PROFILE OF A STOOGE – ALBURY SMITH

PROFILE OF A STOOGE
A CASE STUDY IN ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

By Willy Whitten

“If it’s not in the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or ASCE, it’s not part of the official story. If it’s not part of the official story it must be wrong.”~First stage in the assumption of an appeal to authority.

“[1] The FDNY is not in your “truth movement,” [2] and they disagree with your “piddly little ‘Office Furnishings Fires’” crap, as do the videos and other eyewitness accounts. [3] Are all of them in on the plot too, along with 200+ NIST engineers and countless others? [4] You have no evidence except for a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch, [5] no perp or plausible motive, so you resort to misrepresenting the owner’s PBS statement, [6] and secretly blowing up hi-rises in Manhattan is so absurd that it’s beyond impossible.”~Government Stooge [Albery Smith]

Here we have a quick procession of 6 separate points in one single paragraph, mixing a blend of contexts and blurring it all together as if it actually makes sense as a whole.
This paragraph is presented as the “summation” of three previous paragraphs, which will also be deconstructed here. I will show the miss-framing of the ‘summing’ paragraph first, as it is most clearly the weakest link in this ‘argument’ whereas it should be the final stroke if the argument had any merit.

Now to address these 6 points:

NOTE: “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” is Latin for an argument that is an “Appeal to Authority”, and falls under a general category of fallacy in argumentation known as ‘Reductio Ad Absurdum’ – reduction to absurdity.
__________________________________

Now to address the 6 points:

[1] The FDNY is not in your “truth movement,”

– What is the context for the use of the term, FDNY {New York Fire Department}?
Agent X seems to mean the official organ itself. But in a larger context the “fire department” is composed of thousands of individuals that may have such a variance of opinions as to make the assertion that they have no sympathies, spoken or reserved as to the veracity of the official story, that such an assertion becomes an example of a sub set of Argumentum ad Numerum. This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it. As it is used here, these “sheer numbers” have no statistical proofs, and one is left to assume that all of the members of the fire department toe to the official story line. Thus the logical fallacy.

As to the FDNY itself as a department of the New York City government, there is a conflict of interest, as it cannot officially disagree with the employer due to complex and powerful political considerations. The FDNY then, is part of the structure of the system of authority being appealed to in Agent X’s argument. This argument is a proclamation that it is proper for an authority to police itself. As is shown and will be shown, there is evidence that destroys the official story, which means that at some higher level at the interface between the FDNY and the political apparatus of the city government there are indeed those willfully covering up the truth.

This then introduces us to the issue of “peer pressure” and the tacit ‘conspiracy of silence’ from the fear of loosing ones personal livelihood. It is well known that there were implicit gag orders put upon the members of the fire department and other first responders in the aftermath of the event.

But the peer pressure assumes itself in most instances simply do to the assumption of a ‘standard line’ being taken from the top authorities. Some testimonies taken of the first responders have such dialog as, “well, at first I thought I had heard a bomb go off. But now I realise it must have been other concussion sounds in the collapse…”
It is rare in such institutions for someone to insist on being the ‘odd-man-out’, or to speak up and become the dreaded ‘whistleblower’. Most people have a very well taught understanding of the personal troubles that can ensue if one does not ‘go along to get along’. Culturally this is one of the strongest lessons one learns in life.

[2] “and they disagree with your “piddly little ‘Office Furnishings Fires’” crap, as do the videos and other eyewitness accounts.”

– This is a mixed conundrum of assertions. As illustrated in the discussion of [1], the “they” who “disagree” are an unknown quantity. The “official” stance of the FDNY would certainly qualify as “they” who “disagree”, but their veracity is in question for the reasons stated above.

As for the “videos and other eyewitness accounts,” this is an assertion based on a cherry picked selection of videos and eyewitness accounts. Taken as a whole, ALL of the videos and eyewitness accounts shows there is a controversy presented, that when taken together shows evidence that overwhelms the accounts chosen by Agent X and the sources he relies upon.

[3] “Are all of them in on the plot too, along with 200+ NIST engineers and countless others?”

– This rhetorical question falls squarely into the class of ‘Argumentum ad Numerum’. Plus it asserts the false assumption that “all of them” have any knowledge beyond their particular job description that would give them the perspective of the higher authorities for whom they work. This is one of the attributes of a technological system based on compartmentalization of knowledge and access to it. This is very much the same sort of system of hierarchy used in the military and the system of “the need to know”. If it is outside of ones department there is no compelling ‘need to know’ and such knowledge is considered a ‘distraction’ from the subject’s job description. The same sorts of penalties are implied here as in the situation of not ‘going along to get along’. This is all well understood within a corporatist system, whether articulated within this context or not.

So, essentially Number 3 is a rhetorical trick of inserting cognitive dissonance into the argument.

[4] “You have no evidence except for a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch..”

– This assertion is directly contradicted by the prior FEMA report:

The FEMA report, in an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.

When asked whether it had carried out tests for explosives on 911, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied:

“Because there was no evidence of that.”

When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “How can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”

Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”

This argument put forth by Newman is not only circular logical fallacy , it is obviously disingenuous and a willful lie. It is pure propaganda.

What explains the chemical evidence of thermite, an incendiary material found on the
ends of steel beams and in the leftover dust? FEMA documented in Appendix C of its
BPAT Report “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel,
including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” This is
clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or of hydrocarbon fuel or office fires.
NIST summarily dismissed this key evidence when they took over the investigation.

[5] “no perp or plausible motive, so you resort to misrepresenting the owner’s PBS statement,”

This is a reference to Larry Silverstein the owner of WTC 7 who declared intention to ‘PULL it” on an interview on PBS. The controversy over this statement has run deep, but the simple assertion that the Agent’s opponent in the debate this dialog is drawn from, is a ‘misrepresentation’ is a bold one which must ignore very clear and common usages of syntax and twist them into strange forms to deny that Silverstein did say what he said in clear language. Claiming it has been ‘misrepresented’ is the actual stretch in interpretation.

Exact quotation:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”~Larry Silverstein

Agent X has made the argument {with myself personally} that the “they” in the last sentence of Silverstein’s statement is “obviously” the FDNY. I have already addressed the contextual problems of this argument in my previous remarks. But would further point out that the only people identified positively in this phone conversation is Mr. Silverstein himself, and the fire department commander. The fire department commander may indeed ‘represent’ the FDNY as a top official, but it does not identify who the “they” were who “made that decision to pull”. Who was involved in this decision other than the commander and Mr. Silverstein?

Let’s pause here and be very clear and specific at this point. The ONLY people identified by Silverstein as to this telephone conversation is, himself and the “fire department commander”.
Therefore any assumptions as to who “they” were who “made the decision to pull”, are just that, any other assertions than that are merely HEARSAY.

Whereas Agent X will continue to insist that “they” are the FDNY it is simply not proven. And as far as the “reasoning” we have thus far seen by this agent , there is little evidence for any confidence that such is warranted to accept that the “they” that Silverstein refers to are simply the unknown quantity, the FDNY.

Whereas Agent X will continue to insist that “they” are the FDNY it is simply not proven. And as far as the “reasoning” we have thus far seen by this agent , there is little evidence for any confidence that such is warranted to accept that the “they” that Silverstein refers to are simply the unknown quantity, the FDNY.

We surely aren’t being led to believe here that a consensus was drawn from all of the firefighters in FDNY. Surely there were merely key people making this decision, and the fact is they are not identified. We might suppose that the mayor and other high political players were involved, perhaps even the technicians who planted the explosives used to “pull” the building.

It should be mentioned here that as a further ‘clarification’ Mr. Silverstein’s pubic relations spokesperson claimed that what Silverstein meant to be pulled was not the building itself, but the firemen in the building. The problem with this is that there were no firemen in the building for several hours before “we watched the building collapse.”

Further, if we look carefully at the linkage of, “they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” It is clear to any lucid mind that the “pull” had to do directly with “the building collapse.” Thus any dispute over the term “pull” as one used or not by demolition experts is based on rhetorical gamesmanship.

Clearly Mr. Silverstein inadvertently let the cat out of the bag in this PBS interview. What has followed has been an attempt to erase this admission by all manner of scurrilous techniques of language manipulation.

Now, as per who “they” were who made the decision to proceed with the demolition of Bldg.7, further research by Kevin Ryan would indicate the following individuals as possibly having been involved in that decision, as they are known to have been together as a group that day [Sept 11, 2001] as per eye witness testimony:

Rudy Giuliani
Richard Sheirer
Richard Rotanz
Bernard Kerik
Pasquale J. D’Amuro
John Odematt
{and perchance even the fire department commander}

SEE: http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

\\][// – 2012

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “PROFILE OF A STOOGE – ALBURY SMITH

  1. Albury Smith OEN page:

    “I have a special interest in discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories, and am still looking for one that makes the slightest bit of sense after objectively reading and evaluating them for several years now. I am familiar with most of the conspiracy web sites and what they have to say, as well as with NIST’s NCSTAR1, FEMA’s WTC Building Performance Study, and a number of 9/11 debunking web sites also. The latter tend to be far more logical than the conspiracy sites, and not only express opinions, but back them up with credible sources. The conspiracy theorists frequently make claims with no corroborating evidence at all.”
    OpEdNews Member for 391 week(s) and 3 day(s)
    http://www.opednews.com/author/author6317.html

    • Dana Shetterly aka birdandthe aka Albury Smith – I know it is you, you, and you who has shadowed this page at least 8 times in the last 48 hours. And I know it is YOU that is the stooge.
      \\][//

  2. Albury
    February 24, 2011 at 8:10 am
    The “CIT” nonsense is easily refuted by the overwhelming evidence of AA 77’s wreckage and contents inside the Pentagon, the numerous eyewitness accounts of the airliner flying in and crashing there, the fact that ATC tracked it to that location, and the fact that American Airlines paid undisclosed millions to victims not covered by the 9/11 VCF, among other things. Quote mining a few eyewitnesses for insignificant discrepancies doesn’t negate solid evidence.
    Chandler’s wrong for too many reasons to list here, but claiming that the corner columns had anything to do with keeping the towers standing shows just how clueless he is. Regarding the core columns, they were all recovered from the debris with no signs of explosive cuts or incendiary melting on their ends, and ~50 stories of core framing stood for 15 or more seconds after each tower’s collapse was otherwise complete, so it’s pretty obvious that nothing was planted on them. The tower collapses also both started above the 78th floor sky lobbies, where there were only a half dozen or so elevators, and they were only adjacent to 3 or 4 core columns, so Gage’s claim that his imaginary C/D was done through elevators is foolishness.
    236 of the 283 columns in each tower were in plain sight, and most videos clearly show that the collapses started when they could no longer support the ~60,000 or ~125,000 tons above them. It simply isn’t possible to blow up something secretly in front of thousands of live eyewitnesses, and millions who saw the videos, nor was it even possible to hide anything on them, assuming you got it past at least two layers of security, since almost all of the perimeter columns were in leased tenant spaces.
    Tough break for the 9/11 “truth movement.” 🙂
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/dump-%e2%80%98irrelevant%e2%80%99-pentagon-research-on-911-cit-opponents/#comment-611

  3. Albury – February 26, 2011 at 7:53 am

    “I didn’t offer my opinions here to entertain either one of you, Craig, and simply joined the discussion because you expressed an interest in the truth about 9/11. What you seem to find reasonable from “Senor El Once” is that it would be perfectly ok to ban someone for posting facts on here, that the mainstream account of 9/11 is a big grab bag that you can refute with no evidence at all, and that anyone who can’t find something substantively wrong with the NIST findings or the 9/11 Commission Report is missing something. I’m not a bot; I’m a US citizen who’s fed up with people who invent their own facts about the worst terrorist attack on our country in its history, and slander and libel people who had nothing to do with the planning or execution of it. Instead of personally attacking me, hinting that I might be banned here for politely and factually disagreeing with you, Senor, and others, and obfuscating with specious questions I’ve already answered, please feel free to tell me what you think I should disbelieve in the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports, and why. I’d also like to know what you disbelieve from Gage, Griffin, Loose Change, Ryan, Harrit, Fetzer, the “CIT,” and others in your 9/11 “truth movement,” now that I’ve posted numerous reasons why you should.”

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/dump-%e2%80%98irrelevant%e2%80%99-pentagon-research-on-911-cit-opponents/#comment-637

    Señor El Once – February 26, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    “The dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

    >>The line through “Albury Smith” means that I’m banned for life: 🙂

    http://letsrollforums.com/major-9-11-truth-t20779.html?s=8b3ae708dcc6b5775e7e5db1632d37fe&

    >>Apologies for giving the wrong impression.

    This is just too precious! I am still laughing.

    The Albury-bot joins Let’s Roll Forums on April 17, 2010 under the name “Albury Smith”, and before his very first day of posting is finished, his discussion participants were already affectionately addressing the bot under the formal name “Agent Smith.” And just after his 58th postings on April 22, Albury Smith gets a line through his name: banned for life.

    The database archeologists are going to enjoy traipsing around after Albury, where in this same thread as above we learn that Albury got himself banned from the “Loose Change Forum.” Why was he banned? “Banned albury and alibury for creating a sock puppet.” But then it comes out that it wasn’t just “Loose Change”, but “Let’s Roll” where Albury is proven to have used a sockpuppet.

    Why does “sockpuppet” ring a bell? Why is discussing 9/11 with Albury so much like riding a Merry-go-round”? Mr. McKee’s blog isn’t so old where the names of past discussion participants don’t seem familiar with present ones.

    Mr. Albury, if you are so concerned about expressing the truth about 9/11, you’ll need to maybe learn a lesson from your history of banishment… like maybe establishing your own blog on WordPress or Blogger where you’ll have home court advantage. Like from the “Fields of Dreams” movie, if you build it, they will come.

    Yep, Mr. McKee and I will be your biggest fans. Why it would even be a huge help you us! Next round of govt trolls we get here will be given the URL to your blog, so that you can commiserate and conspire (or not) as you desire.”

  4. “There is a HUGE difference between “similar to that of a pyroclastic flow,” and “pyroclastic dust clouds,” so please feel free to check AE911″truth”.org to see which term they used in their “WTC Building #7…exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives” list of BS. Dust clouds during a controlled demolition collapse aren’t directly caused by the explosive charges, and don’t begin emerging at the bottom, i.e. just below the moving upper part, until gravity begins crushing the material in the building, so calling dust clouds that are common in every building collapse “pyroclastic” is a deliberately misleading attempt to imply that explosives were used.”~Albury Smith

    . . . . . . . . . .

    This is a fallacious argument; claiming that, “Dust clouds during a controlled demolition collapse aren’t directly caused by the explosive charges”. It doesn’t matter whether the cause is “direct” or not, the fact is that it is a feature of controlled demolition that has never been exhibited in any other destruction of a steel framed building besides controlled demolition. Therefore such dust clouds are indicative of explosive demolition. And the brisance of the explosive certainly does turn the materials to dust, which is contained within a properly executed implosion until the final stage when it is blown out as a cloud.~ww
    \\][//

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/dump-%e2%80%98irrelevant%e2%80%99-pentagon-research-on-911-cit-opponents/#comment-702

  5. “The Lamont seismographs established the following timeline: 8:46:26 a.m. EDT [1240 UTC] Aircraft impact – north tower, Magnitude 0.9; 9:02:54 a.m. EDT [1302 UTC] Aircraft impact – south tower, Magnitude 0.7; 9:59:04 a.m. EDT [1359 UTC] Collapse – south tower, Magnitude 2.1; 10:28:31 a.m. EDT [1428 UTC] Collapse – north tower, Magnitude 2.3.

    In addition, the seismic waves were short-period surface waves, meaning they traveled within the upper few kilometers of the Earth’s crust. They were caused by the interaction between the ground and the building foundation, which transmits the energy from the impacts and the collapses.

    The authors also noted that as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano’s slope. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.”

    http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html

    \\][//

  6. This Takes The Cake:

    Dana Shetterly 4:50 pm 1/19/2015

    “Are you some sort of bone head? Are you saying the chemical composition of a film can be detected with a microscope?
    If someone has prior knowledge of what the chemical composition of a film is suppose be ,they might be able to use a microscope to determine whether a particular sample is consistant. They will can not discover an unknown chemical composition. You are aware of the defraction limit right? Not even SNOM can tell you that. The best that could be done without prior knowledge is gas chromatograph spectroscopy or maybe xray diffraction. Even then what could be learned would be limited.
    Regardless. I’m not going to argue what could be done or what should be done . I want to know what was done.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    This ridiculous comment has to do with the Zapruder film. Lol … this character is acting as if we are trying to discover the properties of some alien artifact, not analyze a movie film for authenticity as Kodachrome II.

    He says, “If someone has prior knowledge of what the chemical composition of a film is suppose be ,they might be able to use a microscope to determine whether a particular sample is consistant..”

    Well, yea! Zavada knew exactly what the chemical composition of Kodachrome II is, Zavada invented Kokachrome II. This comment by the stooge pretending to know what he is talking about is a gem of pure nonsense. That is why I am putting this here, and not even going to answer on the Youtube thread it is posted on. His dumbfuck’s remarks don’t deserve an answer in acknowledgement.
    \\][//

  7. 14th Anniversary Shill Biz
    “Your Sacred Tower 7 wasn’t targeted in the 9/11/2001 al Qaeda suicide attacks”~Albury Smith

    By the same token neither were the other two towers, the Pentagon, nor Flt 93, Anyone who knows the real history of the era from Reagan forward knows that al Qaeda was a creation of Western Intelligence, a “cut out”, a subsidiary used for certain purposes when the US didn’t want it’s participation revealed. Therefore; al Qaeda used as a patsy in the PSYOP of 9/11 is a perfectly logical application in the Machiavellian machinations of Western Intelligence. Also, anyone who knows who Philip Zelikow is, realizes he is a champion of “the Public Myth’, and that as the author of the 9/11 Commission Report, that is exactly what was produced, a public myth, a mythological tale to bind the public to a single persuasive false paradigm.

    But these are things that those who grasp the nature of modern political power understand, not the average brainwashed dolt who buys into any bullshit story authority hands them.

    And Agent Smith … yes, you are part of the Public Relations Regime, and your job is to reinforce such bullshit stories as the official narrative of 9/11. You are a stooge, a shill, and an accessory after the fact, for mass murder, obstruction of justice, and the war crimes that led from the initial events.
    \\][//

    • This video explains how this Western Intelligence subsidiary al Qaeda has been rebranded as ISIS:

      The real story behind the refugee/migrant crisis in Europe is much stranger than fiction.

      \\][//

    • “Cables show current US policy on Syria is essentially an extension of the policy of the W. Bush regime, which made plans in 2006, five years before the Syrian revolt, to overthrow the government. The US planned to instigate a revolt, through methods including spreading propaganda to foster sectarianism, as the US did in Iraq. US planned to instill “paranoia” in the Syrian government to “push it to overreact” at any sign of a coup attempt. Hence, the violence that occurred in 2011 was, from the US perspective, an optimal result and big step towards regime change, still being sought, with the result being hundreds of thousands dead and millions of refugees. (Syria is one of the seven countries the Bush regime planned to “take out“, according to a high-ranking inside source. Readers should further note that the US and UK have been trying to conquer and install a puppet regime in Syria since at least 1948.)”
      http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_Now_Has_Over_1%2C400_Foreign_Military_Bases_Spread_Over_120_Countries/46111/0/38/38/Y/M.html
      \\][//

    • +Tony Duncan — Horseshit tiger, the term “free-fall” is used to describe the amount of time it takes an item to fall, which is rationally called “speed”.
      You misframe your argument claiming; “it COULDN’T free fall. It was attached to the ground at the time it collapsed, and still attached to the ground after it fell.” The part of the building that fell at free-fall speeds was NOT attached to the ground before it fell. Only the base of the structure was attached to the ground before the building fell.

      In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. Motion is movement. Movement throughout a space of time is “Momentum”: An object in “free fall” is measured as an object moving only by the force of gravity acting upon it. An object will free fall only so far as it is not obstructed by another object between it and the ground. This is why a building falling at the speed of an object falling through nothing but thin air is said to be in a state of free fall. The ONLY way any part of a structure can free fall, is if the structure beneath it has been removed. Obviously the structure between the top of building 7, had to have been removed for the upper portion to fall at the speed it would through thin air.
      This is elementary physics Duncan. You obviously do not know 7th grade physics. And here you are pontificating to others with your ignorant bullshit.

      Is there anything else of yours one needs to read? Obviously not.

      [YouTube forum on one titled; ‘New 9/11 photos ‘prove WTC exploded from inside’]

      \\][//

  8. A NEW NAME FOR THE GALLERY OF ASSHOLES: BILL CLARKE

    Bill Clarke
    April 15, 2015 at 3:01 pm
    Willy Whitten
    April 15, 2015 at 8:32 am

    No matter what evidence is produced to support the known fact that John Kennedy was determined to pull the military out of Indochina, there is a contingent of alleged “experts” on ‘military history’ who have some scurrilous argument to apply against it.

    bc. That would be because what little evidence you have is this “Jack told me” crap. NSAM 263 and the White House tapes are hardly a “scurrilous” argument.

    We are NOT speaking to the narrow topic of “military history” here, we are speaking to the larger topic of history in general.

    bc. Nice diversionary attempt here Willy. What we ARE speaking to is you making a false statement about what NSAM 263 says. If you are going to reference NSAM 263 you should do so accurately. You don’t get to reference it and then plug in your own disinformation. Not and remain credible.

    Half truths are no less lies, and the full picture is not simply in the military record, although it has clues that if properly interpreted in light of the civilian history of this matter will show the Whole Truth.

    Last time I looked NSAM 263 was NOT a military record. Did you miss that?
    ______________

    Willy Whitten
    April 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm
    “Last time I looked NSAM 263 was NOT a military record. Did you miss that?”
    ~Bill Clarke

    Oh dear, excuse me Bill, what was I thinking? You are absolutely right!
    NSAM 263 has nothing whatsoever to do with military history! It was a memo about catering services for banquets at the White House.

    I am going to point out one more time, with the graces of our moderators, that your characterizing those who disagree with your interpretation of NSAM 263 as “dishonest” is as insulting as any other form of ad hominem.
    It is scurrilous and a slur. I am sure that all who disagree with your interpretations would agree to that.

    Your argumentation such as the last comment about NSAM not being a “military record”, is a form of parsing language in a disingenuous manner. You seem to pretend here that “National Security” ie; “NS” in “NSAM”; in this instance referring to military affairs as “NOT a military record”, when in fact it would plainly be part of the military history of the Vietnam War.

    I think you are going to great lengths to win your argument, stretching it to the breaking point, with what I can only call insincere rhetoric.
    \\][//

    ______________

    Bill Clarke
    April 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
    Willy Whitten
    April 15, 2015 at 9:26 am

    He was coordinating a coup d’etat, which was his specialty.

    “Some evidence please.”~Bill Clarke

    Are you seriously asserting that Landsdale was not a master at perpetrating coup d’etat?

    No.

    If so, his biography is clear enough on the matter.

    Or are you suggesting that it is not Landsdale in the photos from Dealey Plaza?
    If so, the pictures speak for themselves.

    Perhaps. But you have no evidence that he was there coordinating the coup d’etat.

    Can you handle this one for me? bc. I have heard Prouty make the claim but I have never heard Krulak make the claim. You have a reference for that?
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-747933
    ______________
    So here we have it. My comment in reply to Clarke’s last comment on April 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm, is still not published an hour and a half later – but Bill gets another shot at me.

    “Can you handle this one for me? bc. I have heard Prouty make the claim but I have never heard Krulak make the claim. You have a reference for that?”~Bill Clarke

    Yes, Prouty who was very close to Krulak quoted what Krulak had answered back, that he agreed it was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza. But as Bill says about anyone who he disagrees with, he says that Prouty is a liar. Just like Bill called me a liar. Bill Clarke’s arguments are founded on scurrilous rhetoric and ad hominem. That is how he settles any dispute made to him. And if JFKfacts won’t allow me to out Bill Clarke as a punk and a fraud on their site – by God I will do it here!

    Bill Clarke, You can kiss my ass.
    \\][//

  9. Agent Albury Smith is a bigger fool than even I thought he was! He actually thinks I would allow his stinking bullshit on my blog!!??? Hahahaha!!! Idiot! Fuck off Albury.
    \\][//

  10. “Jeepers, Roggie; the “moderation” process on this “forum” certainly is slow. Are you unhappy to see me here or something?”~Albury Smith, Submitted on 2015/09/13 at 6:14 pm

    You have misconstrued again AS USUAL. This blog is NOT a “forum”. But to answer your question, I am unhappy to know that you are still alive and wasting precious oxygen.
    \\][//

  11. All Blurry Shit(eater) gormless troll – the end result of a syphilitic drunks sputum coughed up into the gutter and incubated in the sun. STILL at it after all these years, aww bless.. won’t be too much longer that the interwebs need to tolerate the fool, then he can go back to assume his real identity, and try to forget his shameful existence as the internets worst ever troll. – love your work hybridrogue1.

    Video removed by administrator – 10/6/2015 @ 9:27 PM

    I am sorry Truth Wins – I cannot have this silly ninny Ross on my site. \\][//

    • Thank you Truth Wins.
      I am going to have to review this video by Rebekah Roth to determine if I will allow it to stand. For now I will let it stay on.
      \\][//

  12. This stooge is even worse than Albury Smith – as inconceivable as that may seem:
    ctcole77
    “FAKE THERMITE is the same thing as FAKE THERMATE”

    He is a relentless game player flooding every 9/11 forum on YouTube. But worse he somehow tracks me down on old film YT sites…anywhere I post he stalks me there. Very likely this asshole is liable for cyberstalking. But who’s going to bother with that kind of shit? He is a major cunt this one.
    \\][//

  13. Here we have the typical “debunker” — so typical it uses the name! It would be hilarious were it not so tragic. These are actual cut and paste from a YouTube forum.
    Ladies and Gentlemen I introduce to you, John Debunker:

    John Debunker 1 day ago
    “+cliff curtis Point out another plane crash anything like this kid? AND LOOK AT THE LINK I SUPPLIED TO SEE PLANE PARTS YOU STUPID LITTLE FUCKING BITCH@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NAME ANYTHING I HAVE SAID THAT IS WRONG STOOOOOOOOOPID LITTLE BITCH??????????????????????????????? RUN FUCKING FAGGOT ASS BITCH, RUN YOU FAGGOT ASS CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE DUMB FUCKING CUNT????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????…”
    John Debunker 6 days ago
    +George Houghtby Fake link, you’re such a stupid little fucking CUNT….security cameras are only programmed to run at 1-2 frames per second not nearly fast enough to catch a plane….AND WHERE THE FUCK ARE ALL THESE OTHER CAMERAS? WHERE? SHIT STUPID 11 TWOOFERS, IN DENIAL WHEN SHOW FACTS, MORE REASON THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT AND SHOT IN THE FUCKING HEAD
    John Debunker 6 days ago
    +George Houghtby YAWNS< made-up bullshit that does not take away from the plane debris, 100s of witnesses…..FOR THE 100OTH TIME, FAGGOT,, WHAT HAVE YOU FAGGOTS PROVEN IN 14 YEARS? YOU'RE A JOKE, NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY
    John Debunker 4 days ago
    +George Houghtby HOW did you prove that lying sack of shit? HEY EVERYONE, WATCH THE 911 TWOOFER PUSSY COWARD RUN LIKE A FAGGOT FROM BACKING HIS LIES
    John Debunker 3 days ago
    +George Houghtby NO COMMENTATORS SAID ANY SUCH THING ABOUT DYNAMITE,…..WHERE IS EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS OR ANY OF YOUR OTHER CHILDISH LIES LITTLE BITCH? HEY EVERYONE, WATCH THE FAGGOT ASS LYING 911 TWOOFER PUSSY COWARD RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    John Debunker 3 days ago (edited)
    +George Houghtby I LIVED THROUGH IT KID, WHICH IS WHY I KNOW YOU ARE LYING, AND I KNOW YOU'LL RUN FROM BACKING YOUR LIES………………NOW PROVE ME RIGHT YET AGAIN MOTHER FUCKER
    John Debunker 1 day ago
    +George Houghtby Remind us all what you little faggots have proven in 14 years? OH YEA, NOT ONE FUCKING THING STUPID LITTLE CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!
    John Debunker 18 hours ago
    +cliff curtis Where is evidence paid disinfo agents exist you PARANOID AND DELUSIONAL LITTLE FUCKING CUNT? IT IS AMAZING HOW SHIT FUCKING STUPID, PARANOID, AND DELUSIONAL YOU ARE LITTLE KID
    John Debunker 16 hours ago
    +cliff curtis What "evidence: kid? AND FOR THE 2ND TIME, WHERE IS A SOURCE TO BACK YOUR LAUGHABLE LIES OF A WRONG CAMERA BEING BOUGHT? HEY EVERYONE, THIS IS WHERE THE 91 TWOOFER PUSSY COWARD LIAR RUNS LIKE A LITTLE CUNT FROM BACKING HIS LIES!!!!!! IT'S SO TOUGH BEING RIGHT ABOUT YOU SHIT STUPID PUNKS 100% OF THE TIME KID@!!!!!!!
    John Debunker 16 hours ago
    +cliff curtis GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, STUPID LITTLE BITCH? WHAT'S THIS ? NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO ALL SAW A PLANE AT THE PENTAGON, NO ONE SAW ANYTHING ELSE? PICS OF PLANE PARTS TOO xxw.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA
    SO WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE LYING SACK OF FUCKING SHIT, C'MON BITCH, DON;T RUN LIKE A PUSSY AS YOU ALWAYS
    John Debunker 12 hours ago
    +cliff curtis I have more than a clue you stupid little bitch, which is why I know YOU'RE A LYING MOTHER FUCKER!! LEARN THE POWER OF PARAGRAPHS ALSO STUPID LITTLE CHILD, AND PROVIDE A REPUTABLE SOURCE TO BACK YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT
    John Debunker 12 hours ago
    +cliff curtis where is your source of these HD cameras in 2001 little cunt? RUN PUSSY RUN!! ALL YOU CAN DO IS SPEW MORE FUCKING LIES AND THEN RUN LIKE A LITTLE FUCKING CUNT FROM BACKING THEM….like taking CANDY from a retarded baby
    John Debunker 12 hours ago
    +cliff curtis HERE IS EVIDENCE OF WRECKAGE AT THE PENTAGON YOU SHIT STUPID FUCK? WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE NOW LITTLE CUNT? xxxwhatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
    John Debunker 8 hours ago
    +cliff curtis Point out another plane crash anything like this kid? AND LOOK AT THE LINK I SUPPLIED TO SEE PLANE PARTS YOU STUPID LITTLE FUCKING BITCH@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NAME ANYTHING I HAVE SAID THAT IS WRONG STOOOOOOOOOPID LITTLE BITCH??????????????????????????????? RUN FUCKING FAGGOT ASS BITCH, RUN YOU FAGGOT ASS CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE DUMB FUCKING CUNT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s