Friday, December 21, 2012

9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)

{This is Part 2 to "9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW" (2012-11-30).}

Truth is a diamond that is surely pure
Truth's an antidote, the virus curer
Truth is the lock on the door - not the keys
Truth is the confession that brings you ease
Truth is the answer to the main question
Truth is the part you forget to mention

~Franklin Ryk 1998 (@ 12 yrs)

Please forgive me for this minor detour in topic from the recent "slaughter of lambkins" and how it represents a new thesis of the Helgian Dialectic, for which there will be an antithesis and final synthesis to lead the sheep astray. We can already see them going after guns and the internet.

I feel compelled to bring up a 9/11 topic mostly just to hedge my bets in case the world really does end on 2012-12-21 as per the Mayan Calendar. I will want to be able to stand before the Supreme Architect of the Universe and say that I sought to reveal (9/11) truth right up until the end.

When, as I expect, we wake up on 2012-12-22, this article about events from 2001-09-11 won't be totally out of place in the sense: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana). Participants of this forum already speculate about heinous misdeeds to come, some of it with nuclear aspirations.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Neutron Nuclear DEW

9/11 Tetris

In the game of 9/11 Tetris, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a "theory stack" that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps. A given piece of evidence might fit equally well in multiple theory stacks. However, all of the valid evidence must be accounted for in a reasonable manner. And to make the game more challenging, disinformation is part of the mix. A piece of evidence coming from a disinformation source is not invalidate by this association. With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all "Nuggets of Truth" contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration.

When contemplating the WTC destruction, I champion today neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW), which Mr. HybridRogue1 has assisted in crafting the label "neu nookiedoo". The sources for my bastard beliefs are:

(1) Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" and her website. Yes, it has disinformation, but it also has the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour.

(2) Mr. Jeff Prager's presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]. Also his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. Disinformation probably exists here, too.

(3) The omissions, misdirections, and logic errors of Dr. Steven Jones starting with his paper "Hard Evidence Rebudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes were used on the WTC Towers" and extending into his research into nano-thermite.

Allow me to start with #3, because this represents heresy for the orthodox 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) that will be hard to get passed. Try.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Ventura Highway into the Weeds

Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections

The smell wafting up from the soles of Mr. HybridRogue1's black boots where "neu nookiedoo" oozes out of his waffle-stopper treads? Wouldn't be happening if he were not so intent on squishing "neu nookiedoo", short for "neutron nuclear directed energy weapons," to prevent rational discussion thereof.

Part 14: Ventura Highway into the Weeds

In these furthering adventures of Señor El Once on theme "Neu Nookiedoo", an unflattering invitation is sent several times from COTO crew. Once there, all four attempts [with links and HTML mark-up] to post something meaningful languished in the administrators queue, while the discussion meandered on.

Prior to leaving, a suspicion of sock-puppetry on T&S was uttered, that then led to all sorts of non-denial machinations that included three fronts of activity, demands to leave the COTO crew area, and censure. What was stuck in the queue initially was approved, but the fourth attempt in Mr. HybridRogue1's home "Scragged" article led to subsequent examples of "operating dishonestly" [heavy editing and purposeful misquoting] that could only be cured by further censure.

Neutron nuclear DEW suggests fracticide between the multiple ERW devices, such that several of them did not reach their full nuclear neutron-emission yield and were left fizzling in the pile. Why this would be so hard to accept, particularly with the many weaknesses of chemical explosives, does not leave many explanations.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Ticks that Tock

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : ticks that tock into a boom

2012-10-03

Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:

Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.

It isn't that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.

The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980's to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a "two thumbs up!" from them for me to not just put the movie on my "to watch" list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with "nice" people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a negative critic sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.

The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me positive or negative critics [on some subject] were sincere. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and "enjoy" some movie.]

With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.

And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.

Specifically, ticks to them and their agenda might become exposed in an ah-ha moment, sometimes purposely, so that it tocks into a boom to decimates all of their works, the good as well as the purposely bad and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.

Good cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Vatic 9/11 Special [2012]

This Vatic 9/11/2012 Special intended for the eleventh anniversary is late, because the Vatic Partners are a bit burned out and bummed out. After eleven years, the 9/11 Truth Movement's biggest success is a Colorado PBS station that broadcast "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out".

I certainly respect the courage and the efforts to air this production, and it has given rise to at least three real-life opportunities for me to engage in 9/11 discussions in person where the topic was broached by others. This is the good that it brought.

The bad? Not only did that 9/11 production not go far enough, but it clamped a Denver-boot on it to park meaningful contemplation in the realm of controlled demolition with incendiaries and explosives. It wasn't. 9/11 was nuclear.

In 2010, the Vatic Project said:
The 9/11 Special does not shirk from saying that 9/11 was a nuclear event, that corporate media fooled the world with computer generated images (CGI), and that US Government/Military Insiders, Mossad/Israel, and zionists within the banks and media are the culprits.

In 2011 after reader Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, the Vatic Project amended the above with:
"9/11 used cold-fusion or nuclear reactors to generate the power for DEW that supplied the accuracy and umpth to pulverize the internals of the towers".

In 2012, the Vatic Project takes two steps backward to go one forward:
9/11 deployed multiple neutron nuclear directed energy (DEW) [or neu nookiedoo or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)] in most of the buildings in the WTC complex. We no longer advocate the No Plane Theory (NPT) with regards to the towers; we advocate the No Commerical Plane Theory (NCPT), which says the speed & precision of the aircraft at low altitude excludes the alledged model but not a special plane-looking-missile. For similar reasons, the Pentagon plane was not the alledged aircraft [thereby adhering to NCPT], and the Vatic Project endorses the CIT flyover theory. The corporate media was involved in fooling the world and did pull some CGI tricks, but we were duped into believing the extent of such media manipulation with computer generated images (CGI) that lead to NPT. The video of the last twelve seconds of UA175 shows with 3D modeling how the videos of the seemingly different flight paths does correspond to a single flight path, thereby destroying our previous NPT and CGI beliefs. We still belief that US Government/Military Insiders, Mossad/Israel, and zionists within the banks and media are the culprits.

We apologize if our wafflings in 9/11 beliefs misled you, or if anything written above proves our duping on the subject sometime in the future. We are only human, and the disinformation has been very crafty to lead us astray. Yes, please do not trust our judgment in this matter, but instead verify for yourselves.

In 2011, the Vatic Project was promoting Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, "Where did the Towers Go?" In 2012, the book remains an excellent addition to any serious 9/11 researcher's library, but with serious caveats. Her collection of 9/11 pictorial evidence, as well as the correlation of after-math photos to map locations is most impressive. However, now we see that her book does have a few errors and omissions, with her tiny brush-off of nuclear suspicions being a glaring one. Her downplaying of hot-spots (and acceptance without challenge of a government report on satellite infrared hot-spots) might even be an example of blatant disinformation. She may bring hurricane Erin to our attention for the wrong reasons and misses the opportunity to expound upon its ramifications: the revealing of active media complicity and of the government's ability to steer the weather. I also have to fault Dr. Wood for a very poor "literature review" in her high-quality scholarly effort. She essentially re-purposed information from her website, much of it stagnant since 2006. She did not take the opportunity in her book to debunk valid criticism of the themes and analysis presented on her web pages (such as Dr. Jenkins). The work of the Anonymous Physicist at the very least would have merited some discussion by the good doctor.

The really important breakthrough in 2012 was Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] as well as his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages: Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. I must borrow an expression from Mr. Chandler of his first impressions of Dr. Wood's textbook: "Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." A tip of our Fedora to Dr. James Fetzer for bringing Mr. Prager's work to our attention. I expect we'll find errors in Mr. Prager's compilation, but not enough to take nuclear 9/11 aspirations off of the table. The proof is in the dust.

Dr. Wood and Mr. Prager have overlapping concepts. One of those is that they both in effect advocate directed energy weapons. The difference is that Dr. Wood makes a wide and rather conspicuous circle around nuclear hijinx. It is somewhat glaring that nuclear methods aren't given more consideration when trying to account for the energy requirements of pulverization and dustification, when surely her research into Star Wars would have brought up Project Excalibur.

This is where Mr. Prager's work can bridge us, while clearing up misconceptions about what a directed energy weapon would look like, would be capable of, and would produce in terms of short-lived and lingering side-effects. Look into neutron bombs.


The Vatic 9/11/2012 Special  is intended to serve as a 9/11 Reference. As before, these rabbit holes of 9/11 neu nookiedoo and "whodunnit" are very deep and twisted.

For those interested, an excellent debate on the subject transpire in the comment section across several articles from Truth & Shadows between Señor El Once and hybridrogue1.

Señor El Once : 2012-09-11 Compelling evidence of a fission pathway [Jeff Prager]

Señor El Once : 2012-09-12 Bashing Dr. Jones

Señor El Once : 2012-10-04 Responding to Dr. Jones [from 9/11 Blogger 2012-09-30]

For your own peace of mind, satisfy for yourself whether or not they have merit. At risk is our entire system of justice.

Why should you care about this eleven year old event today? You should care that the true 9/11 perpetrators are brought to justice, because left unchecked gives them and their successors free reign (again and again) to manipulate us and the world into other wrongful wars and crimes against humanity. Nations fall if justice is not pursued. Only we can save it.

Among the most basic of your take-away action items from this Vatic 9/11 Special, is that you need to be part of the voice to demand an independent investigation of 9/11. After that, you need to be questioning and denouncing all foreign & domestic policy and the right-left political games that are based on the lies of 9/11 ("... because we were attacked on 9/11(?)...") and that seem to scapegoat another [country, ethnicity, religion].

Here are some quick links to help you navigate the 9/11 Special.Do a right-click from your browser and open them in new tabs.

Ignorance and Bashing

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : Think about the victims and simVictims

2012-09-13

Dear Mr. McKee,

If you felt like poking at their emotional wound, the response to "think about the 3000 victims" becomes:

Yeah, let's! Did 3,000 victims really die? I mean, they can't prove that commercial airplanes even took off. And it has been sure disproven that some special aircraft other than a commercial airliner hit the towers, so the "victims" attributed to them reduces the 3,000 number. The Pentagon aircraft also wasn't a commercial one, and even if it were, that aircraft flew over the building. The Shanksville aircraft crash had no seats, no luggage, and no body parts. Where are the victims from the planes?

Now if we go into the towers to tally their numbers, they were under-occupied with an exodus starting with their 1993 bombing, plus several floors had doors govt front companies with prominent nameplates and employees in name only. Certainly people died, but the numbers only add up to 3,000 in funny ways.

One of the funny ways is seen by the wiped out division of the Office of Naval Intelligence, its agents, and its records that dealt with the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD budget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld spoke of the day before 9/11 to the media. Another funny one are the SEC records that were killed when WTC-7 went down with one of its demolition stages having 100 feet of observable free-fall. Another funny way are the instances of simVictims.

Think about the victims, because the lives that stoked "USA patriotism" took in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan each exceed the proven facticious 3,000 number from 9/11.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Two Steps Backward for 9/11 Nukes Forward

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : the Pavlovian word that got so many 9/11 conspiracy theorists salivating

2012-09-10

{2nd attempt}

Two steps backward to go one step forwards? The Monty Python show was famous for this segue:

"... And now for something completely different."


And this posting would have been different, I assure you, had the "Pavlov" word not been snatched from my mind by Mr. Dwil, who wrote such poetic words:

... Bernay (sic) returns from the grave to chortle at your weak efforts to mimic his propaganda techniques... "Bernay" ---- jeez. You three need to do the Pavlov Knee-Jerk (or a Burning Man circle jerk), go find a Denny's (since that's where television taught you to go) - and eat some bacon and eggs. ...bacon and eggs made by Edward Bernay----s.


So what was the Pavlovian word that got so many 9/11 conspiracy theorists salivating and dropping their best lines yet again recently? I don't know, but here are some gems from a self-promoting professor of "logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning," Dr. James H. Fetzer:

Typical of this fake... as I have explained again and again and again. This guy reminds me of the ditty, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Lying is his area of specialization. Explaining why what he is saying is false can be tedious and time consuming. Think of it. He is probably the biggest liar you will ever encounter in your life.

Repetitiously posting unsound arguments with false premises hardly constitutes disproof.

... you phony shit! You are so hard up for arguments you are doing it in your pants and then displaying your stained underwear here for the world to witness.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Contrived 9/11 Holograms with Radar

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : proofs are weak on reference material links

2012-08-24

Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

Your proofs are still weak on reference material links (as are those from the esteemed academic professor, Dr. Fetzer). A quote from some alleged DARPA paper about future plans to project holograms is but a seed that can only grow through water and sunlight in the form of basic research papers, articles, and commercialized endeavors (e.g., YouTube) to which you can point the world.

I reminded you that your holographic speculation still needs to account for TWO sets of radar that have remarkable congruity with 44 or so videos that 3D animation has proven (to my satisfaction) represent a singular flight path.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Protocols of Zion

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : this didn't stop him from writing from his protocols ignorance

2012-08-02

Mr. Felton wrote on August 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm:

I have not read the Protocols and am not prepared to comment on them since they have no relation to the events of Sept. 11.


Yet this didn't stop Mr. Felton from writing from his ignorance:

Friday, July 27, 2012

More Absurd 9/11 Holograms

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : "Imagine no plane" thought process

2012-07-26

Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

I know where you are going with the "imagine no plane" thought process, because I was fully there not all that long ago. I radically changed my tune from "no planes" at all (at the towers) to "no commercial planes" (for any of the 9/11 four.)

Friday, July 20, 2012

adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".

2012-07-20

Mr. Rogue wrote:

Niels did a calculation based on a false assumption, that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized — they were not, and this can be proven by they debris samples themselves as Prof Jones points out. Only a portion of the materials were pulverized to nano particulates – that is a FACT.

To pulverize anything into nano-particulates is still a large energy sink.

The assumption that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized is worst case. [However, I have doubts that assumption applies in a straw man fashion, but let's go with it anyway.]

So, Mr. Rogue, please do some math and scale back Dr. Harrit's supposition of the "source" materials until you think the nano-particulates and the not-so-nano-particulates output are representative of the actual evidence. The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be "massive" and "ginormous".

Thursday, July 5, 2012

call it "electromagnetic energy"

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : call it "electromagnetic energy"

2012-07-05

I owe Señor Rogue a debt of gratitude for being my smashing board. By responding to me, he gives me another opportunity to further my argument. His ridicule minus some thinking from July 5, 2012 at 12:14 am:

Eddy scratches, and he scratches well. But that is not currently where the itch is. The question remains: How are all the other metal items impervious to the EMP? Regardless of technical data of the effect of eddy currents. Even the metal walls bearing our famous ‘slits’ would be in direct line.

First, let us not call it an EMP. Let us call it "electromagnetic energy," because this can cover more scenarios. Whether or not it was a single pulse or multiple pulses or a steady stream of such microwaving energy we don't have to determine at this point in time.

Second, the adverb "directed" applied to the word "energy" used as an adjective to modify the noun "weapon" of the acronymn DEW should tell you 50% of what you need to know with regards to your question above. It was aimed away from what they didn't want it hitting, which may include the "spire" [to which I speculate one of the DEW devices was mounted.]

As for the other 50% of what you need to know, the metal items within the targeting beams of electromagnetic energy would also experience Eddy Currents. Very large ones, resulting in lots of heat radiating from the steel. Think of a kitchen stove burner: coat it with something, let it dry, and then turn on the stove: what was on it gets burned off in a stinky haze likely to trigger smoke alarms. The energy absorbed by inner-steel within aim of the DEW would burn off what was coated on it.

Friday, June 29, 2012

You're the ying to my yang

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : You're the ying to my yang

2012-06-29

Mr. Hybrid Rogue makes some valid points. For instance, on June 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm he writes:

It is obvious he cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board.

I have been using you as a slamming board. I have been bouncing ideas off of you. Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction. You're the ying to my yang. You're the Laurel to my Hardy. You're the Mutt to my Jeff. "You complete me, baby..."

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

do not expect any further replies

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : do not expect any further replies

2012-06-27

Señor Agent Rogue gets his butt kick on the the nuclear topic in another thread, so tries to do his triage over here.

Aren't I the lucky one, because across two postings (June 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm and June 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm), Agent Rogue prematurely promises me:

That’s it Once, I’ve had it with your shit. Don’t address me again. … I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

WooHoo!!! Time to go to town without backtalk on his last three four six posting here!

Monday, June 25, 2012

don't wave off the nuclear signatures

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : don't wave-off the nuclear signatures

2012-06-25

Señor Agent Rogue wrote:

There are ZERO nuclear characteristics to the event itself.

Not true. The cascading pulverization of content could be pretty indicative of that. Specially tweaked nukes don't have to give off the tell-tale signatures of conventional nukes in the same manner (flash, bang, EMP, heat wave, blast wave, alpha radiation, beta radiation, gamma radiation, X-ray radiation, etc.) Unconventional nukes whose primary output is electromagnetic energy that is DEW targeted (like the X-Ray laser intended to take out missiles). An amped up microwave. It could turn residual water molecules in content into steam whose expanding volume pressure blew content apart.

The issue with your chemical explosives is that they BURN. Why so little flaming falling debris? In fact, therein lies a major piece of evidence from Dr. Wood's textbook. When you study images and videos of the destruction of the towers, you see pieces falling that seem to have smoke trails. Is it just smoke? Or is it primarily dust and steam? How did your chemical materials get materials turned to smoke without flames or red-hot metal? Why didn't burning particles from your plastmastic flow clouds ignite many office fires in adjacent buildings, yet at the persistence to attack metal in cars to make them pop-off?

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Dr. Wood has not made a sufficient case for missing steel

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : Dr. Wood has not made a sufficient case for missing steel

2012-06-13

It is easy to get confused, particularly when different arguments are made to debunk different aspects of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory (OCT) that itself morphed over time. Moreover, this thread is a bunch of 9/11 truthers arguing amongst ourselves using the same evidence to support their claims.

Here's the way I sum it up. The OCT suggests that a 20-30 story pile driver demolished the lower 70-80 stories.

Dr. Wood is one of many who debunks this. She uses seismic evidence to support her debunking. Namely, if such a pile driver existed and were at work, it would have had a more noticable seismic spike, particularly when it hit the ground. In fact, traveling down and impacting floors would have released energy into the still intact lower structure that would transmit to the foundation and then to the seismic measuring station such signature events. Moreover, she takes it a step further, by saying (paraphrased) that if the towers were to have collapsed in a natural fashion, much larger cohesive chunks would have been expected to fall outside of the foot print, would have fallen from great heights, would have acquired large amounts of kinetic energy, and would have had both larger seismic spikes as well as crippling damage to bath tub.

So far, everything I have written undermines the OCT and could support the hypotheses of any form of controlled demolition including DEW.

The dustification of content and the disassembly of steel sections she argues weren't flukes of an overly redundant, exceptionally thorough overkill demolition. No, this was planned so that damage to the bath tub could be minimized.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Dr. Judy Wood: Position Statement and Book Review

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : Dr. Judy Wood: Position Statement and Book Review

2012-06-04

The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.

When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn't happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being "crazy, loony, nutty" and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.

Assuming that the 9/11TM has such Sunstein infiltration, then fitting well into the profile of government-controlled messaging would be the rabid way in which Dr. Judy Wood and her work are denounced as "crazy, loony, nutty" and with crass discouragement from serious study, to the point of banning participants from forums when they bring up Dr. Wood's work in a favorable light, or not allowing such discussions to happen in the first place. Despite many instances where Dr. Wood's research was discussed rationally on Truth & Shadows, relatively new tag-teaming participants disruptively argue for "separation and containment" [e.g., under this very article.]

Dr. Wood published in 2010 her textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?". It is 2012, and where are the detailed good, bad, and ugly book reviews from respected 9/11 scholars? Particularly noteworthy are all of the attempts at book reports without having read it. In their attempts to shut down relevant commentary inspired by her book, they cite articles that pre-date the book and that thus have no accurate knowledge of exactly what would be in the book.

Paraphrased from Hamlet: "Me thinketh thou doth protest too much."

Of the many weaknesses I've found in Dr. Wood's textbook


Señor El Once : Of the many weaknesses I've found in Dr. Wood's textbook
2012-06-04
Dear Mr. Syed, you wrote:
One of Dr. Wood’s central claims has always been that the central core steel in the building “dustified.” She bases this belief on a well known video taken from a particular angle. ... However, this is one angle from a rather low quality video. The angle is key. Have a look at this much higher quality footage of the same phenomenon, from a different angle. ... It is clear from this video that the steel spire is not turning to dust. It is falling, and in its wake, it’s shedding off some of the dust that has just coated it from the surrounding materials that have been “dustified” through the use of explosives.
Yes, you are correct. Of the many weaknesses I've found in Dr. Wood's textbook, this was one of them: relying on a particular angle for the demise of the spire to base her analysis on. It leaves the impression that the steel in the spire was turning to dust. Yet, views of the spire from different angles ought to change that assessment.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 3: Salvage and Keep In Play


Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : salvage and keep in play

2012-04-13

Mr. HybridRogue1 on April 12, 2012 at 9:42 am

I have moved over into the pro-CIT camp after reading Onesliceshort’s very compelling piece last night. So this is as close to a total ‘conversion’ as I have had in some time.


Kudos for having the moxie to be able change your mind based on evidence and compelling analysis. In your mind (mine as well), the Pentagon strike takes on more of a tint of a Hollywood production. "Rather than having a real plane hit the Pentagon, let's just have the military-corporate media say that it did. We'll have a real plane buzz the Pentagon and find some other way of inflicting damage on those pesky investigators in the Office of Naval Intelligence to get them to shut up about the missing $2.3 trillion."

Earlier, you had made the following statement HybridRogue1 on April 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm

[M]y view is that there were no hijackings. That re-worked planes, most likely Boeing hull frames and wings, were specially created by the military for this op. Hardened wing edges, perhaps titanium edges reinforced by kavlar – juiced up engines with special fan blades to fly in the thicker ground level atmosphere. All flown by tamper proof remote control. They may have carried ordinance and fired missiles nanoseconds before their impacts. That is my best guess as far as the aircraft used in the operation.


Is there anything from the above statement that you want to salvage and keep in play (and/or maybe apply to WTC)?

Much of the Pentagon damage suggests a missile strike. The issue for me is that flying missiles are both visible and audible, and to my knowledge there are no witnesses to missiles flying parallel courses with a plane. My limited research into missiles depicts them with a tell-tale rocket (or jet) exhaust trail. To allow the missile to generate the appropriate thrust to get up to "ramming speed" with enough manueverability to get to the target that isn't on the plane's flight path, it would have to be launched "seconds" sooner and therefore be visible for several hundred feet (or more) flying a parallel path.

This is why I floated the idea of the missile really being in the construction trailer than allegedly housed a generator.

For that matter, though, the Pentagon is allegedly ringed with all sorts of defense mechanisms. Reason suggests that one could conceivably be reprogrammed and targeted at the Pentagon. Of course, its activation would be noticed, as would the empty silo. The construction trailer seems like a better option. And we have all of those animations of a plane hitting the Pentagon to thank for calling attention to that trailer to explain how it got clipped by the plane and moved from a parallel or perpendicular parking position to one that is askew and in near alignment with the damage path.

As for re-applying those "hardened aircraft" to the towers? Well, this is what debunkers of no-planes (like the very same Frank Legge) try to do in order to explain manueverability (& speed) at low altitude and heavy air exceeding the capabilities of the alleged aircraft. Also, to explain the lack of crash physics and the wing-tip to wing-tip cartoon outline of the plane on the buildings.

Seems like such a waste to harden a plane just so it can be destroyed (although much of the military's arsenal of bombs and missiles suggests a use-it-once-and-be-gone mentality). The real waste is that pixels on the telly and military-corporate media complicity can do a much more effective job of telling the masses what they saw and what they didn't see. And they were going to have to reach into this psyops hypno-bag extensively anyway.

Reminds me of Star Trek and how transporters came into being. I understand that the makers of the show didn't want to waste precious minutes of each and every show with the riggamarole of launching, flying, & landing shuttles, so they dreamed up transporters to get the crew instantly where they needed to be on the planet. Once explained and demonstrated a few times, the audience bought it. Problem solved.

Not that everything on 9/11 had to be the same modus operandus, but two-out-of-four Pennsylvania and the Pentagon scream of "no plane crashes." The remaining two at the towers have similar issues. Of all the bunk we've experienced with Sgt. Shack, no-planes might be the kernel of truth that his circus wants to distract us from.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 2: Elephant Talk


Hide All / Expand All


I have to admit that I'm running out 9/11 steam. The OKC video put a hole in my boiler. Videos on Bernay, marketing (e.g., propoganda), the manipulation of the masses, and the stupidity of the masses has me shaking my hairless head. I'm especially annoyed at how 9/11 and Al-quada still make hay for shitty foreign and domestic policies. Appreciation of the good and true has always been my guide. I'm dumbfounded by how the lies seem "gooder" and "truer" even after being exposed as being way too good to be true. Nothing like the current Republican circus to shed light on it from a different direction.

The following is Part 2 of a discussion that took place on Truth & Shadows. It collects mostly my words and enough of my opponent's words to provide context. Certain postings from here may be extracted and re-posted individually.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

the sucking sound is the vacuum left by the things swepted off of the table

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : grazing on dirt

2012-04-01

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:

I do not buy any of your chump whack, “No-Planes”, “Digital Fakery” or the Judy Wood–Morgan Reynolds woowoo – space beams or nukes. None of it.


You are absolutely amazing in how your religious 9/11 views keep you locked in your pasture grazing on dirt and in how you apply the same tricks for which you condemn Mr. Shack: the old ploy "false in one, false in all."

Can you hear the sucking sound? That's the vacuum left by the things you've swepted off of the table so haphazardly.

Your nano-thermite sacred cow has been slaughtered. Not that it doesn't have some juicy meat to be roasted in the form of the four energetic spikes that happened during the many week long hot-spot duration as presented in Kevin Ryan's paper and what dust samples reveal. But the 884k mile long imaginary garden hose packed with (relatively) slow burning incendiaries mixed with nano-thermite to account for the duration of just one hot-spot keeps it coiled at your feet to be tripped over: "Duh, Occam Razor says this is way too ginormously much and thus less and less likely to be the primary destructive mechanism.".

Even turning to Frank Legge (and others?) hasn't permitted nano-thermite to solve Occam Razor that pesky hot-spot duration.

Another energy source and destructive mechanisms must be sought.

And you continue to ridicule Dr. Wood's textbook from that ancient stronghold of not owning it, not borrowing it, and not having read it?

Come to think of it, your blanket condemnation of September Clues 1-9 and A-H is rather weak as well. You've cherry picked some low hanging fruit that "the skunk and his gopher" poorly defended (on purpose?) for you to smash and even get rational me stomping on.

Yet a deeper episode-by-episode good, bad, & ugly review of September Clues is just as glaringly absent as the chapter-by-chapter good, bad, & ugly book report on Dr. Wood's book. From you. From any leader within the truth movement.

The sucking vacuum and your inability to fill the void, even with the help of others (Dr. Jones, Mr. Legge), is made worse by your failure to acknowledge nuggets of Truth and the importance & validity of searching for them in (dis)information.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth

2012-03-23

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Thank you for providing the link to the Kevin Ryan document. I have not finished it reading word-for-word, but in the opening pages it provides nuggets of truth.

You write:

I have to admit Señor El Once, that I am still baffled that you cannot seem to imagine this creeping wandering fires scenario [mainly chemical] in this chaotic structure of the pile.


Now that you corner my imagination into the premise of a creeping, wandering fires scenario, let me empty your baffles by stating I can indeed imagine them and suspect that this was the nature of at least part of what was observed.

Admittedly, information gathered in my mind regarding the hot-spots and testimonies has been sketchy. Kevin Ryan does a good job of bringing them together.

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
* Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
* Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
* Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
* A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).
The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. Apart from the extensive but failed efforts to extinguish the fires, there are several other physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ. These include the following.
1. Photographs and witness testimony evidencing molten metal and explosions accompanied by white dust clouds (Jones 2006; Meyerowitz 2006; PBS 2002).
2. Extremely high temperatures in the fires at the WTC (Jones et al. 2008a).
3. Unusual spikes in volatile organic chemical (VOC) emissions, suggesting abrupt, violent fires on specific dates.
4. Unusual species in the environmental monitoring data, also corresponding to specific dates.
Explosions followed by white dust clouds, and molten metal at GZ, are of particular interest in this analysis. A white dust cloud is one of the products of the thermite reaction. The white dust in this case is aluminum oxide, released from the extremely exothermic reaction between aluminum and iron oxide. The other product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the WTC. The environmental data described below give more compelling evidence to support such an inquiry.


In the lengthy quote above, what stands out to me is "such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials." I agree that compared to "a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel" chemical energetic materials provide a better explanation, particularly for the noted spikes.

However, are chemical energetic materials the only explanation or the only cause of the four bullet points and #1 & #2?

Was any other source of energy at work under the rubble that would occassionally touch off remnant chemical energetic materials and cause their spike?

Thursday, March 8, 2012

champion September Clues and clues forum research in a reasonable manner

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : champion September Clues and clues forum research in a reasonable manner

2012-03-08

Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

I hope that you will continue to champion September Clues and clues forum research, but please do it in a reasonable manner.

Mr. HybridRogue1 said it quite well:

“Nothing” and “Everything” are quite broad brushes... MOST of what was shown of the scene in NY that day is actual real video footage.


Mr. OneBornFree, you wrote a FACT that isn't:

FACT: All of the tower destruct sequences aired on TV on 9/11 were pre-fabricated on computer, from start to finish [as was other incidental footage.] NOTHING, in any of them [i.e. sky, backgrounds, foregrounds, smoke, fires,trees, bridges, coastlines, people, WTC buildings, surrounding buildings, mini-explosions, shadows, birds, helicopters,sunlight etc. etc. ] in any of them is a reflection of the reality of that day.


The above description of fakery may have been exhibited in some sequences analyzed by the September Clues crew, but that sticky word "all" is just sitting there waiting like a big fat "I dare you" sign for one measely instance of nothing faked (e.g., being authentic) to bring down your argument. Until "all" is proven as pre-fabricated, some imagery will remain as being considered authentic and depicting the "essential reality."

I personally believe that start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images were the exception rather than the norm.

Rather, authentic imagery was passed through a media editing department. Such imagery was only manipulated or tweaked if it revealed destructive methods, like tell-tale flashes or other things that could be incriminating. Even the CGI planes crashing into the towers only inserted the requisite pixels to depict the plane, not model its crash physics.

The argument against start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images (for either the plane impacts or the tower demolitions) is very strong, because if it were such, the video manipulators would have fixed the physics-defying elements. Everything depicted could have been 100% physics-compliant and in agreement from each camera angle.

Take the plane crashes. IMHO the reason they weren't physics-compliant was that they had quasi-real-time footage of an explosion in the upper floors of the towers from various angles. They had to work quickly just to get plane pixels inserted, and these had errors with respect to inconsistent flight paths. They had no time to depict accurate crash physics.

Take the towers' destruction. IMHO the reason their footage weren't compliant with the explanations of pancakes or pile-drivers was that the real-world destructive mechanisms added too much energy and made them physics-defying with respect to explanations involving Newtonian gravitational collapses. They had too many camera angles depicting a real event, and their digital tweaking efforts were spent masking operation methods.

One would think with start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images that at the very least the video manipulators could alter the WTC-7 footage to slow down its 100+ feet of gravitational acceleration. This they didn't do.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

formulating convoluted and tiresome theories

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : formulating convoluted and tiresome theories

2012-03-06

Dear Mr. Shack,

I respect the greater part of your work. I'll gladly stand on your shoulders. But your legacy is not without its weaknesses.

I don't mind you casting Ronnie Raygun "distrust but verify" paraphrased dispersions on all 9/11 imagery. But the effort to do a taint-by-association clean sweep off of the table of all 9/11 imagery is disingenous. For the images and videos you've discovered artifacts of digital manipulation, awesome! Until the taint is found in all such media snippets and is also found conflicting with on-the-scene observers understanding of what the "essential reality" was, some imagery will remain on the table to inspire our thinking into the mechanisms of destruction.

A more glaring weakness is found hidden in the following passage from you:

I won’t name any names – so as not to “feed the trolls”, as they say – but the two insidious, hybrid & rogue señors rambling away incessantly on this comment box – formulating convoluted and tiresome theories regarding the WTC towers’ collapse physics – exemplify the sort of dreary, mind-numbing tactics the “9/11 gatekeeping movement” deploys to bore the wits out of everyone.


For the sake of discussion, let us assume that your understanding of the 9/11 media hoax onto the world is valid. If you could impose this understanding on the world, the effect (e.g., WTC destruction suggesting overkill amounts of energy) still needs a credible explanation into the cause. You try mightily to say that media effectively put a black-box around the cause to obscure and hide its true nature; all we know for sure is what went into the black-box and the effect that came out.

When you are pressed to "formulate convoluted and tiresome theories regarding the WTC towers’ collapse physics", the weak argument you and your forum reach towards is a traditional controlled demolition using standard explosives and incendiaries. You discount the physics and the energy levels required to achieve the effect, and how physics, chemistry, and math applied to your suggested cause ends up proving its inapplicability to account for effects (e.g., under-rubble hot-spots without oxygen burning for many weeks) before the implied massive quanties impacts logistics in terms of what could be pulled off in the several days that the bomb-sniffing dogs used for a pre-9/11 holiday. Who's a gatekeeper?

Monday, March 5, 2012

no longer in the milli-nuke camp of the Anonymous Physicist

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : mixing up principles

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

You are correct that I am no longer in the milli-nuke camp of the Anonymous Physicist, but I hang out along its fringes. I'm not in that camp due to:

- Lack of nuke flashes.
- Lack of nuke blast wave going beyond the exterior walls of the tower.
- Lack of heat wave that would scortch not just cars, but paper and humans.
- Likelihood of milli-nuke fracticide.
- Anomalous radiation readings that don't match weapons.

Do you see the dichotomy here? “zero to low radiation nuke” but, “radioactive fragments”


You are mixing up principles here. Nukes have many aspects of their design that can be tweaked or dialed in, albeit with improvements to one aspect forcing trade-offs in other aspects. Designing a nuke for zero to low radiation is defined by the designer, whereby the type of that radiation is but one factor. Nukes can be designed to give off high levels of X radiation and low levels Y radiation, whereby X might be a type that disipates quickly.

Still, all nukes get their punch by nuclear material. Likewise the energy from nuclear reactors comes from nuclear material.


…these [radioactive fragments] are exactly what were not found – No ‘daughter’ elements detected. If the heat is due to ‘radioactivity’ then that is radiation. If there is radiation in quantity to cause large scale heat, that radiation would have a radioactive signature, and it would not be a “trace” signature – this amount of radiation would have killed those amongst it within hours, or days at most.


I disagree for several reasons.

First, we don't know exactly what was found, and we can't rule out nuclear fragments. What we do know is that military security dropped down upon the WTC complex with orders to prevent "unauthorized" pictures and whatnot. We also know that portions of the clean-up procedures resembled that of HazMat techniques: applying copious amounts of water, trucking in fresh dirt and spreading it out, and carting out this same dirt days later.

The heat isn't due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.

Radioactive signatures were present, but as previously proven, they were anomalous and above "trace" levels. Trace levels would have been at or below 20 TU, while one WTC sample measured it at almost 1100 TU.

We have no reason to trust govt reports on radiation measurements. They are sketchy and incomplete. For that matter, it would be an easy task to issue "fake" radiation badges to first responders, so most wouldn't be the wiser.

Lest we forget, Mayor Bloomberg had a little jihad where he was trying to ban the use of Geiger Counters in NYC. What was that all about? Didn't want little independent investigators with Geiger Counters running around and sounding alarms regarding the true radiation measurements.

To your discussion of an EMP, it has errors. A nuke exploding an elevation would have an EMP that affects electronics. One exploding underground or within a building would have far less. EMP is line-of-sight, more or less. Its magnitude is dependent on distance. EMP is another one of those design factors along with radiation, blast wave, and heat wave that can be tweaked. Assuming a much smaller nuclear device and explosion from within the steel towers, the EMP effects could have been reduced dramaticly.

I speculate that the nuclear reactor(s) powering DEW device(s) may have radiated electrical-magnetic fields that the DEW devices snagged and re-purposed, if bad-ass power distribution cables weren't deployed to get energy to the DEW devices. Errant EM fields from the reactor slipping out through window slits may have caused the anomalous fire damage to vehicles.


Traces of tritiated water (HTO)?

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Your agent trenchcoat is exposing more than it should.

Because you are championing super duper nano-thermite as the end-all-cure-all to the anomalous after-effects at WTC, you tell us what its burn-rate is. Take your time and use all of Spring Break if you have to.

You are correct that my presumption of the nano-thermite burn-rate being between 3,000 fps and 29,000 fps may be in error, and deliberately so. Its true burn-rate won't hurt the kernel of my argument in the least, I can assure you. Which way does that error go? Don't be shocked-and-awed by super duper nano-thermite having a burn-rate greater than 29,000 fps.

Do you know what a burn-rate faster than my low-ball 3,000 fps will mean? I didn't think so, so I will explain it for your atrophied science nuggets.

To simplify the math:
- I considered only one hot-spot. There were more.
- I truncated the burn duration to 4 weeks. It was longer in cases.
- I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w 3,000 fps burn-rate listed for common incendiaries. Nano-thermite is faster, and your homework might prove that it is even faster than the 3,000 fps to 29,000 fps range given in my googled source.

These simplifications provide a low estimate for the baseline on the ridiculousness of quantities of such materials needed to explain the duration of an under-rubble hot-spot. Packing such s-l-o-w burn-rate materials into an imaginary garden hose netted one some 884k miles long, which is u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e before translating its volume into material weight.

What happens to the length of the imaginary garden-hose when the material burn-rate is anything greater than the s-l-o-w burn-rate I deliberately chose? The required imaginary garden-hose gets longer. (Kind of like your nose, Mr. HybridRogue1, when you continue to make science-challenged arguments and split inconsequential hairs.)

Friday, March 2, 2012

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' Science

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : science-challenged spin on a disinfo carousel

2012-03-02

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' science has been provided several times. I'll repeat it most briefly both for new readers and scientific-wannabe's-but-aren't like yourself.

Dr. Jones wrote a paper based on blindly-accepted measurements of radiation at ground zero from govt sources and performs with it scientific slight of hand: (unvetted) radiation measurements did not match the radiation signature of three known nuclear weapon types, therefore he leaps to his conclusions that no nuclear weapons were used. Does he speculate about other nuclear sources and unknown nuclear weapons that could account for the (unvetted) radiation measurements? Nope. He lamented frequently about issues with other govt reports (e.g., timeliness, voracity), yet has no issue swallowing the one on radiation measurement?!

So that a vacuum isn't left in taking nukes off the table, Dr. Jones gets credit for discovering nano-thermite in the dust which can indeed burn very hot and without air, drawing its oxygen to burn from the chemical reaction.

The problem here is that neither Dr. Jones, nor Mr. Ryan, nor Mr. Cole, nor you bothered with "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to run numbers on nano-thermite's (or other incendiaries') burn-rate to estimate quantities required to account for the duration of hot-spots... because this suggests massive, totally unrealistic quantities. And when the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth run with it to explain features in the destruction that "boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves it cannot, he doesn't correct the record.