Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next
9/11 -- the smoking gun 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
So you had to rescind your rescind? :lol:

Did you not comprehend what I wrote, or does it depend on what the definition of 'is' is?

Not at all, I was just commenting on the humor of your actions!

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
There's what we've been programmed to believe about nuclear weapons, and then there's a completely different reality hidden behind classified research that is decades old. Nuclear physics has essentially become nuclear chemistry, which is probably just as varied and versatile as conventional food preparation.

Quote:
While there is some heat in the new fusion bombs, they tend to ‘disintegrate’ rather than the old school ‘vaporization’.

In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: “The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays.” Note – the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of “several Pounds of TNT.” As noted above, in 1961 .018 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified. -- source

We have tailored nukes now, both in power and effects produced. If the money masters want 220 dark (non-luminous), non-radioactive (clean) mini-nukes the size of a softball that can just barely disintegrate a WTC tower floor, you can bet the well-paid chefs in the kitchen will deliver.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:38 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
There's what we've been programmed to believe about nuclear weapons, and then there's a completely different reality hidden behind classified research that is decades old. Nuclear physics has essentially become nuclear chemistry, which is probably just as varied and versatile as conventional food preparation.

Quote:
While there is some heat in the new fusion bombs, they tend to ‘disintegrate’ rather than the old school ‘vaporization’.

In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: “The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays.” Note – the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of “several Pounds of TNT.” As noted above, in 1961 .018 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified. -- source

We have tailored nukes now, both in power and effects produced. If the money masters want 220 dark (non-luminous), non-radioactive (clean) mini-nukes the size of a softball that can just barely disintegrate a WTC tower floor, you can bet the well-paid chefs in the kitchen will deliver.


Nuclear bombs on whatever scale - at best - are an uncertainty. With even lesser certainty than the evidence for nanothermite explosives (used jointly with thermite/thermate/naonthermite cutting charges) ... as analyzed by physicist Steven Jones et al.

Nuclear bombs in the narrative of the Twin Towers attacks are weak conjectural elements ... not a smoking gun.

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

beginExcerpt
Smoking gun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Smoking Gun.

The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. In addition to this, its meaning has evolved in uses completely unrelated to criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favor of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called smoking gun evidence. Its name originally came from the idea of finding a smoking (i.e., very recently fired) gun on the person of a suspect wanted for shooting someone, which in that situation would be nearly unshakable proof of having committed the crime. A piece of evidence that falls just short of being conclusive is sometimes referred to as a "smoldering gun."
end


That said, certainty does indeed exist elsewhere in the preponderance.

National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team, is an example of a smoking gun. The witnesses gathered by Craig Ranke et al independently report the same thing and virtually all believe that a jetliner had indeed crashed into the Pentagon (as per the government narrative) ... yet what they report is inconsistent with a jetliner crash (e.g. North Side Citgo approach). But their testimony is consistent with a jetliner flyover with the explosion at the Pentagon caused by other means. That is a smoking gun.

This is to be contrasted with the 100 or so other witnesses (and moles) who also believe (or deliberately argue) that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. Most of these other witnesses are mistaken (the moles, excepted) because their testimony is inconsistent with the provable proven North Side approach but is consistent with the provable proven fictional positioning of the downed poles. So even among the claims of witness testimony we can separate the errant claims from the claims that are the smoking gun.

Of course, as we build the preponderance across the various nodes of the attacks, it's a 100% certainty that an Inside Job was committed ... with the prime suspects being those who profited from the attacks. With that in mind, all fingers point away from Rome and towards Tel Aviv.

So, on the one hand, we have minNukes (with unresolved uncertainty (at best) and, too, with weaker certainty than the argument for nanothermite explosives) being promoted by Chico, the self-proclaimed patron of uncertainty. OTOH, we have Zook pointing away from unwarranted uncertainty to the irrefutable certainty in National Security Alert.

Quick question: Which one of us is pursuing generality in the presence of specific detail, thereby attacking the truth?

Short answer: The owner, fifth columnist, and gatekeeper that presides over this forum with a feather holographic fronting an iron fist.

Pax

ps: I reiterate, the pursuit of the actual mechanism of the attacks is of secondary importance, for the mechanism is not required to identify the perps. The mechanism is only important for historical reasons, not for criminal prosecution. So why is Chico redirecting us away from the identification of the perps and towards the mechanism? Nope, not Sociopathy 101. Gatekeeper 101. Chico's not a sociopath. He's a gatekeeper.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:01 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nuclear bombs on whatever scale - at best - are an uncertainty.

Says Zook the gatekeeper, still pushing certainty. Witness testimony is not a "smoking gun" compared to the measurable and unnatural byproducts of nuclear reactions which are undeniable evidence. It's absurd for you to even put forth such an argument.

I repeat, the evidence for the use of thermite cutting charges on the core columns is quite strong, but thermite cutting charges cannot account for the disintegration of two of the strongest skyscrapers man has ever built. Even the resulting rubble piles were much smaller than they should have been for a simple collapse, and a stack of 100+ concrete floors that would remain from a pancake collapse was nowhere to be seen.

UncleZook wrote:
So why is Chico redirecting us away from the identification of the perps and towards the mechanism? Nope, not Sociopathy 101. Gatekeeper 101. Chico's not a sociopath. He's a gatekeeper.

This is your real goal -- character assassination. Gatekeepers have to discredit anyone pointing away from the illusion and towards the truth. Gatekeepers work to kill the messenger delivering the unwanted truth. Unlike you, I'm not insisting I have the truth. I'm only saying that we consider all the evidence and go wherever it takes us. You want us to go in a specific direction, just like those behind the "problem, reaction, solution" of 9/11.

You really do expose yourself with every post, Zook.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:17 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nuclear bombs in the narrative of the Twin Towers attacks are weak conjectural elements ... not a smoking gun.

So says the great and powerful OZ. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Quote:
Measurements of chemical and mineralogical elements in dust samples gathered in and around Ground Zero were initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey six days after 9/11.

“The mean concentrations of some heavy metals in the WTC dust samples (such as antimony, molybdenum, zinc, copper, lead, chromium, manganese, nickel, and barium) are relatively high compared to their mean concentrations in natural soils from the eastern United States.”

The particles of barium, zinc, and lead, elements that never should have turned up in Lower Manhattan, caught the instant attention of those who were knowledgeable about fallout.

The elevated levels of nuclear particles omitted in the news release, but recorded in those tables: Uranium and its deadly offspring of strontium, barium, and zinc. Massive levels were found of strontium: 3,130 ppms as a maximum; 378 ppms as a minimum; and 726.61 ppms as the mean.

The center for the highest levels of strontium (3,130 ppms) and barium (3,670) was at the intersection of Broadway and Dey, a block from the WTC’s eastern side. Even if those elements had been found in minuscule quantities, renown radiation experts such as Dr. John W. Gofman have warned for years:

The USGS’s 33 outdoor samples do indicate irrefutable signs of nuclear materials:

“….The only explanation that is possible—and indeed the scientifically inescapable conclusion—is that a large-scale fission chain reaction took place in the locality, releasing Strontium, Barium and many other radionucleides into the environment as daughter products of Uranium fission… The presence of large quantities of other well-known daughter products in correlated quantities makes the case overwhelming, beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that a nuclear explosion occurred."

The presence of high levels of vanadium, a radioactive decay product. An expert in aerosols and atmospheric sciences, Dr. Thomas Cahill of the University of California, also had studied the USGS report and pronounced the vanadium level the highest ever seen in the U.S. So were the high levels of nickel and chromium, both decay products. -- source

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:56 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nuclear bombs on whatever scale - at best - are an uncertainty.

Says Zook the gatekeeper, still pushing certainty. Witness testimony is not a "smoking gun" compared to the measurable and unnatural byproducts of nuclear reactions which are undeniable evidence. It's absurd for you to even put forth such an argument.


You're a fraud, Chico. Virtually every post you make entrenches that fact.

Witness testimony in general is a matter of he said, she said, they said, and their rainbow-colored parrot said, true enough. In specific cases, however, such as remembering spatial configuration of low-flying jetliners ... it is a matter of hard evidence.

Witness testimony as pertains to the side of the Citgo gas station that the putative jetliner flew, e.g. North Side ... which had been corroborated by 100% of the witnesses that were in a position to see the jetliner approach the Pentagon (all believing that the jetliner subsequently crashed into the Pentagon on account of the explosion they heard and not because they saw the putative jetliner physically crash into the Pentagon) ... is irrefutable hard evidence.

And certainly more much more credible than reports of nuclear byproducts in the debris that only surfaced (resurfaced??) after Steven Jones et al did an analysis on the debris and found aluminothermic byproducts (pointing to controlled demolition thermite/thermate/nanothermite cutting charges) and evidence of nanothermite explosives (pointing to the pulverizing capacity of miliitary-grade superexplosives that employ sol gels).

The origin of the nuclear byproducts report remains unclear, may even have been completely fabricated like other elements in the official government narrative. Indeed, suitcase nukes can coexist with an Islamic-terrorist narrative whilst aluminothermic cutting charges can only mean Inside Job. So those with a vested interest in preserving the government narrative would have needed to take steps to discount controlled demolition scenarios. The NIST report does just that and proved to be a fraud although cloaked in officialdom. So what makes anyone think that the mini-Nukes report coming on the heels of Steven Jones analysis, is itself not a fraud? Well, no real investigator takes the miniNukes hypothesis seriously. Here, the diabolical disinfo con artists and the dime-a-dunces are not with standing.

Quote:
I repeat, the evidence for the use of thermite cutting charges on the core columns is quite strong, but thermite cutting charges cannot account for the disintegration of two of the strongest skyscrapers man has ever built.


The existence of sol-gel nanothermite explosives that are indeed much more powerful than conventional explosives ... and can ostensibly pulverize cement (and bend steel beams) ... disproves your claim. A claim made by an amateur flatfoot who wants to steer the discussion into the uncertainty-field of known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns ... and away from the certainty-field of known knowns.

Quote:
Even the resulting rubble piles were much smaller than they should have been for a simple collapse, and a stack of 100+ concrete floors that would remain from a pancake collapse was nowhere to be seen.


The steel was immediately carted away. And the pulverized dust expanded and floated over a large radius. That said, we are not debating the amount of debris left over ... we are debating the nature of the agent that caused the debris field. The debate is whether nanothermite explosives can cause the effect of the apparent minimal debris (which Steven Jones et al assert is the case) ... and not that miniNukes are the only weapons that can (which Chico of La Mancha asserts). Nice try at shifting the plinths of the debate.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
So why is Chico redirecting us away from the identification of the perps and towards the mechanism? Nope, not Sociopathy 101. Gatekeeper 101. Chico's not a sociopath. He's a gatekeeper.

This is your real goal -- character assassination. Gatekeepers have to discredit anyone pointing away from the illusion and towards the truth. Gatekeepers work to kill the messenger delivering the unwanted truth.


Your character/caricature was built to be assassinated, Chico ... erm... Chico Ernie ... I mean Chico Bert.

Don't blame me for your mendacity.

Quote:
Unlike you, I'm not insisting I have the truth. I'm only saying that we consider all the evidence and go wherever it takes us. You want us to go in a specific direction, just like those behind the "problem, reaction, solution" of 9/11.

You really do expose yourself with every post, Zook.


Yup, I can verify that you are not insisting that you have the truth. I can also verify that yours is an attempt to infuse uncertainty where it is unwarranted and unneccesary. But is that part of a global gatekeeper operation of creating confusion and misidrection? InMyInformedOpinion, you betcha.

Where do I want to go with my agenda? Well, since my agenda is all about helping will the truth out, I want us to go where the truths are. To that evidence which is irrefutable. Exempli gratia: National Security Alert's video and witness testimony wrt the spatial configuration of the putative jetliner. There's no memory hole big enough to swallow the unanimity of 9 independent witnesses that remember the same spatial configuration ... and remember hearing an explosion and thinking that the jetliner had crashed into the Pentagon. Of course, the dynamics of the crash is, indeed, witness testimony that is refutable and for the precise reason that none of the 9 witnesses actually saw the impact, merely heard it. But the near-identical spatial configuration in memory recall across the board ... is too big to be lost in any memory hole. That is hard evidence ... and the smoking gun. National Security Alert belongs in this thread.

By contrast, discussion of miniNukes belongs in another thread that has yet to be initiated: '9/11- Wild Goose Conjectures'

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Last edited by UncleZook on Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:35 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nuclear bombs in the narrative of the Twin Towers attacks are weak conjectural elements ... not a smoking gun.

So says the great and powerful OZ. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
[...]
Measurements of chemical and mineralogical elements in dust samples gathered in and around Ground Zero were initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey six days after 9/11.

“The mean concentrations of some heavy metals in the WTC dust samples (such as antimony, molybdenum, zinc, copper, lead, chromium, manganese, nickel, and barium) are relatively high compared to their mean concentrations in natural soils from the eastern United States.”
[...]


Of course, here's the catch. The US Geological Survey is one branch of the US government. NIST is another branch. The US government was promoting the narrative of Islamic terrorists with suitcase nukes for some time before 2001. No surprise then that it is promoting the nuclear byproducts narrative immediately after the attacks, I mean, the perps surely had planned everything, right? Wonder why the US Geological Survey did not also promote the aluminothermic byproducts narrative with the same zeal, if at all.

Well, to answer that question, we must look into the benefit - if any - of the suitcase nukes narrative. Qui bono?

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArt ... RTID=13437

beginExcerpt
Recently, two fascinating topics have grabbed the attention of the Western public: speculation that Russians had sold "suitcase nuclear bombs" to al-Qaida terrorists -- based on a claim by a biographer of Osama bin Laden's factotum, Ayman al-Zawahiri -- and an outbreak of terrorist incidents in the Central Asian ex-Soviet republic of Uzbekistan.

These two matters are linked, for as I previously wrote in TCS, Uzbekistan sits in the middle of a dangerous nest of nuclear, ex-nuclear, and aspiring nuclear powers, including its former ruler, Russia; its neighbor Kazakhstan; nearby Pakistan, and China. In addition, the problem of Wahhabi terrorism, backed by the extremist religio-ideological bureaucracy in Saudi Arabia, is as undeniably deadly as the explosions carried out by suicide bombers in the streets of Tashkent in the past few weeks.

As for al-Zawahiri's threats, the Egyptian surgeon-turned-murderer is a notorious and hysterical loudmouth who will say anything for effect.

But are "suitcase nukes" a serious danger for global security?

To emphasize arguments I have made previously and elsewhere, handling of nuclear explosives is no work for amateurs. The specter of "suitcase nukes" has elicited extensive and authoritative comment from experts in the field, such as Nikolai Sokov and William C. Potter, who are published by the Monterey Institute for International Studies (see, for example, this article).

These knowledgeable figures remind us that rumors about "suitcase nukes" first began circulating in the late 1990s. Particularly in Islamic circles, it became common to hear that Al-Qaida or the Taliban had purchased "suitcase nukes" from rogue Russians. The hubbub was fed by Alexander Lebed, the late Russian politician, who claimed some 100 such devices had gone missing on ex-Soviet territory. Lebed added the inflammatory detail that Chechen separatists had come into possession of nuclear weapons. And Lebed issued the charge during an election campaign in which he was a candidate for a local governorship.
end


Getting back to NIST, a US government branch, it has proven itself to be involved in the coverup. Which brings us to the issue of credibility for all the branches of the US Government, including the US Geological Survey. You connect the remaining dot, Chico.

One more thing, if the Zionist-occupied US Government is a component of the collective of prime suspects in the 9/11/2001 attacks, then it has a vested interest in shifting focus to weapons of mass destruction harbored by Islamists. My pet rock could tell you that. And mini-Nukes are just such a weapon of mass destruction. The propaganda ministry of the Zionized US government knows full well that miniNukes are the bogey-sword that has the most promise in getting the xenophobic gullible goyim on board. Wot?

Pax

ps: A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Chico. But it's the first thing that goes once the soul has put on a price tag. You certainly have given us a glimpse into what kind of creature is drawn to the Mephistophelian marketplace.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:07 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
You're a fraud, Chico. Virtually every post you make entrenches that fact.

:lol: :lol: This is what sociopaths do -- they reflect back, with no real rhyme or reason, the same types of observations that are wounding them. So I legitimately point out how you expose your sociopathy with every post, and eventually you fraudulently point out how every post of mine exposes me as a fraud.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

UncleZook wrote:
(all believing that the jetliner subsequently crashed into the Pentagon on account of the explosion they heard and not because they saw the putative jetliner physically crash into the Pentagon) ... is irrefutable hard evidence.

It's evidence, but it is neither hard evidence nor irrefutable. I'm not even arguing the Pentagon case at the moment, but the destruction of the WTC towers.

UncleZook wrote:
So what makes anyone think that the mini-Nukes report coming on the heels of Steven Jones analysis, is itself not a fraud? Well, no real investigator takes the miniNukes hypothesis seriously.

A real investigator doesn't dismiss evidence out of hand, as you clearly do. And how did you determine the timeline of the various theories? Does it matter when the truth makes its appearance?

UncleZook wrote:
The existence of sol-gel nanothermite explosives that are indeed much more powerful than conventional explosives ... and can ostensibly pulverize cement (and bend steel beams) ... disproves your claim.

Where's your evidence for this? How many tons of nanothermite explosives are needed to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete?

Quote:
"An estimated 90,000 tones of concrete in each tower was literally pulverised into dust, sand or grit-sized particles—an absolutely unprecedented event.

This indicates that the forces on the concrete were so high, they exceeded its tensile strength…. by a factor of 300 or more…. and literally tore it apart." -- source


UncleZook wrote:
A claim made by an amateur flatfoot who wants to steer the discussion into the uncertainty-field of known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns ... and away from the certainty-field of known knowns.

You can't resist the character assassination. Would you need to rely on character assassination if you really had the facts on your side?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:43 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Getting back to NIST, a US government branch, it has proven itself to be involved in the coverup. Which brings us to the issue of credibility for all the branches of the US Government, including the US Geological Survey. You connect the remaining dot, Chico.

I see you're up to your usual gatekeeping tricks, Zook. If part of the U.S. government is involved, then all of it must be involved, right? Wrong.

So assuming the USGS wanted to push the nuclear angle, why did they decline to comment on the uranium results? Wouldn't they emphasize this, if that was their agenda, rather than ignore it?

Quote:
The elevated levels of nuclear particles omitted in the news release, but recorded in those tables: Uranium and its deadly offspring of strontium, barium, and zinc. -- source


UncleZook wrote:
Well, to answer that question, we must look into the benefit - if any - of the suitcase nukes narrative. Qui bono?

Your excerpt serves the purpose of downplaying the likelihood that suitcase nukes are in the hands of amateur terrorists, but that's not the scenario here, so it's not applicable. Mini-nukes and all kinds of esoteric technology are in the hands of Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies, who did play the major role in 9/11. They have much more reason to keep nuclear evidence hidden than they do to reveal it. If they wanted to reveal it, they would have right from the get-go, rather than rely on the stupid story of one plane bringing down each WTC tower.

Really Zook, your arguments are absurd, even though you do your best to wrap them in deceptive respectability.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
You're a fraud, Chico. Virtually every post you make entrenches that fact.

:lol: :lol: This is what sociopaths do -- they reflect back, with no real rhyme or reason, the same types of observations that are wounding them. So I legitimately point out how you expose your sociopathy with every post, and eventually you fraudulently point out how every post of mine exposes me as a fraud.
[...]


Sociopathy exists. It is the uncommon form of evil, known and experienced by mankind since the dawn of
time. Sociopaths and nonsociopaths share many behaviors ... but not the nature of their soul. The good are a seed apart from the bad. Sociopaths often exhibit threshold levels of bad behavior on account of their latent evil. Nonsociopaths act badly from time to time but short of the threshold(s) on account of their latent good. Good versus evil. Conscience versus dearth of conscience. That sorta thing. I can give you more lessons on the meaning of the term, Chico ... but your thinking crank is broken, so what's the use?

In any event, to the extent that gatekeeping is an uncommon evil, said gatekeepers are sociopathic. But I don't consider you a sociopath, because your level of gatekeeping is very common and does not meet the threshold criterion. Most humans are common gatekeepers. They keep the gates below the threshold and largely because they are cowards. They prefer sitting on the fence and gauge which side is winning before stepping down on the winning side. That sorta thing. Wasn't it Mark Twain who wrote, "Everyone's a revolutionary when it costs nothing to be one." (paraphrasing, of course).

You're a fence-sitting gatekeeper, Chico. A coward, by any other name. Nothing sinister in being a coward.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
(all believing that the jetliner subsequently crashed into the Pentagon on account of the explosion they heard and not because they saw the putative jetliner physically crash into the Pentagon) ... is irrefutable hard evidence.

It's evidence, but it is neither hard evidence nor irrefutable. I'm not even arguing the Pentagon case at the moment, but the destruction of the WTC towers.


The above is a prime example of how you will distort the offered narrative to cause mischief. You cut out a significant part of the narrative ... but let me paste it back in ...

beginPasteback
Witness testimony in general is a matter of he said, she said, they said, and their rainbow-colored parrot said, true enough. In specific cases, however, such as remembering spatial configuration of low-flying jetliners ... it is a matter of hard evidence.

Witness testimony as pertains to the side of the Citgo gas station that the putative jetliner flew, e.g. North Side ... which had been corroborated by 100% of the witnesses that were in a position to see the jetliner approach the Pentagon (all believing that the jetliner subsequently crashed into the Pentagon on account of the explosion they heard and not because they saw the putative jetliner physically crash into the Pentagon) ... is irrefutable hard evidence.
end


When one puts back the part of the narrative that Chico deliberately omitted, there is no doubt that what I was referring to is irrefutable evidence. Spatial configuration of the putative jetliner with all nine witnesses placing the plane North of Citgo ... is irrefutable ... especially given the fact that all nine witnesses thought that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon, i.e. none were claiming to have witnessed a flyover. The flyover claim is a hostile claim in a video that is hostile to the government's narrative of events ... and if any of the witnesses had claimed a flyover, then, detractors could reasonably argue conflict of interest in their claim ... but in fact, all nine witnesses thought the plane had crashed into the Pentagon due to the explosion they heard shortly after the plane had passed their respective position ... which makes them friendly witnesses to the government's narrative in a video that is hostile to the same narrative.

At which point, Perry Mason steps in and proclaims that the friendly witness accounts doom the government's narrative on the grounds that no one intentionally gives witness testimony to harm a friend ... and further, any friendly witness testimony that does indeed harm a friend is unwitting, and therefore, free of subjectivity.

Case closed.

Your reputation for mischief is already in tatters, Chico ... so we must assume that it is now in smithereens ... you want to try for a bag of subatomics?

Quote:
[... deletia: more of Chico's conjectural gameplaying]

UncleZook wrote:
A claim made by an amateur flatfoot who wants to steer the discussion into the uncertainty-field of known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns ... and away from the certainty-field of known knowns.

You can't resist the character assassination. Would you need to rely on character assassination if you really had the facts on your side?


My reactive temper to your proactive tampering (e.g. calling those that you disagree with, sociopaths) ... exists independently alongside the facts on my side. My temper is something that I'm working on. But hey, I won't apologize for being human.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:35 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.