deals” “agreements” etc became null and void.

    This deal is like the so-called “national debt” where the American people supposedly owe the racketeers who ripped them off for a century, the interest on the worthless paper produced. The persistent insistence that I simply HAD to have THE BOOK, was a con in the first place. So the Con man ended up making a chump out of himself on this one.
    Too fukkin bad – so sad.

    I considered giving THE BOOK to the local library here. As I consider the item a dangerous virus of disinformation, I decided not to add to the public nuisance. Pages were then made available to the parrots, rolled into tubes for ‘chewy toys’ and to line the bottom of the cages. This wasn’t because I don’t have plenty of newspapers and such, it was ritualistic, it was an expression of what I think of THE BOOK, the author of, and the lunatics that promote it.

    As far as the harangue at Mr Ruff that there is a need to have THE BOOK in order to decipher the bullshit inside; as I said before, there is NOTHING in this expensive piece of wasted tree mulch that isn’t already available on the web site of the lunatic that wrote it.

    To be frank, the “No-Planes” “Video Fakery” “DEW” “Nuke” issues are in the dustbin of history. Only fanatics and stupid people are still worrying themselves about this bullshit.

    It is obvious that this anonymous entity called Senor el Once is a professional character assassin. Disingenuous rhetoric – word voodoo – bullshit, is all this crankshaft has.
    This entity can spill another 500 word load of bullshit here, and then turn around and whine about “excessive postings” – it will clear things up here for us. It has already shown its true vile nature, and with each offer will make that more obvious.

    \\][//

    1. Yada, yada, yada.

      Bottom-line, Mr. Rogue is Mr. Weasel, re-writing history to cover over his own lack of integrity. [Only banks are allowed the luxury of changing the terms of an agreement midstream, and even that always reeks of being illegal to me.] The original plain-and-simple deal agreed to by both parties said “objective good, bad, ugly review ~and~ pay-it-forward.” Sending the book back was never an option, because it would add nothing valuable to the debate.

      The weasel writes:

      I considered giving THE BOOK to the local library here. As I consider the item a dangerous virus of disinformation, I decided not to add to the public nuisance.

      By the weasel’s own admission, he never finished reading the book. Ooo, weee, “a dangerous virus of disinformation”? Had the weasel backed that up with specifics, he could have avoided 9 months of having his integrity run through the mud, because that could have been the foundation of his report. If the book had only 25 chapters, Mr. Weasel could have easily fulfilled his promise with a mere 25 sentences:

      In Chapter 1, I consider A to be good; I consider B to be bad; I consider C to be ugly. In chapter 2, I consider D to be good; I consider E to be bad; I consider F to be ugly. … In chapter 25, I consider DDD to be good; I consider EEE to be bad; I consider FFF to be ugly.

      To the skeleton above, the weasel could have easily added to each of the 24 sentences “… and here’s why.” He was under no obligation to find bad or ugly, but was charged with finding good, because the fact of the matter is that without a high degree of good, the disinformation would have had no traction and would not be considered dangerous. He could easily have saved himself some effort by writing “Chapters A through D were valid essays on physics, so concentration of the bad and ugly disinformation begins with Chapter E with these specific examples.”

      Mr. Weasel could easily have convinced me — a duped useful idiot — of the validity of some of his arguments, so there would be two of us supporting each other in the assessment of what actual was good, what was bad, and what was ugly. And WTF? If I countered “J is all you found to be good in chapter N? What about L or M?” It would have led to a fine, fact-based discussion and been enlightening to the whole world.

      This was the intended worthy goal of the gift and the exercise that the weasel completely welched on.

      It leads me to two conclusions that might be mutually-exclusive.

      The weasel is a totally underhanded schmuck who he couldn’t rise up the simplest of book-report challenges that was put to him, thereby demonstrating he is far below the genius attributes that he ascribes to himself.

      Or, dastardly and dangerous good is lurking between the covers that is so damning particularly to the PR tours of super-duper nano-thermite, it takes on a Harry Potter-style mystique: oooo, the good-that-must-not-be-named-or-acknowledged, lest it blow up the paradigms used to mislead the 9/11 TM and the world.

      Mr. Weasel brings up “word voodoo” and his own excellent example of such, like “there is NOTHING in this expensive piece of wasted tree mulch that isn’t already available on the web site of the lunatic that wrote it.”

      A lie, and the weasel knows it. Some glaring examples are the maps and tables that correlate the high quality images of destruction to physical locations. These are not on the website to the extent they are in the book. They could easily have been classified by the weasel as “good things” and been marked off his good-checklist.

      Over generalizations are par for the weasel’s “word voodoo”, preferring to couch his opinions in the frame “~all~ is bad; ~nothing~ is good.” This is how we spot him being unobjective. Turns out, he does the same thing here: … “Video Fakery” “DEW” “Nuke” issues are in the dustbin of history. We can and should no longer trust his opinion or hynotic PR on the matter, necessitating them be re-visited for nuggets of truth that the weasel is trying to hide.

      Such an unwillingness and dogged-determination ~not~ to acknowledge even the slightest anomaly in the above genres as something not understood, something not fitting the 9/11 TM paradigm, and therefore worthy of further study. Nope, using his PR hypnotic speak, he claims “Nothing to see here, folk! Move along now!”

      And for the overly abundant flooding of the T&S forum with his hypnotic assertions, Mr. Weasel deserves every ounce of being called out on his cheats and lies. Easy to fix; easy to apologize for; easy to get assessed differently: unless a paid agenda is behind his ways and means, which is what is stinkin’ looks like to me.

      //

  66. A guy walks into a bar. He looks around having all’s attention, he says, “Tritium”

    The whole place cracked up.

    \\][//

    1. I recall at one time suggesting that you, Mr. raisin rogue, might be good as a stand-up comedian!
      Must confess that i’ve now changed my mind.
      Concluding from your above post, i now have to admit that you’ll be bloody hopeless
      in that ‘department’!

      Cheers

    2. For the record I skipped right past SEO’s and TM’s most recent posts and will not be reading them at all. I will henceforth treat Judy Wood supporters, nuke supporters, video fakery supporters, and hollogram supporters the way I treat the Mormon missionaries that come to my door now and then. In other words I am not going to answer the door.

      1. Bravo, Mr. RuffAdam! Bravo!

        Way to go and shoot a hole in your credibility, reputation, and foot with that excellent exposition of Amerikana Ignorance and burying your head in the sand!

        I don’t blame Mr. Ruff for not doing any legwork to substantiate or debunk the hypothesis that I champion, which involve Dr. Wood and nukes, because that can be a time suck.

        But to admit skipping right passed my postings, not reading them, and with a promise never to read them, why that takes the cake in setting new standards about what constitutes intelligent & rational debate. A “belief” in what caused the WTC destruction that is so iron-clad and foolproof, it can’t stand having inconvenient evidence and analysis presented that would ruffle feathers.

        “Ignorance is Strength.”

        If Mr. Ruff is inclined to give his MVP a hand or even a vote of moral support, he does him (or this forum) no favors.

        //

      2. Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,

        I’m not sure if you subscribed to the comments section under the article “9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2)” where you posted a hit-and-run comment, trying to avoid my carousel. Therefore, I call your attention to my 2013-08-12 response here.

        Mr. Ruff, you said “no radiation = no nuke” and that I must “show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero” before you’ll consider nuclear-anything as an option.

        This is a little unfair. If the PTB knew they were going to use nukes, this is the one report above all others that would never see the light of day.

        Moreover, it can easily be turned around with: “Where is the report that tabulates the timely & thorough measurements of radiation at the WTC — all measurements at zero or background levels — and conclusively says there was no radiation?” It ain’t available. Dr. Jones never had a conniption fit about it being MIA.

        At this late date if it were to pop up, would we trust it? Had it been published decades earlier (and maybe we missed it) and in light of all of the other stilted reports (examples in my 2013-08-12 response), would it merit being trusted? Would it stand up as being a model of scientific work, or would it be torn apart like so many other 9/11 “scientific reports”?

        Mr. Ruff, you also neatly do a number in malframing things as “mini-nukes” that have their own connotations and radiation signatures that would be different from the proposed neutron devices. When radiation measurements are not done systematically, thoroughly, and above all promptly, — when the clock is purposely run out –, such expected nuclear radiation from neutron devices would have quickly dissipated and not be there… but not quickly enough to prevent 1st responders from illnesses akin to Hiroshima.

        Ergo, your charge to find a nuclear device that has no radiation is malframed. All have radiation signatures, the question is: which ones produce only low-level and short-lived radiation? Neutron devices.

        //

      3. Ruffadam’s arrogance appears to equal his ignorance. There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes. The most important proof derives from the US Geological Survey’s dust evidence (which is overwhelmingly more extensive and subjected to scientific analysis than the “thermite sniffers” samples, where those samples revealed these elements:

        Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.

        Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

        Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

        Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

        Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

        Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

        Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

        I have published three articles about this in addition to what can be found at the web site for The Vancouver Hearings, namely:

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

        “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle” with Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken, Dr. Ed Ward and Dennis Cimino
        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/

        “Mystery Solved: The 9/11 was Nuked on 9/11” by Don Fox, Dr. Ed Ward, and Jeff Prager
        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

        Ruffadam is a great example of a core problem within 9/11 research: those who take strong stands and shoot off their mouths when they haven’t done their home work and don’t know what they are talking about. Geiger counters, I understand, have not been allowed in New York City since 9/11. And there has been a virtual epidemic of cancers in first responders characteristic of nuclear events. I don’t understand why so many do so little to keep themselves informed about so much.

      4. Dear Dr. Fetzer,

        Nice posting. Thanks for the quotes from Jeff Prager and the links to your work.

        In the future (as in the past), I recommend a tighter, more restrictive use of language with detailed explanations. Otherwise, the public’s perception & common (but weak) understanding of some word or phrase used by you could cause confusion. Or as I have seen, it opens the door for a straw-man attack by an opponent hinging on the fuzziness of those words or phrases.

        An example is when you wrote:

        There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes.

        A possible improvement to this wording would be:

        There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes configured as neutron bombs that direct the energy in a strategic manner and having differing radiation signatures.

        //

  67. The anonymous entity called “Señor” says on MARCH 9, 2013 – 2:29 PM:
    > “If Mr. Ruff is inclined to give his MVP a hand or even a vote of moral support, he does him (or this forum) no favors.”

    Oh to the contrary, Mr Ruff is well respected here and on many other blogs.

    It is preposterous for this anonymous entity to pretend to speak to; “what constitutes intelligent & rational debate”. It is equally absurd to assert that Mr Ruff would be missing anything of substance by ignoring the blathering of “Señor” and this TM character.

    To make the assertion that anyone is ignorant of the facts concerning 9/11 because they have rejected Wood’s pseudoscience, is in itself good enough reason to ignore these ranting lunatic ravings of this entity the so called “Señor”.

    It speaks as if all of the evidence Wood presents is her exclusive discovery. All of the data and information is in the 9/11 record itself. It is the spin of her presentation of such evidence that is her own production. There is nothing original there but her wanked out slant.
    And again, this sales pitch that one must have THE BOOK, is false advertising, a scam and a con.

    This entity called “Señor” is a vicious character assassin, if you don’t buy it’s bullshit, it sets out to defame and destroy you. “Señor” is a bullshit artist with a pressure sales-pitch.

    \\][//

    1. Mr. Rogue-Weasel, who was caught cheating with his debate techniques several times as well as outright lying [within this very thread], calls me “a vicious character assassin.” Not really. The truth just hurts, Rogue-Weasel. Whereas I will never know whether the Rogue-Weasel is an Agent, he for sure is a weasel, a valid character assessment that is on display thread-to-thread wherever he tries to engage me.

      The Rogue-Weasel writes:

      It is preposterous for this anonymous entity to pretend to speak to; “what constitutes intelligent & rational debate”. It is equally absurd to assert that Mr Ruff would be missing anything of substance by ignoring the blathering of “Señor” and this TM character.

      In the immortal words of SNL’s John Belushi, “Well, EXCU-UUUUUSE ME!!!”

      How was I to know the new standard in objective and fair debate in today’s 9/11 discussions requires brushing off (dis)information sources without reading, without due consideration, and without due-diligence is determining validity of the work down to the chapter, page, image, point levels. How “preposterous” for me to think that “intelligent & rational debate” could involve thinking for oneself in evaluating material.

      Here’s the funny part. It isn’t as if Dr. Wood’s work is being held up in its entirety as the gospel. Most of the participants here agree that it is a disinformation vehicle. The sticky problem is that my “ranting lunatic ravings” won’t let go is that her wonderful disinformation vehicle has nuggets of truth — like the horseshoe beams — that are not addressed by other theories.

      I have no desire to make the discussion about Dr. Wood’s work but about the nuggets of truth that are obvious and can be wrapped into neutron nuclear DEW very neatly, and not so much super-duper nano-thermite. Still, I find it amazing how the Rogue-Weasel and now Mr. Ruff firmly figuratively repeatedly smash their noses with Dr. Wood’s textbook, and in the Rogue-Weasel’s case, now gets bird shit on his face.

      Here’s another example of the Rogue-Weasel living up to his new name-sake and the cheating, lying labels that get affixed to his forehead like Dole-Banana stickers:

      It speaks as if all of the evidence Wood presents is her exclusive discovery. All of the data and information is in the 9/11 record itself. It is the spin of her presentation of such evidence that is her own production. There is nothing original there but her wanked out slant.

      The images of the horseshoe and arched beams were linked in my earlier posts, and they are displayed in my neu nookiedoo articles (that the Rogue-Weasel avoids discussing in detail like the plague, preferring instead to just call it belittling names.)

      If the Rogue-Weasel is speaking the truth about ~all~ of the data and information being in the 9/11 record itself, then it should be no problem for him to cough up the URLs where these images are housed as well as the discussion from leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement — Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jon Cole, Richard Gage, (anyone?) — who logically, intelligently, and rationally explains how they came about from super-duper nano-thermite. What does it take to produce such wonders of steel pretzels?

      Talk about a litmus test of a person’s integrity, and one of the best (gift) investments from my 9/11 endeavors! We learn quickly who is an honest seeker of truth, because they aren’t swayed by the PR hypnotic suggestions that labels something “looney” yet is too feeble to provide specifics, let alone acknowledge what might remain that is valid and needing explanations.

      Obviously, the cheating weasel who likes to lie isn’t an honest truth seeker, and never has been despite the opportunity having been sat in his lap at no cost to his wallet (but at high cost to his reputation.)

      The difference between the descriptive names that I now openly call the cheating Rogue-Weasel and the various crafty insults that he his “pressure sales-pitch” has served up against me this past year (in lieu of objectively rescuing nuggets of truth) is that I substantiate my assessment with the Rogue-Weasel’s own exhibit.

      The Rogue-Weasel is welcome to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Ruff in ignoring and (hopefully) not responding to my postings. I think we would all be happy with that outcome. But such has never been within the Rogue-Weasel’s capabilities.

      P.S. Here’s another cheat from the Rogue-Weasel, who tries to make hay with his “anonymous entity” comments. I’m known on the Internet by those who need to know me. [Had the Rogue-Weasel been paying attention when he got his nose-bloodying copy of Dr. Wood’s book last June, he’d know, too.] And for someone who repeating stated that he doesn’t care who I am, the Rogue-Weasel does an awful lot of cheating by constantly tossing out his PR hypnotism about my anonymity. [From the minimal efforts I put into cyber-stalking the Rogue-Weasel to locate his body of words, I can’t with confidence say that his other names aren’t a legend-establishing, back-stopping ruse to his own “anonymity”.]

      // a bullshit artist with a pressure sales-pitch and ranting lunatic ravings.

  68. Keenan once warned about getting this Tar-baby stuck to one’s self….

    The anonymous entity known as “Senor” continues to claim as proof that which are not proofs, in both his defamation attacks and to details about the data on 9/11. Both are taunting techniques to get one aboard his perpetual lunatic carousel…it’s like the forever war that the “war on terror” is. No matter how many points one makes that ‘The Senor Game’ is bullshit, the entity glides right on by….hosing this place with bullshit.

    Everyone on this forum knows my real identity, it is far from secret; I am, Willy Whitten.
    Now the anonymous entity can go through a song and dance of delirious bullshit to try to even put this to question, while also spewing some equally absurd excuses that there are some who might know his true identity. But how do those who are privy to the entity’s “true identity” know? In what have they verified this? I have yet to get any answers on this from anybody.

    One can hardly be less anonymous than myself, as an artist and special effects artist with a portfolio and resume more than 30 years detailed. So it is obvious that this entity will try any gambit, tell any bullshit story, weave any twisted tale to not only defame others, but to continue to hide behind his layers of masks.

    Who ever and whatever this twisted little shit is, he or it is only fooling it’self.

    \\][//

  69. One more point; if this entity “Senor” actually believes that by acting anonymously here with those he speaks to here, one on one, actually translates to anonymity to the corporatist state, then he/it is even more stupid than his pretenses here have proven thus far.

    It then becomes a lame excuse for anonymity, to plead that it will hide you from those who really have power over you, the Panoptic police state operators know who EVERYBODY on the web is. This anonymous entity uses that as an excuse so that it can make the most outrageous and petty charges, make the most absurd arguments about most every issue, and turn every encounter one has with it into a perpetual game of loop’d’loop, a never ending spiral staircase of bullshit.

    Although it is much less aggravating to take Mr Ruff’s example and just ignore this anonymous twat, I think using it as an example of the extreme lunatics one can come across on blogging and making commentary on the Internet. Whether this thing “Senor” is a paid agent, an egomaniac, or psychotic, matters little. It is the effect of it’s management of threads of conversation. The slightest foot in the door brings on the “nookiedoodoo” sales pitch bundled with defamation routines. Just finding the entity’s first response to Mr Syed, will illustrate what I mean. Syed had spoken of Kevin Ryan, not Jones…but the entity took this opportunity to bring Jones into the picture, skewering Jones and leading into this whack about a nuclear aspect of the WTC destruction: the high-pressure sales pitch and slur parade.

    \\][//

  70. Obscenity has taken a new name, that of “senor,” and blasts a new trail of entrails and bent nails, while roasting toasting boasting a shitskabob of strangely glittering turd paddies – failing to remove the gold foil packaging. What this and that or any other thing can do about whatever and done with it be? Since makes sense of slivers of sentences long too many and withering ivy thou. Prison-like it is and like prisms like they are, and brandished guitar that milks the tit of the uniform code of tools leading to the toads toll booth.
    So wherewithall and so fourth and the fifth of fits bundled in frankincense and ocelot urine, bailing out – sailing out unhinged into the drankist of drank and flooblebarred from bruising shank to rank skanks and wobbly tongueworx. Alas at last the last must be and verily formed of curly smoke and surly blokes from the rafters of tweedleboots worn like silk slippers in the sewage pond. Yes and maybe and triple donned cloak of snire. A toke of ire, for Once more in bantertwain shall and did not meet the meat to the grittlenhoist. Rather and instead stood hootless in the barn with the howls of Treeteeyum and cabbage and new aged Herodotus pods like candy thunder on a shattered pane of multicolored glass ensconced in a tubular device for twirling unfurling the stillborn playlist of fart-horns.

    Yes…a fit ending for the new beginning of whatever long breathless potulations that forthcoming might be. So, let it be said.

    \\][//

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