Monday, April 11, 2011

The Albury-Bot

{The following is but one comment on one posting on Truth & Shadows that tackles the subtle deceit of what became increasingly clear was a paid-to-post govt shill. Every website should experience such a bot, but in small measure.}

Dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
El Once can think whatever he wants about me, but he's spending way too much time obsessing over banning me to explain why he thinks I'm being disingenuous about anything, and hasn't supported his claim with any examples.
Just saying it is does not make it so. I regularly tear apart your postings line-by-line to prove why I think you're being disingenuous about damn near everything. ... Don't get me started... Ooops. Too late. Here we go. Your last three postings jumbled together and shredded.

Mr. Albury-bot wrote:
Calling me "Albury-bot" and a "liar," and my comments "bullshit" hardly contributes anything worthwhile to the discussion, whether it qualifies on here as a personal attack or not.
Unless of course the levels of bullshit were dissected, not just by me, but by Brian Good. Unless examples of your lies were exposed [more below]. Unless your antics resemble that of a bot: repetitive demeanor, stringing together of illogical assertions, and never deviating from database talking points.
I'd also suggest looking more closely at El Once's posts if you're tired of people engaging in personal attacks, since I've personally attacked no one who's commenting here, and this "Albury-bot" is also tired of it.
And I, too, tire of calling you it. The old expression of umpires -- "I call it like I see it" -- has applicability here. If you'd stop acting like a bot and a Q-Groupie in the subtle deceit that you peddle, not only would I stop with those jabs, I would also most humbly and respectfully apologize.

Subtle deceit? Plenty of it in your last three postings alone, starting with:
The photos of a WTC beam (actually a column) bent in half without cracking are evidence enough that it not only can happen but did...
That is a deceitful piece of circular logic. You've taken two data points -- a bent beam and gravity -- and drawn a straight line through them which slopes in a manner to point away from any wrong-doing or other anomalous evidence. In reality, many more data points are in the collection that should be fitted to a curved line pointing to another conclusion closer to the truth.
... and steel is commonly bent cold.
You lack many qualifiers on the above, like "thin steel" or "special alloyed steel" or even "sheet metal." Thick steel H beams like that used construction and in the towers is not typically bent cold. You make the assertion, so you prove it, where upon if merited, I'll apologize.
What science do you have to suggest otherwise?
Exactly. Your subtle deceitful implication is that steel in the towers bent in half cold without breaking or cracking. Where is your science? Show me pictures of the foundry where they do such cold bending of massive steel beams.
I've posted a good explanation for my feelings about Judy Wood, which I hope you took the time to read:
First of all, are you claiming authorship of the above webpage? If so, then you do have a web voice and should really make more postings there.

Second, this has nothing to do with [your] feelings about Judy Wood. It has to do with evaluating the evidence. Mr. Dutch took the liberty of re-posting a very small subset of Dr. Wood's collected 9/11 images and added his own captions. His captions on the first two pictures are illustrative enough of an agenda and purposeful missing of the point.

Dr. Wood wrote in her captions: "This fire seems to be very selective" and "Why doesn't the paper burn?"

Steven Dutch's response was: "It's only burning combustibles..." (as if paper that was all around isn't combustible) and "the fire hasn't reached it yet..." (as if the combustion point of the metal in the vehicles were lower than the wood in the trees and paper all over the ground which is why the fires happened first in the metal vehicles.)

The rest of the responses do not get much better. Due to the selectivity of the images and the nature of Mr. Dutch's comments, clearly the bigger picture to which Dr. Wood was driving is being obscured.

Regardless of how much anyone here wants to ban me from commenting, that isn't science as we know it, and isn't taken very seriously by legitimate scientists.
Because the above was followed by the link to Steven Dutch of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay, the assumption is that he is such a legitimate scientist. In science, sampling can be an appropriate technique, but the cherry-picking performed by Mr. Dutch is not. Legitimate scientists are expected to thoroughly review the literature and the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Mr. Dutch did not.
If there's such a thing as a "milli-nuke," it would certainly be written about in places other than conspiracy theorists' web sites, so perhaps someone could post other links explaining this new technology.
First of all, "milli-nuke" is a coined phrase by the Anonymous Physicist that I have adopted. My purpose for adopting it and promoting it is to re-frame the language to get people contemplating other magnitudes of destructive force and implementation, because "nukes" and "micro-nukes" have somewhat well established meanings in the public consciousness. Therefore, I wouldn't expect it to be elsewhere on the web or in the literature under the "milli-nuke" moniker.

Secondly, nukes are not a new technology. Small nukes aren't new either. If there is anything new, it might be combinations of fusion-triggered fission nukes (or vice versa) that account for the actual measured tritium levels as well as the fizzling nuclear material after-effects.
I'm pretty sure they've heard about Geiger counters in NYC by now, but if they aren't radioactive "nukes," let's see what they are.
Yep, and Bloomberg had a jihad for a little while there not all that long ago that would have made it illegal for citizens to own their own personal Geiger counters in NYC. Coincidence?
If Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapon "theory" has any validity at all, please post some peer-reviewed information on this previously unknown phenomenon...
No one on Mr. McKee's blog has been promoting DEW as the definitive (or sole) mechanism employed on 9/11. I haven't been convinced thereof, although I believe that some DEW weapons exist and am open to the suggestion of what they might consist of. I haven't finished her book, but a convincing argument for DEW is being made in the 2nd half.

It could very well be that DEW is a red-herring that is meant to be proven not-applicable to 9/11. But in debunking it, you have to address the evidence and explain it. If not DEW, then what? Milli-nukes (my premise)? If not milli-nukes, then what? Gravitational collapses and lame govt reports, don't explain it: the entire bounds of your talking points.

Dr. Wood in her fine textbook, Where Did the Towers Go?, provides much evidence and nuggets of truth that have been woefully under-addressed -- nay rabidly ignored -- by the govt in its reports that also fails many of the peer-reviewed criteria. Then so-called scientists like Mr. Dutch sweep it under the overarching kooky umbrella.

There is no need to discuss too deeply other motivational factors that influence such peer-reviews, like where 90% or more of the funding for their studies comes from: the federal govt. The politics of scientific organizations (what gets published, what gets funded) is involved in the peer-review process, and as such the politics of presidential administrations who dole out the funding can exert influence.

The govt commissioned stilted studies: "Given X, Prove that Y is Plausible." Of course, when extreme X conditions are considered, certainly funded scientists can perform tests and write reports that prove Y could be plausible. Limiting the plausible conclusions to only Y while ignoring V or W in the framing of the research is but one of their underhanded tricks to dupe the useful idiots or bots, such as yourself.
Sixteen people trapped inside emergency Stairwell B survived the North Tower's collapse, so did the secret energy beam just miss them or something?
Bingo. You got it. Or the energy beam was turned off before it got to that point while the falling mass continued it is destruction on the lower floors. Or the last milli-nuke in the tower -- maybe due to the destruction raining down upon it -- had its blast wave mis-aligned.
It's up to you to present a plausible alternative hypothesis to what the ASCE, SEAoNY, FEMA, NIST, PANYNJ, and other engineers accepted as the cold bending of a WTC tower core column under the enormous pressure of thousands of tons of collapsing building debris.
Please provide the exact references to where ASCE, SEAoNY, FEMA, NIST, PANYNJ, and other engineers propose, support, and defend as definitive "the cold bending of a WTC tower core column under the enormous pressure of thousands of tons of collapsing building debris." Work with Mr. Dutch put this onto his website at the University of Wisconsin.

This is deceitful on two levels. First, I suspect those reports are in line with "Given X, Prove that Y is Plausible." None of those reports will conclude "Given X, it is proven that Y is Definitive on 9/11."

Second, the evidence proves that heat and/or other massive forces were a given on 9/11, so all of this cold bending discussion is really bending over backwards to ignore the evidence and other plausible explanations.
I'm unaware of any demolition explosives that heat columns from one end to the other, or of any other steel severing technique that does.
I fully agree, but we aren't discussing "demolition explosive" with the implication being "conventional" and "traditional" and emphasis on "explosives" to mis-frame the discussion. One of your subtle deceitful techniques.

The topic was DEW and/or milli-nukes that would heat columns from one end to the other and more logically explain steel beams bending without breaking or cracking under the gravitational forces.
Structural steel is commonly cold formed into any number of shapes, and here are some examples of what fires do to steel:

In your confusion, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You talk of cold forming without showing examples and imply this was what was happening on 9/11, and then launch into what very hot fires can do to steel under pressure.
If that column is suspicious to you, have you even tried to find out where and in which building it came from?

Sounds like a good homework assignment for you, if nothing else to prove that there were "cold conditions".

Mr. Albury-bot, you'll be happy to know that I'm banning myself from posting to Mr. McKee's blog (until the end of the month plus or minus a couple days). So if you find yourself heavily moderated (or banned), it will your own doing that moved Mr. McKee to such actions and not my urging.

No comments: