Edit: My apology. I misread the posts and wound up answering "MAGAngelo" and "ErOsion9o" as one response. I think the two of you can pick out where I am speaking to whom. I'm just not in good shape to do that myself, right now.
Knowledge is not a collection of questions. That is ignorance. If 9/11 is an "inside job," prove it. I can agree to sloppy preventive measures---but sloppiness does not imply cleverness. Pearl Harbor is pretty clearly an outcome of a deliberate policy of antagonization, but the expected attack point was the Philippines, according to my father, who had enlisted in the Navy by October 2941. Plenty of books exploring the subject. He was also aware of combat operations against German submarines prior to our declaration of war.
There is no TR-3B. You are laboring over a fantasy that has become an urban myth. Or offer hard evidence, not ambiguous videos with no traceable provenance. Show something, anything official that has that designation on it. Your inability to satisfy the normal standards for evidence in the face of my questions is not a matter of me having made up my mind. It is a matter of you failing to substantiate your allegation. My mind is open, but I don't fill it with the first fall of leaves just because they are handy. So, don't excuse yourself by painting me with prejudice. Either face up to the fact that you have been following a foxfire, or cough up actual evidence and proof of such things. And the technology---which was the starting allegation (we have the technology). I happen to be somewhat versed in cold fusion and the present state of reactionless propulsion. Intriguing, but no cigar...yet.
My starting point is that I have worked in the field for 40 years, so my standards of evidence are based on hardware and documentation. Especially when it comes to technology. And, as a multiple patent holder, I am familiar with the fact that many patents are feasibility arguments, not fait accompli documentation. A patent sometimes proves less than nothing, if it mainly amounts to unverifiable science.
Knowledge is not a collection of questions. That is ignorance. If 9/11 is an "inside job," prove it. I can agree to sloppy preventive measures---but sloppiness does not imply cleverness. Pearl Harbor is pretty clearly an outcome of a deliberate policy of antagonization, but the expected attack point was the Philippines, according to my father, who had enlisted in the Navy by October 2941. Plenty of books exploring the subject. He was also aware of combat operations against German submarines prior to our declaration of war.
There is no TR-3B. You are laboring over a fantasy that has become an urban myth. Or offer hard evidence, not ambiguous videos with no traceable provenance. Show something, anything official that has that designation on it. Your inability to satisfy the normal standards for evidence in the face of my questions is not a matter of me having made up my mind. It is a matter of you failing to substantiate your allegation. My mind is open, but I don't fill it with the first fall of leaves just because they are handy at hand. So, don't excuse yourself by painting me with prejudice. Either face up to the fact that you have been following a foxfire, or cough up actual evidence and proof of such things. And the technology---which was your starting allegation (we have the technology). I happen to be somewhat versed in cold fusion and the present state of reactionless propulsion. Intriguing, but no cigar...yet.