Tuesday, 1 January 2013

New years prospects

A list of objectives I have for 2013. Some of these may not be entirely plausible (!), and my implementation of them might be limited to simply lobbying more powerful groups to give them consideration.

-Stage a conference warning about the limitations of the scientific method: This is critical because of the many areas of study which have been neglected due to methodological holes in our framework. Contrary to popular belief, science is not an infallible process. In general, theorys and/or findings are accepted only when they become more useful than harmful for the current generation of scientists. For example, although practical cold fusion power would be very useful to society as a whole, its realisation would be harmful to physicists engaged in the research of alternative methods of energy production. Hot fusion is a big business which consumes billions of dollars a year, and the establishment has a vested interest in seeing that this remains so. There are other problems that work in concert with this obstructive conservatism, like complexity brakes, confirmation bias, etc.

-Smooth over the differences between the various truth factions: At this moment in time, the movement is split into numerous different camps. They are mainly divided on what destroyed the world trade centers, I.E, controlled demolition, nuclear ordnance, directed energy weapons, etc. But this also extends to other matters, like on what (if anything) hit the pentagon. In a word, it is planes vs no planes. That is not a category of my own devising, BTW. The view that flight 77 actually did crash into the pentagon has been widely adopted among the upper echelon of truthers, and they have declared anyone not in agreeance with their stance as a no-planer. This includes people such as myself, who are compelled by the fighter jet/global hawk evidence. These sibling rivalrys have been going on for too long, and it is time they get settled in an adult manner!

-Get some papers published in scientific journals: Yes, it is true. I have ambitions of getting my ideas passed through the vaunted peer review process, so that they may obtain recognition (and derision) from the community at large. Circulating ones theorys on the blogosphere can only take you so far, after all. At a certain point, after you realise that your concepts have reached maturity... You have to man up and face the gauntlet of experts, salivating at the thought of ripping your precious ideas to shreds. The sad fact is, in order for your views to have any real impact on the world, they will need to achieve the gold star of peer review. At this point, I have three different subjects in mind, all completely unrelated to each other, as is my practise. There is an amalgam theory of hominid-to-human evolution, some speculation on the abilitys of superintelligent agents, and possibly (I hope) a hypothesis for how the twin towers were demolished.

 
 
-Redress the unfair stigma that is associated with anarchism: For some reason or another, this political ideology has received the full wrath of the establishment propaganda. Anarchists are treated like contagious lepors, which is surprising, given that their philosophy is based merely on the rejection of dictators (I.E, any leader who rules by force), and adherance to the non-aggression principle. Many thinkers who identify themselves with anarchism, such as stefan molyneux, have provided solid reasons for why a civilised peoples should never be willing to trust their leaders as far as they can throw them, regardless of whether they were 'elected' to their position or not. The government is an organisation which has a built in shelf life, past which, it becomes a bloated hulk corrupted by special interests, totally incapable of serving the public interest. If the people understood simple concepts like these, maybe they wouldn't be scratching their heads, wondering why the world is some $50 trillion plus (at a minimum!) in debt.

-Get some professional advertising for the blog: Well, it goes without saying, but theres no such thing as too much publicity! I started this site for the express purpose of compiling some opinions of mine that could not be conveyed through a video log (for one reason or another), which would only be shared amongst my small audience. A glorified journal log, in short. For the first 9 months or so, thats exactly what it was. But then around may, I started getting alot more incoming traffic, and people leaving me messages commenting on stuff I had covered. This got me thinking that there was more potential for this blog than I originally thought, and I started publicising it randomly across the internet. This brought in even more views, and now I am hooked on the idea... At this point, its a forgone conclusion that investing some money into data mining engines would be appropriate.

-Pursue the indictment of the 911 suspects: In agreement with the citizens investigation team, I feel the best strategy in seeking justice for the victims is for informed and concerned citizens to join together to put pressure on local, state, and even federal authorities to seek indictments against those who are already directly implicated in these savage crimes. Imagine what would happen if this process was actually completed, and someone like paul bremer, joseph kasputys, or jerome hauer was forced to testify in court about their personal actions on the day of (and preceding) the september 11th attacks. It would make norman minetas testimony seem almost insignificant by comparison! For my part, I plan to vigorously pursue this campaign by lobbying media figures and elected representatives (though I have no idea exactly which individuals would be amenable to such requests) to investigate the suspicious connections that these men have with the criminal bush family, and how they could have facilitated amongst themselves a false flag attack.


As an aside, there are a number of other unfolding situations which deserve some attention. The your-rights-volunteer campaign is a small youtube phenomenon that is starting to gather some steam. It is a unique idea on how to challenge the establishment, and bypass the traditional routes of cultural reform. I will be very interested to see what direction this will all go, but will refrain from participating in it any further until I get more information. With that said, I do think the guys aims are way overambitious, and I have no idea how he is planning to overcome some of the technical challenges. How will the YRV movement spread to the point where it can achieve a 51% majority anywhere, especially with voter fraud and such? How will they know the right person to elect for the position, someone who has the skills and isn't indebted by special interests? And finally, how does one county recall the elected partys of the whole state/province? Its a major unknown at this point.

Within a couple of months, I would also like to make some more videos pertaining to subjects like conspiracy, and how they are interpreted differently by each person. Some individuals react to it as a black person would to nigg3r, they are just that narrow minded and PC. Pathologising the behaviour of pseudo-skeptics will also be very important, seeing as how they have completely ran off the deep end and abandoned all pre-texts of impartiality when making their sweeping judgements on fringe ideas. Would also like to write some essays regarding post-singularity ethics. One lesson I have in mind is drawn from an african folk story, about how a clever hyena was able to act in mirthless ways without suffering the traditional repercussions that are bestowed on wrong doers by society. Realising that instrumental benevolence will cease to be a concern for superintelligent agents is a leap that most people seem unable to make, so deeply ingrained is its sway within their psyche.


Until next time, best wishes, and happy new year!

50 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reason for deleting the comment was duplicated text.

    What are the limitations of the scientific method?
    What is horrendous about the JRF?
    Quote: This book has been available for just about five years now, and not one of these clowns has been able to mount a defense against griffins criticisms of their holy text.
    How do you plan to pursue the indictment of the 911 suspects, and who are they?
    Paul Thompson submitted a Complaint and Petition, which seeks a criminal inquiry and/or grand jury investigation into "the many still unsolved crimes of September 11, 2001," that was filed with and accepted by the New York Attorney General's Office, in 2004.
    Source Wikipedia
    “Get some papers published in scientific journals”
    When do you think this would be? In the meantime there is a thread which I have contributed at
    The JFR forum, “Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper" update”
    I have contributed with some expertise from 30 years in the branch of Scanning Electron microscopy, X-ray microanalysis, and the use of the SEM, you may want to refute some of the conclusions contributed by Oystein, and Ivan Kminek.
    I understand you cite the 911 commission report; however the 911 commission findings concern the reasons behind the terrorist attacks, not to investigate an alleged conspiracy. The NIST report gives the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
    Here Ryan Mackey refutes Mr.Griffins critique of the NIST report.
    At this site you will find Mr. Mackeys email address if you wish to refute any of his conclusions.
    https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You again? You seem very determined to continue this discussion with me... Alright.

      'What are the limitations of the scientific method?'

      The hard sciences are corruptible because they still rely upon a social system to review the work that goes on within them. They are harder to corrupt because they data they deal with is more clear-cut, typically, so it takes a lot to corrupt them, namely getting people to focus on things that aren't pertaining to answering big questions, or confusing theories with simply pretty untestable proposals.
      One book I would suggest you read on the topic is called The Trouble with Physics, by elite CIT-trained physicist Lee Smolin. It is written by a Physicist who disagrees with Sociologists that all science is always just a social construct.
      Thus he is trying to keep modern theoretical physics honest by calling out some of its problems, for example focus on "string theory" in north america, which is basically not even a theory, and is only dominant in the universities because string theorists have a monopoly in university departments and in funding institutions, which they got for historical and social reasons, largely the fact that physicists are so involved with math that they can be distracted from theory formation by the beauty of certain kinds of mathematical abstraction.
      For more information on the fact that science has a fundamental social aspect, I would suggest you look into the epistemological work of American philosopher C. S. Peirce, who has critiqued Descartes system of feigned doubt arguing that unless doubt has "warrant", you can't really change your beliefs but just but get back your original beliefs -- like Descartes did with Catholicism -- by feigning the doubt.
      Thus you always start "in the middle of things" and for human beings "in the middle of things" means taking the mass of cultural stream you are born into, and analyzing it, and discerning which doubts have warrant and therefore may lead to a change and hopefully advance in knowledge.
      He especially had a lot to say on the medieval scholastic system, which involved a great deal of recieved knowledge and is the basis for the university system of starying with a body of work in a field and then changing it in accord with peer review and with the hypothesis formation/testing methodology that is the basis of modern science.
      He basically thought that the chains of transmission on which the old scholastic relied needed to be taken more seriously as a critical part of the process of increasing knowledge, although as an epistemologist he didn't think we should take them as dogmatically as the medieval scholastics did of course.

      Delete
    2. 'How do you plan to pursue the indictment of the 911 suspects, and who are they?'

      Publish a comprehensive list that documents all of their inter-connections, and exactly what kind of influence they could have had on the events of september 11th. I have identified a list of some 60 individuals (which will continue to grow) who fit the bill. Many are from the air force and war department, and also from private sector companys like marsh & mclennan, logistics management institute, SAIC, IN-Q-TEL, raytheon, etc.

      'When do you think this would be?'

      Tough to tell. Maybe sometime this year, if everything goes according to plan. Anyway, my papers will be addressing subjects other than 911. There are more my talents can be applied to besides digging up government coverup, like paleoanthropology, singulatarianism, etc. Although with that said, I had suggested to major tom (the only real skeptic on JREF) that he make a FAQ for his website, and possibly submit it in article form to some 911 research journal or another.

      'I understand you cite the 911 commission report; however the 911 commission findings concern the reasons behind the terrorist attacks, not to investigate an alleged conspiracy.'

      That explaination of the work done by the 911 commission is self contradictory, since the premise that guided their entire investigation is that the attack WAS a conspiracy (albeit one committed by muslim terrorists). Trying to verify motives to a suspect group is all well and good, so long as they have the actual CAPABILITY to perform the crimes they are accused of. In this aspect, osama bin laden and al qaeda fall far short.

      'Here Ryan Mackey refutes Mr.Griffins critique of the NIST report. At this site you will find Mr. Mackeys email address if you wish to refute any of his conclusions.'

      Oh dear lord. You aren't seriously bringing out that piece of work to try and debunk griffin? Mackeys white paper is a bloated, unreviewable, fallacy filled propaganda piece. Reading more than a dozen pages at a time gives me a tremendous head ache, and I suspect I am not alone in this... He would have done himself more favour if he had condensed it into 80 or so pages. I could probably debunk it myself, had I the inclination to do so.

      Delete
  3. I Googled some of the text you posted in your reply.
    The hard sciences are corruptible because they still rely upon a social system to review the work that goes on within them. They are harder to corrupt because they data they deal with is more clear-cut, typically, so it takes a lot to corrupt them, namely getting people to focus on things that aren't pertaining to answering big questions, or confusing theories with simply pretty untestable proposals.Th
    All of “your” text is repeated there verbatim.
    It turned up at Stormfront.Org, written by Iris Sophia, who claims the material is copyrighted by her.
    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t938681/
    I retain copyright to all original content I post on Stormfront. Selling this content violates my intellectual property rights. Notice posted Jan 22, 2013. SITE Intel, this includes you.
    You have not posted the text as a quote, or acknowledged the author
    As she posted the text 1-10-2013, in reply to a previous post, does this make you a plagiarist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, very good! Looks like you debunkers can do proper research after all (at least, as long as it doesn't involve the actions of their sacrosanct parent figure, the guberment...). And yes, I did copy and paste that particular users comments, because they precisely echo my own stance on the nature of the scientific establishment. As for whether that constitutes plaigiarism, I doubt it. This is the internet, all information is free. The line only gets blurry when you post an entire article that recycles the work of another author, without making it clear that it isn't a simple mirror.

      But maybe you have a different interpretation of all this? I'd be interested in what you, as a swede, would have to say. After all, there aren't many countrys I can think of which are so fastidiously repressive that they make the male members of society sit down when they have to urinate. I bet that really grinds your gears, huh, having to squat down and piss like a girl? Or worse yet... Maybe it doesn't. (See, I can be caustic as well. Got a life time of experience, so if you want to continue trying to blow smoke up my ass, I'll be more than happy to continue. Tread carefully, eurotrash)

      Delete

    2. The bullshit won’t change Webster’s definition.
      Definition of plagiarism at Webster’s
      : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source.
      She clearly states the work his hers and is copy-right.
      If you have any comments on the definition, please take it up with Webster’s.
      Knowing this, I suppose, makes you a lair, as well as plagiarist.

      Delete
    3. Peter? Go fuck yourself. I'll quote whomever I want to, and if you don't like it, then go crawl back under the socialist rock you call sweden. You are clearly more comfortable over there than in the land of actually backing up all the shit that comes out of your mouth. Anyone who is more interested in hen pecking opponents with technicalitys than in debating any factual details of what they have said isn't worth the air they breath, IMHO.

      Delete


    4. Well, before you start using big words you should know how to spell them, but I won't go into the technicalities. Worth considering, if you’re going to refute the 911commission report, and NIST.
      Let me know when It’s complete.


      Delete
  4. Have you tried to decipher this?
    The hard sciences are corruptible because they still rely upon a social system to review the work that goes on within them. They are harder to corrupt because they data they deal with is more clear-cut, typically, so it takes a lot to corrupt them, namely getting people to focus on things that aren't pertaining to answering big questions, or confusing theories with simply pretty untestable proposals.
    Or this?
    Thus he is trying to keep modern theoretical physics honest by calling out some of its problems, for example focus on "string theory" in north america, which is basically not even a theory, and is only dominant in the universities because string theorists have a monopoly in university departments and in funding institutions, which they got for historical and social reasons, largely the fact that physicists are so involved with math that they can be distracted from theory formation by the beauty of certain kinds of mathematical abstraction.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 2.
      It’s clear that Iris Sophia has made a mess of understanding what Lee Smolins video really has to say,
      about democracy within the scientific community.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html
      He finishes though with the words, “Science will never go away” that same science is, as he say’s evolving, I for one understand this, Iris Sophia hasn’t defined what she means by “Hard science”

      The scientific method
      The Oxford English dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
      This methodology is accepted for science at the atomic level, not at the sub atomic level, I think
      this should be revised to reflect research in Quantum physics, but any University physics student knows this!

      Delete
    2. Part 3.

      No one has a monopoly as she states; anyone can publish a paper on any subject they wish,
      Including you, the tricky bit though is getting the paper accepted by your peers. There are alternatives though, Bentham Science publishing have an open paper approach, where Harrit et al
      have been able to publish, the paper has not been received by the peer reviewed Nature.
      My question remains, what is wrong with the scientific method?
      If you are going to proceed with indictment of individuals, you are going to need evidence.
      evidence is the substance of any indictment, not a list of names, however long that might be, submitted to, (in the case of the USA) to a Grand Jury.
      Evidence is not assumptions, supposition, conjecture, hearsay, or that you, know they did it.
      My question remains;
      How do you plan to pursue the indictment of the 911 suspects, and who are they?
      Yes, I failed to explain the obvious, it was an Islamist terrorist conspiracy, and they had the means,
      motive, and opportunity to attack the WTC buildings, and the Pentagon. The means established in the 911commission report where hijacked aircraft, the motive established in the 911 report was, “The USA had declared war on God. The opportunity established by the 911 report was that the hijackers were photographed at the airports before boarding the aircraft. Capability is established as
      a consequence of these three facts.

      Delete
  5. Part 4.

    “That explaination of the work done by the 911 commission is self contradictory, since the premise that guided their entire investigation is that the attack WAS a conspiracy (albeit one committed by muslim terrorists).
    How can the 911 report be self contradictory, because they were investigating the reasons behind the 911 terrorist attacks? Do you have a couple of examples of these “self contradictions in the 911 report you can reference?
    “Oh dear lord. You aren't seriously bringing out that piece of work to try and debunk griffin? Mackey’s white paper is a bloated, unreviewable, fallacy filled propaganda piece. Reading more than a dozen pages at a time gives me a tremendous head ache, and I suspect I am not alone in this... He would have done himself more favour if he had condensed it into 80 or so pages. I could probably debunk it myself, had I the inclination to do so”
    I challenge you to debunk Mackeys refutation of Griffins work. Send him your refutation, and let me know when you send it. Do you accept my challenge?
    “Anyone who is more interested in hen pecking opponents with technicalitys than in debating any factual details of what they have said isn't worth the air they breath, IMHO.
    You mean asking questions you are unable to answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Worth considering, if you’re going to refute the 911commission report, and NIST.'

      That task had already been completed, before I even got involved with the truth movement. Please see my post, 9/11 contradictions. If you want a long list of logical inconsistencys contained within the report, then refer yourself to there.

      'If you are going to proceed with indictment of individuals, you are going to need evidence.'

      Plenty of evidence has been amassed. All of the connections needed to facilitate the staging of this kind of operation were positively identified to be in place. It has also been observed that a number of suspicious transactions were taking place during and after the attacks.
      Like washington group international (a company with controlled demolition expertise, and connections to therese mcallister) purchase of raytheon engineers, a number of whom were killed on september 11th. These are HIGH RANKING employees we're talking about. Half of them were working on some project in arlington, virginia, just a couple of blocks away from the air forces scientific research office.
      The fact that this center was being run by doctor lyle schwartz, a former director of NIST (!), and brigadier general william hodges (who was later posted as the commander of macdill AFB, practically the only airport in the united states where flight 77 and its crew could have been landed to without anyone knowing) should also serve as grounds for reasonable doubt).

      'Yes, I failed to explain the obvious, it was an Islamist terrorist conspiracy, and they had the means, motive, and opportunity to attack the WTC buildings, and the Pentagon.'

      Peter, it is inconceivable that a ragtag band of al qaeda operatives could have hijacked four planes without being intercepted, and succesfully penetrate two of the most heavily defended airspaces on three seperate occasions. And it is very improbable that they could have popped in and out of the united states like they did (numerous times) without being arrested or detained.
      If you really believe that some mamby pamby buffoons had done all that, then you would have to explain why there is hardly any solid evidence to prove that they actually boarded the planes in question that morning! For this, the fact that the authentic original flight manifests have never been released by the authoritys should serve as grounds for reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    2. While printouts purporting to be copies of passenger lists from 911 were presented as exhibits at the moussaoui trial, these printouts contain no authentication and were not accompanied by chain-of-custody reports. There are also no eyewitness (or security footage) to verify that the hijackers actually embarked on any of the four airlines in question, nor are there ticket stubs from the boarding passes they would have needed to get on the plane!
      Is that enough for you, or should I keep going? Maybe the fact that brothers hamza and ahmed al-ghamdi had both purchased tickets for a flight the next day (from dulles airport in washington DC to saudi arabia) doesn't strike you as odd... If you are a sane person like me, though, you might be asking exactly where these men thought they were going, other than to a fiery grave? Why go to the expense of buying tickets that would never be used? The guberment never has an answer.

      'How can the 911 report be self contradictory, because they were investigating the reasons behind the 911 terrorist attacks?'

      No... What I had implied was that your explaination of the work done by the 911 commission (as not being based on the premise of a conspiracy) is self contradictory, due to the fact that a conspiracy is simply an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act. With that definition being understood, how is it that you continue to avoid the inescapable conclusion that the official story of 911 is, in itself, a conspiracy theory?
      Have you bought in to all the propaganda that conspiracys are defined by their inherant falsity, or some other characteristic that does not apply to government narratives or explaination? Do tell.

      'I challenge you to debunk Mackeys refutation of Griffins work. Send him your refutation, and let me know when you send it. Do you accept my challenge?'

      Obviously a full refutation is impossible, due to the documents sheer length (to say nothing of its twisted chain of reasoning). I have commented on that, and so have a great many other 911 researchers. Though I'm flattered that you apparently think I am a counter-intelligence expert... It also goes without saying, peter, that since the basic foundation to rejecting the official story of 911 is the evidence for LIHOP, even a complete rebuttal to the controlled demolition theorys (which mackey attempts) would not be sufficient to put our movements doubts to rest. Sorry :)

      Delete
    3. Questions you have not answered?
      Have you deciphered the article you plagiarized from Iris Sophia yet?
      What is wrong with the scientific method?

      Terrorists have hijacked aircraft, “Without being intercepted, what are you talking about!
      Do you dispute this?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#2000s
      The means established in the 911commission report where hijacked aircraft, the motive established in the 911 report was, “The USA had declared war on God. The opportunity established by the 911 report was that the hijackers were photographed at the airports before boarding the aircraft. Capability is established as a consequence of these three facts.
      Do you dispute the above?
      How can the 911 report be self contradictory, because they were investigating the reasons behind the 911 terrorist attacks? Do you have a couple of examples of these “self contradictions in the 911 report you can reference?
      911 Contradictions.
      “feared an attack on the presidents life is contradicted by the secret services indication by its statement to the 911 commission”
      Reference to 911 report, where can this statement be found?
      “Obviously a full refutation is impossible, due to the documents sheer length (to say nothing of its twisted chain of reasoning).”
      Here you give two alternatives for your reluctance to refute Ryan Mackey’s paper, neither of which is valid.
      Define “twisted chain of reasoning” and then prove the definition.
      Wouldn’t this be a conclusion based on your non-existent refutation of Ryan Mackey’s?
      “With that definition being understood, how is it that you continue to avoid the inescapable conclusion that the official story of 911 is, in itself, a conspiracy theory?
      What do you mean by official story? I’m talking about the 911 commission report, which is not a
      conspiracy theory, but a report and conclusions, explaining the terrorist attacks on the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, where the perpetrators are known, where the motive, means, and opportunity have been established. Yes, terrorists conspired to attack the WTC buildings, so what.
      Do you understand this?
      Do you dispute this?
      LIHOP, is one of many different conspiracy theories, where the conspirators remain unknown, the means, motives, and opportunity, similarly remain unknown.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
      Do you dispute this?

      “Though I'm flattered that you apparently think I am a counter-intelligence expert..
      What flight of fancy could possibly have given you the idea that I think you are a counter intelligence expert, but it’s a good example of how truthers seem to be able to make something, out of absolutely nothing.

      Delete
    4. The many logical fallacys contained within mackeys response to DRG are demonstrated sufficiently well in this posting by jim hoffman: 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
      And yes, I am aware that RM has made a response to this, although I do not consider his approach (which is to simply state the opposite of every point made by his critics) to be satisfactory.

      'What do you mean by official story? I’m talking about the 911 commission report, which is not a conspiracy theory, but a report and conclusions, explaining the terrorist attacks on the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, where the perpetrators are known, where the motive, means, and opportunity have been established.'

      Yes, the 911 commission IS a conspiracy theory. You are attatching extraneous, politically correct labels to the definition of CT, which do not exist in the websters dictionary you prize so much. You need to get over your CT hangups and actually admit that the premise of the 911 commission is rooted in a conspiracy.

      'LIHOP, is one of many different conspiracy theories, where the conspirators remain unknown, the means, motives, and opportunity, similarly remain unknown.'

      Now you are judging a narrative based on whether or not it presupposes the identity a guilty party, or their motives? Give me a fucking break! You are so brainwashed it isn't even funny. When powerful government agencys go to great lengths to execute synthetic terrorism, and then cover up the fact with a torrent of yellow media, how reasonable is it to expect that mere citizen investigators (with limited resources) can track down the guilty partys in this precise fashion?
      Our stance has always been that the official story needs to be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, in order for authorisation for a new investigation to proceed. It is unreasonable to expect an air tight theory with the who, what, where, when and how while the guilty partys (or their associates) are still in power!

      'What flight of fancy could possibly have given you the idea that I think you are a counter intelligence expert.'

      Because you apparently expect me to review (within a few days) a 300 page propaganda piece released by a wily government shill. Or was I simply misreading you again?

      Delete
  6. 'Questions you have not answered? Have you deciphered the article you plagiarized from Iris Sophia yet?'

    Don't get picky with me. You keep shotgunning all this information at me, so of coure I am going to ignore some of it (especially when you continue to provide resistance on certain tangents, which prolongs my attempts to backtrack to those other arguments)! Think before you say something stupid next time.

    'The opportunity established by the 911 report was that the hijackers were photographed at the airports before boarding the aircraft. Capability is established as a consequence of these three facts.'

    That kind of 'opportunity' doesn't just apparate out of thin air, especially after you've hijacked a plane, and the entire united states air defense system has been alerted to your presence and motives. The only reason interceptions did not take place was due to the fact that NORAD, the FAA, and the USAFs responses were all obstructed with a number of drills and war games being held that morning. Do you hold that these were all an exceedingly unfortunate coincidence, or that they somehow could have been arranged by muslims?!
    Also, your point on the 'photographs' is mistaken. Those images only show atta and blank boarding the plane in boston at 5:30 am, which was not hijacked. This proves nothing. The only other video stills are of the flight 77 hijackers, but (as I said before) it merely shows them passing through a security checkpoint, not actually embarking on it... Again, you have no hard proof that these men actually boarded the planes in question that morning.
    Also, as to your questions about my '9/11 Contradictions' post, if you want to actually get them answered, then maybe you should try submitting them to the comments section of the actual article you are addressing!

    'Here you give two alternatives for your reluctance to refute Ryan Mackey’s paper, neither of which is valid. Define “twisted chain of reasoning” and then prove the definition.'

    Peter, how is it that you can make such a dumb request without even a trace of sarcasm? You are asking me to review and debunk a massive fucking paper, which needlessly quotes DRGs text almost paragraph for paragraph, has a terrible sentance structure, and is filled with umpteen logical fallacys. Worse yet, you expect me to put myself through all these hopes while still maintaining the pre-tense that it is up to me to single handedly try and defend another authors work, even though the content of the book in question isn't even immediately related to the foundation of 911 truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 5.
      Questions still unanswered.
      Deciphering plagiarized Iris Sophia post.
      What is horrendous about the JREF?
      What are the limitations of the scientific method?
      “And yes, I did copy and paste that particular users comments, because they precisely echo my own stance on the nature of the scientific establishment.
      If the above is true it should be an easy matter to answer my question.
      “That kind of 'opportunity' doesn't just apparate out of thin air, especially after you've hijacked a plane,
      They did have opportunity, they were at the airport, and they were photographed passing through security. Is this difficult to understand?
      Appearing out of thin air is not a criteria for opportunity. Let me explain, opportunity is, geography,yes,they were there.
      “Don't get picky with me. You keep shotgunning all this information at me, so of coure I am going to ignore some of it (especially when you continue to provide resistance on certain tangents, which prolongs my attempts to backtrack to those other arguments)!
      Think before you say something stupid next time.
      What do you mean by don’t get picky with me?
      “prolongs my attempts to backtrack to those other arguments”
      You mean evade the question!
      Its questions I am asking you. What are you talking about, “shotgunning all this information at me”
      get a grip, read what I write!
      Explain what you mean by “provide resistance on certain tangents” do you know yourself what you mean.
      “Think before you say something stupid next time”. Dangling participle?
      What was it I said which was stupid?

      Delete

    2. Part 6.

      My question remains;
      What do you mean by official story? I’m talking about the 911 commission report, which is not a conspiracy theory, but a report and conclusions, explaining the terrorist attacks on the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, where the perpetrators are known, where the motive, means, and opportunity have been established. (1.)

      “You are attatching extraneous, politically correct labels to the definition of CT, which do not exist in the websters dictionary you prize so much. You need to get over your CT hangups and actually admit that the premise of the 911 commission is rooted in a conspiracy.
      Wrong again, here is the definition of Conspiracy Theory according to Websters;

      A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.

      My paragraph, (1.) is not a definition!

      “You are attatching extraneous, politically correct labels to the definition of CT Ergo,“attached, “extraneous, “politically correct labels, cannot apply, and by the way you should take a
      Even if the context was right, which it isn’t, you should have written, “introducing, then you don’t need extraneous.
      “Politically correct labels” is just a way for the truther to avoid saying what they mean,to denigrate,
      without explanation.
      'LIHOP, is one of many different conspiracy theories, where the conspirators remain unknown, the means, motives, and opportunity, similarly remain unknown.'

      “Now you are judging a narrative based on whether or not it presupposes the identity a guilty party, or their motives?
      I’m not judging any narrative? I’m explaining why the 911 commissions report is not a conspiracy theory, which has already been defined for you, at least twice, its secret, the conspirators are unknown, get it.
      If I put it this way, the 911 commissions report






      examines the consequences of attacks by a group of Islamic terrorists on the WTC buildings, and the Pentagon. As a group were obliged to conspire, so what!

      I expect you to put your money where your mouth is, and to quote you.

      Delete
    3. Part 7.

      "I plan to vigorously pursue this campaign by lobbying media figures and elected representatives (though I have no idea exactly which individuals would be amenable to such requests) to investigate the suspicious connections that these men have with the criminal bush family, and how they could have facilitated amongst themselves a false flag attack.
      I have identified a list of some 60 individuals (which will continue to grow) who fit the bill. Many are from the air force and war department, and also from private sector companys like marsh & mclennan, logistics management institute, SAIC, IN-Q-TEL, raytheon, etc.
      Stage a conference warning about the limitations of the scientific method: This is critical because of the many areas of study which have been neglected due to methodological holes in our framework.
      You can’t answer my question which is simple enough. What are the limitations of the scientific method, so how are you ever going to hold a conference on the subject? Forgive me if I believe
      You are making all this up, but I will be watching you and waiting to see what progress you’ve made.
      Get some papers published in scientific journals, sure, but when?

      “Mackeys white paper is a bloated, unreviewable, fallacy filled propaganda piece. Reading more than a dozen pages at a time gives me a tremendous head ache”
      This sounds really bad, does this mean you only read 12 pages of the paper, because you developed a tremendous headache, or that you read the whole paper,10 pages or so, at a time, which was below the onset of a tremendous headache, or as you state, “reading more a dozen pages at a time”, gives the impression that you read more than a dozen pages.

      Peter, how is it that you can make such a dumb request without even a trace of sarcasm? You are asking me to review and debunk a massive fucking paper, which needlessly quotes DRGs text almost paragraph for paragraph, has a terrible sentance structure, and is filled with umpteen logical fallacys. Worse yet, you expect me to put myself through all these hopes while still maintaining the pre-tense that it is up to me to single handedly try and defend another authors work, even though the content of the book in question isn't even immediately related to the foundation of 911 truth.

      Delete

    4. List of your most notable statements:
      1.“That kind of 'opportunity' doesn't just apparate out of thin air, especially after you've hijacked a plane,
      2."especially when you continue to provide resistance on certain tangents
      3."which prolongs my attempts to backtrack to those other arguments
      4."Think before you say something stupid next time
      5."You are attatching extraneous, politically correct labels to the definition of CT, which do not exist in the websters dictionary you prize so much
      6."Now you are judging a narrative based on whether or not it presupposes the identity a guilty party, or their motives?
      7."Mackeys white paper is a bloated, unreviewable, fallacy filled propaganda piece. Reading more than a dozen pages at a time gives me a tremendous head ache”




      Delete
    5. 'You mean evade the question! Its questions I am asking you. What are you talking about, “shotgunning all this information at me” get a grip, read what I write!'

      So you refuse to recognise your gish gallop for the logical fallacy it is, or that its use is impermissable in an argument? Fine. Please read this (whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911q.html) and answer all the questions in it. Don't bother responding to me before you have answered all 160 of them, or else you will be accused of evading the questions. Get it?
      Whenever someone aims to concoct a seemingly endless stream of baseless assertions, and then challenges ME to prove that each and every one of them impossible, of course I won't feel obligated to comply with that request. Expecting your opposition to conclusively disprove such a huge volume of ridiculous theories is just assinine, and if you still think I'm wrong, then get to work on answering those 160 questions: Either abide by your own anecdotes, or shut up and drop the act.

      'They did have opportunity, they were at the airport, and they were photographed passing through security. Is this difficult to understand? Appearing out of thin air is not a criteria for opportunity. Let me explain, opportunity is, geography,yes,they were there.'

      The only video stills available to the public documenting the alleged hijackers at ANY airport was a clip from a security camera at portland (not logan, dulles, or newark!) showing atta and alomari going through security. Thats all! Even if you did have footage of them passing through security at the three targeted airports, so what? That doesn't mean they boarded the planes, much less actually hijacked them!
      You have no hard information that they did any of the things you say they did, and no explaination for how they were able to evade the FAA, NORAD, and the USAF for nearly two hours! DO YOU THINK SOME PEOPLE IN A CAVE COULD GET THE AIR DEFENSES TO STAND DOWN?!

      'A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.'

      So we've had it wrong all along, the hijackers weren't trying to keep things secret? They were letting everyone who asked know that they had been sent over by osama bin laden, and that they were planning on destroying famous landmarks across the united states? How exactly could their conspiracy proceed without the element of secrecy?

      Delete
    6. 'You can’t answer my question which is simple enough. What are the limitations of the scientific method, so how are you ever going to hold a conference on the subject? Forgive me if I believe You are making all this up, but I will be watching you and waiting to see what progress you’ve made.'

      Since you refuse to acknowledge the validity of my previous line of reasoning, which was focused on social stigmas, allow me to present another: www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index (check out section 4 especially). This website is hosted by a JREF poster who has devoted years of effort to studying the collapse of the twin towers, and how even two very different research organisations (NIST and AE911Truth) could both fail to identify the mechanics at play.
      Anyway, I didn't suggest that I personally would hold such a scientific conference, only that I would be championing the cause to get one actually started! There are a number of players much better suited than myself to actually run such a difficult project. I go into the details about all that in my update of this article, which was posted on this blog in march.

      'This sounds really bad, does this mean you only read 12 pages of the paper, because you developed a tremendous headache, or that you read the whole paper,10 pages or so, at a time, which was below the onset of a tremendous headache.'

      Your a funny guy. I read about 50 pages of his work, mostly on his response to the claims about the WTCs destruction, which I found to be in serious error. The rest of mackeys e-book was almost entirely fluff. In my opinion, his analysis on the evolution of truth movement (in 'the great internet conspiracy') was a far more valuable contribution, despite the insults and barbs the author peppers throughout it.

      Delete
    7. You state;
      So you refuse to recognise your gish gallop for the logical fallacy it is, or that its use is impermissable in an argument.
      This statement is false, “So you refuse to recognise your gish gallop for the logical fallacy it is”

      Well, you first have to have to prove what I have written is Gish Gallop, before you make such a statement, don’t you? So go ahead prove it!

      Though you might feel it should be impermissible, and I would agree with you, Gish Gallop is frequently used by creationists.
      “Since you refuse to acknowledge the validity of my previous line of reasoning, which was focused on social stigmas…..
      How is it possible to acknowledge the validity of your previous line of reasoning which is false,look up the definition of “social stigma, please.

      The Oxford English dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
      Note;
      This methodology is accepted for science at the atomic level, not at the sub atomic level,I think
      this should be revised to reflect research in Quantum physics, but any university physics student knows this, and although you did not understand what Iris Sophia was talking about, she was closer to the facts than you.

      Delete
  7. This is a logical fallacy;
    You reason that, since Mackey’s paper is a bloated, unreviewable, fallacy filled propaganda, it cannot therefore be used to refute Griffins work.
    Where your premise, “You aren't seriously bringing out that piece of work to try and debunk griffin.
    Is not supported in your conclusions, (reasoned judgments) “Mackey’s paper is bloated, unreviewable, fallacy filled propaganda.

    On the 17th March I asked you four questions.
    What are the limitations of the scientific method? This question remains unanswered
    what is horrendous about the JRF? This question remains unanswered
    How do you plan to pursue the indictment of the 911 suspects?
    And who are they? Answered in part but “who are they” remains unanswered.
    You answered only one question, “How do you plan to pursue the indictment of the 911 suspects, which was not a really a valid answer, as it does not describe the way one seeks an indictment in law.
    Here again is the definition of indictment;

    A formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Other questions I have asked have been a result of our mutual continuation of the argument.
    To 81 questions concerning the WTC attacks my reply is, I don’t know.
    Questions 5,27,30,34, 54, and 55, will need a little time to answer. Do you know the answers to the 87 questions?
    “I read about 50 pages of his work, mostly on his response to the claims about the WTCs destruction, which I found to be in serious error. The rest of Mackey’s e-book was almost entirely fluff. In my opinion, his analysis on the evolution of truth movement (in 'the great internet conspiracy') was a far more valuable contribution, despite the insults and barbs the author peppers throughout it.
    What serious errors did you find, how many are there, do you have any references to where these faults may be found in Mackey’s paper, which pages?
    Another logical fallacy, if you have only read 50 pages, how can you come to the conclusion that it
    is “fluff” whatever that might mean? Be plain!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Mackey writes well, I see no faults in his English usage, or sentence structure.
    The narrative flows well enough considering it’s a science paper, not prose! When one considers good English a prerequisite for employment as a scientist with NASA, it’s surprising you mention these alleged faults. It would serve you well to consider your own failings, which are numerous.
    .



    ReplyDelete


  10. Come on, answer the questions, you can only be wong, again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well, peter. You want me to do a review of mackeys paper and try to debunk it? I WILL. You can show it to all your little buddys at the JREF when I'm done. For now, though, I have other projects on the table that require my attention. Such as the involvement of US military personnel in black operations and systematic murder, like the phoenix program, or the JPEL protocol. The frenemy relationship betweent he CIA and al qaeda also requires some development.

      While your interest in this matter is appreciated, I don't very well have the time or inclination to give you a full course on the particulars of 911 truth. Maybe that would change if you had a major presence on youtube (and our interaction could garnish me some publicity), but you don't. Anyway, I feel at this point that you are JAQing off in an attempt to simply wear me out, and that you are not willing to relent in your insular worldview if proven wrong.

      If you wish to continue your inquiry on this subject, then I can offer you articles to read, and feedback of my own stance on them... But my drive to hold sustained arguments with government apologists at this point is dimishing. Its a low reward activity that has been done to death. My time can be much better invested by continuing dialogue with people who know that 2+2 = 4, or that the earth orbits the sun. Sorry, but thats just how it is. Debunkers are too far behind in their knowledge to offer much interest.

      Delete
    2. How is the debunking coming along?
      You have still not answered all my questions, and what is this! Still more mumbo jumbo about
      Secret black ops complete with other lies and fabrications you cannot support with facts. I have already proven you are a plagiarist and liar, so come on put your money where your mouth is.
      I will debate you anytime.
      What is a logical fallacy?
      Where is the debunking of Mr. Mackey’s paper!

      Delete
    3. By the way, as far as I can see, membership seems to have been removed, with no reason given, the same goes for Oystien. Why?

      Delete
    4. If you wish to continue with all your nonsense, then lets move the discussion to my blogs february entry, 9/11 contradictions. Its a little low on viewings right now, and could benefit from the traffic... But yes, as I said before, there WERE special operations personnel stationed in positions of great sensitivity during the september 11th attacks: Exactly the kind of places you would need to facilitate a large scale conspiracy. For one thing, they had complete control over the air forces office of scientific research, which I believe was used as a command post during the preperation phase of this black operation. What bearing does this have on our argument? Because, only through the AFOSR could they conveniently synchronise the stockpiling of ordnance for the upcoming attacks, including reactive materials, linear cutting charges, and hyper weaponised anthrax (most of which came courtesy of the labs director, lyle schwartz, who had connections to arden bement of battelle, the same corporation which was making all of this stuff!).

      The conspirators control over this office also allowed them to infiltrate AT LEAST one of the raytheon facilitys that were working on the guidance system for the global hawk: Funnily enough, it was located just down the block from the AFOSR! I know that such a penetration took place, because not only were a large number of these raytheon employees killed in the hijackings, but general charles holland (the commander of SOCOM, who had previously shut down the able danger project) had somehow managed to get his hand on the software for this top secret package! Yes, you heard me right. Holland ended up giving this priceless artifact away to aero-environment, in return for a cushy job title with them after his retirement from the military. How exactly would he have gained access to that software, were it not for his moles directing the research efforts of the creators? And why did raytheon never find out about this pilfering of their crown jewels, and indite holland on corporate theft? Because, they worked for the same team of crooks that our good general did. Thats probably how the 911 masterminds even knew about raytheons R&D effort in the first place.

      Delete
    5. “The conspirators control over this office also allowed them to infiltrate AT LEAST one of the raytheon facilitys that were working on the guidance system for the global hawk”
      Wrong, yet again. Raytheon are not a company which makes INS systems, (inertial guidance system), the INS systems are made by Kearfott Guidance and Navigation systems. Although with projects like this you can only rely on the information presented, but the fact remains that Grumman Northrop which are the prime contractors, having bought Teledyne Ryan who designed the Global Hawk, only integrate the INS, they do not make it, so your statement about Raytheon ”working on the guidance system” is just so much rubbish. Understanding the history of aerospace companies and what they do traditionally, is simply beyond you. See, http://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/history/

      There is a small chance I could be wrong, in which case you need to supply the military designation number, type, of the Raytheon “guidance system as manufactured by Raytheon.

      It pleases me that you have blocked me commenting on your channel, such are the ways of those who fear the truth.





      Delete
    6. You still have not answered all my questions.
      When are you going to publish your Mackey paper rebuttlel?

      If you don't want to continue embarassing yourself, carefully check all your "facts before posting, the internet is a fantastic resource, not needed I suppose if you are obliged to make it all up.

      Delete
    7. Why have you removed myself as a member, without reason.

      Delete
    8. 'Wrong, yet again. Raytheon are not a company which makes INS systems, (inertial guidance system), the INS systems are made by Kearfott Guidance and Navigation systems.'

      Saying that I am wrong AGAIN implys that I was wrong about something previous, which is not self-evident to anyone other than you... But your point on the INS systems is well taken, you'll have to forgive me mixing it up with the ISS. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the electro-optical camera and synthetic aperture radar (as well as the algorithm that process all the data from it) was a key component of GHs integrated sensor suite, which was grafted to these drone aircraft. The terminal phase of their attack run was remotely controlled (NOT guided by GPS alone, as some would contend), which requires optical data to be gathered and transmited from the suicide craft.

      'It pleases me that you have blocked me commenting on your channel, such are the ways of those who fear the truth.'

      Don't let it go to your head, the block has been removed. I only did that because there is no other option on youtube for removing someone from the subscriber list (and no, I definately don't want a debunker to automatically be updated on my youtube actions). Your free to leave comments on my channel, but don't bother subscribing to me again.

      'You still have not answered all my questions. When are you going to publish your Mackey paper rebuttlel?'

      Nor have you answered all of mine. Big surprise. Spam begrets spam.
      But I'm not in any hurry to post my critique of ryan mackey anytime soon. I still have other projects on the horizon. Rest assured, though, any review I do of him will be in depth (not that it could be avoided, due to his papers extreme length).

      Delete
    9. Saying that I am wrong AGAIN implys that I was wrong about something previous, which is not self-evident to anyone other than you... But your point on the INS systems is well taken, you'll have to forgive me mixing it up with the ISS. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the electro-optical camera and synthetic aperture radar (“The conspirators control over this office also allowed them to infiltrate AT LEAST one of the raytheon facilitys that were working on the guidance system for the global hawk”
      Wrong again!
      Hang on a sec, you say, when you wrote this, ““The conspirators control over this office also allowed them to infiltrate AT LEAST one of the raytheon facilitys that were working on the guidance system for the global hawk”
      That the point you where trying to make was about electro-optical sensors, and synthetic aperture radar, not the INS, that’s a really big mix up, or what?

      Delete
    10. Then you get yourself into more trouble by trying to cover up bullshit, with more bullshit.
      “The point I was trying to make, however, is that the electro-optical camera and synthetic aperture radar (as well as the algorithm that process all the data from it) was a key component of GHs integrated sensor suite, which was grafted to these drone aircraft. The terminal phase of their attack run was remotely controlled (NOT guided by GPS alone, as some would contend), which requires optical data to be gathered and transmited from the suicide craft.
      Algorithms do not process information, but are a set of instructions as to how, (in this case) obtain the best images from the cameras and sensors, through computer processing. See,
      http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmanfilter you will not understand filters, but I have given you a clue.
      The camera, and imaging sensors where not grafted on, as an afterthought but integrated with the other systems. See the definition of “grafted” to understand this.
      The GPS system tells the aircraft where it is, at any point in time, GPS does not tell the aircraft where the aircraft is going, but it can be used as a reference
      The inertial navigation system controls the direction the aircraft is travelling in three axis. Using a combination of accelerometers, and gyros, it is not remotely controlled.
      The radar just tells the folks back at base what is moving around within the radar range/resolution limits, height and distance, It’s not processed, but used in “real” time.

      Delete
    11. “The terminal phase of their attack run was remotely controlled (NOT guided by GPS alone, as some would contend), which requires optical data to be gathered and transmitted from the suicide craft.
      Just additional mumbo jumbo, who knows what you are talking about? But GPS, in this case does not guide anything, it only informs. OK. Who contends, (other than idiots) that Global Hawk is “guided”
      By GPS, references please
      Conclusions;
      Given what you have written, it’s hard to imagine you might be taken seriously by anyone other than the seriously misinformed truther.



      Delete
    12. Your improper use of quotation marks makes it hard to discern what you are actually trying to say, peter. But, all I have seen from you thus far is nitpicks on my own improper usage of aerospace jargon. Stop spamming the comments section here with this nonsense (thats what I have a youtube channel for!). Seriously, we're 40 comments in so far and still circling the bandwagon.

      I just released two videos covering this subject (and many others) in depth, so if you want another shot at ranting about the mistakes I supposedly made, go comment there. Or, better yet, compose your diatribe into a post on the JREF, and send me the link. We'll have ourselves a little one on one, if you think your up for it.

      Here is the link for those videos:
      http://youtu.be/FV2KnrODIU8
      http://youtu.be/OmuebIDsB1I
      I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find some flaw in my work :)

      Delete
    13. Yes, it’s true I sometimes leave out the end quotation marks, but if you maintain you do not understand what I am talking about because I left out quotation marks then you do not have English as your first language, or you are a liar, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, tell me what it is you do not understand and I will try to help. I do not nitpick, nor do I rant, I don’t have to. I have pointed out errors in your understanding of the Global Hawk, it’s systems, INS, GPS, what integrated means, and what grafted means, what an algorithm is, and how it is used, yet you use the word “supposedly” as though there is any doubt as to what I say.. If you do not agree with any of the aforementioned, be specific, and tell me what!

      Delete
    14. I have already created your own post at the JREF, “Does the JREF peddle false skepticism” but I do not recommend you post there, but by all means go ahead and refute the posts that are there.
      I wait with barley restrained anticipation.
      I looked at both your videos, but they contain no conclusions, nor do they provide any evidence which might be used as a basis for any indictment of those you do not implicate in 911.
      After 12 years it is surprising the 911 truth movement has no hypothesis to offer as to the events of 911 which cannot stand up to any science based scrutiny, nor is your reasoning inductive, logical, or reasonable, if it where would you not have more to offer?

      Delete
    15. You seem unsure of what you post are factual. in which case consult the internet before you post
      It is an amazing source of facts and information, most of which is correct, but beware! There are many sites which provide basic physics, electronics, and information. For example Grumman Northrop, Raytheon, and Kearfott, you can learn much from these sites, don’t guess.

      Define "Spamming"

      Delete
    16. 'I have pointed out errors in your understanding of the Global Hawk, it’s systems, INS, GPS, what integrated means, and what grafted means, what an algorithm is, and how it is used.'

      None of which refute the central point I was attempting to make. You are basically resorting to technobabble in an attempt to disprove me, which only shows my poor grasp of eletronics. Charles holland (a man who had ZERO affiliations with raytheon) somehow wound up with the global hawks fucking software, does that not tell you that something strange was taking place?

      'I have already created your own post at the JREF, “Does the JREF peddle false skepticism” but I do not recommend you post there, but by all means go ahead and refute the posts that are there.'

      What exactly was said there that needs to be refuted by me? Some rhetorical proclaimations, and assumed character traits about myself? The fact that you find favour with such tripe (which has no substantive value) is beyond me.

      'I looked at both your videos, but they contain no conclusions, nor do they provide any evidence which might be used as a basis for any indictment of those you do not implicate in 911.'

      Your a real airhead, peter, and its no surprise you fit in so perfectly with the JREF. I have evidence that raytheon laboratorys were penetrated prior to the september 11th attacks, and that equipment relating to the global hawks guidance system (or whatever the fuck you call it!) was stolen, possibly in use for drone aircraft that were swapped with commercial airliners. I have evidence that the same people who perpetrated mass murder in vietnam, which you know as the phoenix program, were also in charge of the JSOC mission in somalia.

      A number of young officers, who would later go on to lead the JPEL initiative, were under these mens command during that time. Is it just a coincidence, that they too went on to become mass murderers during the war on terror? Or that they all occupied positions of great sensitivity DURING the 911 atrocitys?! Clearly, your analysis of my work is very lopsided. You brush aside what cannot be easily dismissed, which is ironic, since these portions are what I have put the most emphasis on, because they show that something awful was brewing in americas special operations.

      Delete
    17. "You state you do not understand me, because of my grammar, so I repeat,
      Yes, it’s true I sometimes leave out the end quotation marks, but if you maintain you do not understand what I am talking about because I left out quotation marks then you do not have English as your first language, or you are a liar, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, tell me what it is you do not understand and I will try to help"

      How am I supposed to know what your “central point” is when you have made so many points . If you ever had a central point what is it? Again I ask you to be specific.
      “Charles holland (a man who had ZERO affiliations with raytheon) somehow wound up with the global hawks fucking software, does that not tell you that something strange was taking place?”.
      Citations, and proof please.

      Delete
    18. Or, better yet, compose your diatribe into a post on the JREF, and send me the link. We'll have ourselves a little one on one, if you think your up for it.
      I have already explained about your post at JREF where you can defend your position.
      I understand why you would not be so silly as to post on JFEF.
      “A number of young officers, who would later go on to lead the JPEL initiative, were under these mens command during that time. Is it just a coincidence, that they too went on to become mass murderers during the war on terror? Or that they all occupied positions of great sensitivity DURING the 911 atrocitys?! Clearly, your analysis of my work is very lopsided. You brush aside what cannot be easily dismissed, which is ironic, since these portions are what I have put the most emphasis on, because they show that something awful was brewing in americas special operations”.

      Delete
    19. Citations, references, anything?
      (or whatever the fuck you call it!) was stolen, possibly in use for drone aircraft that were swapped with commercial airliners. I have evidence that the same people who perpetrated mass murder in vietnam, which you know as the phoenix program, were also in charge of the JSOC mission in somalia.
      I have already explained what the terms where for describing to Global Hawk systems, it’s not what I call it, it’s English used to describe something. Further, technically, any aircraft can be controlled by “off the shelf” INS systems you don’t have to infiltrate Raytheon, which was false anyway, or murder their employees, further just having some software doesn’t help much anyway. Further I’m not going into the theory of why remotely controlled aircraft might have been use used to fly aircraft into the WTC. I will leave that up to you and the AE911 truth movement, but as yet, neither, you or they, have proposed any way this may have been achieved in the intervening 12 years. Just more anecdotal fairy stories.

      Delete
    20. A number of young officers, who would later go on to lead the JPEL initiative, were under these mens command during that time. Is it just a coincidence, that they too went on to become mass murderers during the war on terror? Or that they all occupied positions of great sensitivity DURING the 911 atrocitys?! Clearly, your analysis of my work is very lopsided. You brush aside what cannot be easily dismissed, which is ironic, since these portions are what I have put the most emphasis on, because they show that something awful was brewing in americas special operations.
      How can I brush it aside, there are no names, no references, no documentary references, or evidence, or anything else for that matter that could be described, as admissible evidence, or proof of any supposed guilt, and importantly where no crime has been established by you or the AE911 truthers. Just more anecdotal fairy stories, no proof. For the definition of proof, see Webster’s.
      Please don’t keep telling me what crimes these hypothetical people have committed, if you have evidence, as you claim,
      Indict them!

      Delete
    21. No point now. This comments section is too clogged with nonsense. All the proof needed is in the two videos I previously mentioned. Listen CAREFULLY to what I say there: The four key players you need to keep an eye on are charles holland, dell dailey, bryan brown, and raymond palumbo. If you still have questions, then ask me on youtube. This penchant of quoting me add infinitum (multiple times in some cases, without quotation marks) is getting old.

      No offense, but someone really needs to get hit on the head with the conciseness hammer: You use three or four posts to convey what I would with just one. And yes, I admit that my evidence for these mens involvement with the 911 attacks is speculative, which is why I haven't taken my case to a court of law yet. And if you know an attorney who wouldn't dismiss me the instant I start fingering non-muslims, then I'd be grateful if you could put me in touch with him! Until then, later dude.

      Delete