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.Hide All / Expand All
Señor El Once : you brought "the Martians" into the discussion
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Let it be known that you brought "the Martians" into the discussion, even though it was a flippant remark. Is there something with the "alien agenda" we should be looking into?
Although it is hard to get passed your nose, Mr. Shack's September Clues and Phil Jayhan's Let's Roll Forums provide some nuggets of truth in the form of proof that many of the alleged 9/11 victims were fiction: photo-shopped entities with weak legacies and designed to pull emotion srings. This was foreshadowed in the Operation Northwoods plans presented to JFK.
Thus, scrutiny into the fiction or reality of some of the OKC victims is fair.
Full Disclosure: Mr. Shack's September Clues and Phil Jayhan's Let's Roll Forums both officially ban me. Themes from Dr. Wood's textbook defended better than the debunk hit some nerves and got them uncomfortable.
Señor El Once : nasty habit of putting words into my mouth
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You have a nasty habit of putting words into my mouth.
I have already stated that I think both the Shack and Wood stories are woowoo disinfo. As far as considering that there were no deaths of the workers in the towers…bullshit -flat out, that is my response. That there were likely special digital legends created as well, it is part of Intel’s MO, and I wouldn’t doubt it.
I never said "there were no deaths ... in the towers." However, the evidence is compelling that a significant number of the reported deaths of airline passengers, of workers in the towers, and of first responders were simVictims.
Having experienced Mr. Shack first-hand here and lately on his home-court, I now know he is disinfo. But that doesn't mean his efforts into exposing aspects of the 9/11 media hoax can be thrown out whole-sale. What it means is that each nugget needs to be inspected and vetted, and some will be bogus.
And this goes for all 9/11 (dis)information.
A recent dawning in my own understanding of 9/11 is the depressing fact that the public during our lifetimes (and our kids) will never, ever get an objective investigation based on open-access to government, military, & media archives.
At this point in time, everything you or I think we know about 9/11 is disinformation. It all requires pain-staking vetting.
When 9/11 Truthers such as yourself dismiss disinformation sources out-of-hand like you do with your Shack and Wood comments, you become a tool of disinformation in advancing its agenda, which includes taking out of play many nuggets of truth.
One of Mr. Shack's true disinformation agendas is to get all 9/11 imagery distrusted to the point where no argument could be advanced or supported using (only) the imagery; he casts doubt on even images that aren't obviously tainted.
I'm not at the point where I can label Dr. Wood or her textbook disinfo. Thanks to spins on Mr. Shack's carousel, I am starting to see the areas where she might have been duped (e.g., tainted images) which then misled her to wrong conclusions. I don't really care whether space-based or spire-based DEW (with free-energy from Hurricane Erin or Hutchison cold-fusion) survive the vetting process. But what will survive the vetting process are her valid unanswered scientific questions into the energy requirements that the disinfo you march behind ignores, as well as evidence and correlations in the destructive side-effects (e.g., anomalous fire damage to vehicles).
Señor El Once : pin your aporia on others
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
What is good for the goose is also good for the gander, when you write:
Do not attempt to pin your aporia on others.
You demonstrate repeatedly your lack of objectivity by being unwilling to wade through "El Mierda del Toro" of suspected or known disinformation sources to find the nuggets of truth worth saving. As a result, you become the tool of disinformation.
At this point in time, everything you or I think we know about 9/11 is disinformation. It all requires pain-staking vetting.
This has far-reaching applicability beyond September Clues and Dr. Wood. This applies to Dr. Jones's nuclear explanations as well as to his sacred nano-thermite "toro" and "su mierda" that science-challenged folk such as yourself step in and track all over the place.
Señor El Once : science-challenged spin on a disinfo carousel
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Mischaracterizing my statements again, I see. I never wrote:
[T]he Truth Movement itself ... is the governments disinformation program.
But now that you bring it up, it is probably worth investigating, eh? Where can we find an example of that?
He asserts here that I am “science-challenged,” which I assure you is far from the case.
Ah. So if you aren't science-challenged, then you're obviously taking us for another spin on your disinfo carousel.
By picking up little gold-leaf turds that Wood laid, a total ad hominem filled diatribe against Jones himself, rather than a scientific critique of his science – which she is utterly incapable of.
I see your ad hominem against Dr. Wood. Where is my ad hominem against Dr. Jones? I must have missed it.
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.
I assert with confidence that it is Wood and her fantasy land “science” that is the disinformation here. And Shack as well. Both of their stories are utter junk. And it doesn’t take more than a glance to see this.
Don't let me give the wrong impression. Mr. Shack and Dr. Wood both have some junk. I assert with confidence from having gone deeper into the subject matter that important nuggets of truth are also to be found there.
For you to judge everything as utter junk from no more than a glance and from your expressed reluctance to explore deeper? You seem to call yourself a 9/11 Truther. Ironic how you validate your own statement: "[T]he Truth Movement itself ... is the governments disinformation program."
hybridrogue1 : Blog about OKC?
March 2, 2012 at 7:14 pm
“Isn’t this blog about OKC???”~Onesliceshort
This particular thread is indeed about OKC. It is also a part of a series of threads that are, for better or worse, strung together in an ongoing dialog.
I have had my say about it, and don’t see any need to reprimand the Señor’s latest squattle.
I would however like to see OKC as recognized as but one in a long series of deep state events. Again, with an eye to the systemic nature of what it is we are up against.
Señor El Once : Do carry on with OKC
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Your squattle is well-written, and I concur.
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Yes, it is a bit unfortunate that we have diverted this OKC thread with 9/11 concerns. My apologies. Do carry on with OKC.
Señor El Once : When did they know?
Mr. McKee might have another opinion, but I think discussions of Dr. Jones belong in the thread: "When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie"
Señor El Once : magnifying glass of agent suspicions
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 and Mr. Marquis,
It is well that this duped useful idiot comes under the magnifying glass of agent suspicions for my defense of nuggets of truth from sources that are labeled "disinformation," namely September Clues and Dr. Wood. What removes the taint of agenthood from me and casts it onto others is that I have demonstrated an open-mind, a willingness and openness to change it based on new evidence or analysis, a humbless to admit when I am wrong, and thoughtful thought in descerning what might be a nugget of truth as opposed to the dross of disinformation.
Agents, on the other hand, have a line in their agenda to defend upon which their job approval rating rests so becomes something a Neo-dodging-bullets ballet of prose to how far they bend over to avoid conceding even the existence of the line or being pushed over it. Evidently, one such line is for participants or readers to devote any form of a serious study in Dr. Wood's textbook. Book reports are given from high & lofty position of "we don't need no stinking book in hand to pass our unworthiness judgment!" Such closed-mindedness and unwillingness to go there marks an agent.
I have been there, and it ain't perfect, but it is worthy of our attentions to mine the nuggets of truth.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
But in the rant [last page over] by Señor El Once we have him tying Journal of 9/11Scholars – and that would by extention include Gage, and Griffin as they are all part of the same thrust and use each others research – as suspect agents or dupes. Is this sincere madness on Senor’s part? Or is he a subtle agent himself, infiltrating the truth sites as a truth seeker, but sowing seeds of distrust against the very core of the truth movement.
In the rant [last page over] by me, I start by pointing out an example of your nasty habit of putting words into my mouth. When the discussion is brought here, you do it yet again. I have never mentioned the group "Journal of 9/11Scholars". What do they call this technique of faulty arguments in the disinformation parlay?
I feel myself inclined to re-purpose your words: "Is this sincere madness on [Mr. HybridRogue1’s] part? Or is he a subtle agent himself, infiltrating the truth sites as a truth seeker, but sowing seeds of distrust against [anyone objectively reviewing information, even that deemed containing some level of disinformation.]"
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
Our strategy should be based on the premise that the Department of Defense will ‘fight the net’ as it would an enemy weapons system”. This strategy of understanding would be, that there will be agents for the Department of Defense working these blogs. Some will be as blatant as Assbury Smith, but some will be much more subtle in building a profile as a genuine seeker of truth.
I see Wood and Shack in such a light, and I am suspecting Mr. Once as either a dupe of these, or perhaps even being one of them himself.
How come you didn't mention Dr. Jones? Or yourself?
Lest there be any doubt, I'm duped. I'm not an agent, because I can be easily duped by something else and change my mind; all it takes is some science or math properly applied and appropriate analysis.
Mr. Shack has demonstrated to my satisfaction his probable position within the ranks of agenthood.
Dr. Wood is different by my estimations, but it could be that I have been duped into having such a view. So be it.
Dr. Jones is in the high 90% genuine. It is in the paultry low single digit percentages where an agenda line was drawn to remove all considerations of 9/11 being any form of nuclear event(s).
As for you, Mr. HybridRogue1, what are you duped by and / or an agent of?
Mr. Marquis, most of the above ire not directed at you.
A. Marquis CIT wrote in another thread:
Also, I have to say I am amazed that “Señor El Once” always finds a way to work in DEW, Judy Woods, no planes at the towers into nearly every single blog discussion. Amazed …and suspicious.
What I find amazing are the many ways people make unsubstantiated proclaimations regarding the alleged negative nature of an entire body of work (e.g., Dr. Wood's textbook, September Clues) without the benefit of the leg work into assessing each corner of its content and the preservation of nuggets of truth.
Having been to those corners, I can assure you that they are ~not~ perfect or all true, unfortunately. My understanding stands on their shoulders but now deviates. Still, sufficient nuggets of truth are contained therein that necessitates we go there, we think about it, we discuss it. Derisive comments made from obvious ignorance are amazing ... and suspicious.
Señor El Once : lead the readers in circles
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
A trait of a disinformation agent is to lead the readers in circles. Other traits include asking their opponents to perform research or calculations whose results the agent will then promptly ignore.
Recently we see:
Mr. HybridRogue1: March 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm
ALL I want to know is if you have the capacity to challenge Prof. Jones’ science. ... You know how it goes son – Put-up or Shut-up.
Mr. HybridRogue1: March 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm
…I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.
At this point in time, all readers have to do is a Ctrl+F from within their browsers and search on "Jones".
Here are some of the highlights:
Señor El Once: January 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Turns out, I have lots of issues with Dr. Jones. I mean, I like the man; he seems pretty nice; even in his “thus far and no further” line drawing, he has done great services to the 9/11 Movement. But he has also steered it away from where it should be looking.
Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: “Radiation measurements didn’t match X, Y, or Z levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated.” Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source, like a nuclear or cold-fusion generator. Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of “trace levels” so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being “below trace levels.”
Great that Dr. Jones found super duper nano-thermite in the dust. The issue for me is that he let the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 extrapolate this into explaining things it cannot (like duration of under-ruble fires, radiation readings.). He should have corrected the record and nipped it in the bud from the beginning. All it would have taken was a little math to calculate not just the quantities of super duper nano-thermite required to dismantle the towers, but also the additional, massively overkill amounts required to account for pulverization AND the duration of under-rubble fires. No such math paper was ever produced by capable Mr. Jones to correct the record, because it would have left a gaping hole in need of an explaining destructive mechanism.
Señor El Once: January 28, 2012 at 7:53 am
Why did nuclear physicists Dr. Jones write his paper that concludes how no nuclear weapons (of known types A, B, and C) were employed on 9/11? Wouldn’t have been necessary had measurements of radiation in reports from the govt not needed explaining. Let us not forget the hot spots in the rubble that burned for many weeks. Let us not forget the 1st responder ailments. Let us not forget the HazMat procedures often exhibited with dump trucks at the site. Let us not forget the security and secrecy they surrounded ground zero with. Let us not forget the destruction of evidence that was decried even by fire investigation authorities charged with investigating 9/11.
Señor El Once: February 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I’ll even let you speculate that (at least) two kinds of thermate were used: on one extreme were extremely fast/flash burning whose explosive energy you want to credit with pulverizing content; on the other extreme were slow burning cutting charges as exhibited by Dr. Jones and Mr. Cole in their experiments. Any way you combine them, if you do the math and run the numbers, for thermates to account for the duration of the heat you would need massive quantities and probably a conveyor system to continually feed it to the hot spot. (Obviously, working conveyor systems for thermate weren’t present under the rubble.)
Señor El Once: February 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Calm-and-ahhh: The EPA was forced into making an “air is clean” proclamation within days without substantiation that held up. In a similar calming trend, some of the image manipulation dealt with the insertion of people and first responders into the Ground Zero wasteland. “See? It isn’t so hot, so radioactive, or so life threatening. These people are alive and walking about.” Dr. Jones wrote his stilted analysis of the radiation measurments, “Because nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C have radiation signatures of X, Y, and Z, no nukes were deployed.” (Nuke-peddler Dr. Ward claims that Dr. Jones’ math redefines “trace levels” to be 55 times greater than before so that the phrase “below trace level” could be deployed.)
Señor El Once: February 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Dr. Jones rules out nukes of type X, Y, or Z, because the radiation signature at ground zero didn’t match them. Dr. Jones erroneously extrapolated his findings of the destructive mechanism not being “nukes of type X, Y, or Z” to being “no nukes at all.” He did not speculate into “nukes of type W” or “nuclear generators” that could account for the anomalous radiation measurements.
Señor El Once: February 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Mr. HybridRogue1: Have you examined these “wrongly oriented criticisms”?
Señor El Once: I have. Have you examined the criticisms of Dr. Jones and nano-thermite?
Returning to the original statement from Mr. HybridRogue1:
I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.
You waited needlessly, because the scientific critique of Dr. Jones was repeated more than a couple of times within this very thread.
Such tiresome games you play.
Señor El Once : designed to misframe the argument
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Ah. The shotgun technique. Or, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. All three of your postings take detours that are designed to misframe the argument.
Let me fling these words back at you that you wrote not that long ago:
ALL I want to know is if you have the capacity to challenge Prof. Jones’ science. ... You know how it goes son – Put-up or Shut-up... I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.
If you want to substitute "validate" for "challenge", be my guest.
Use my March 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm posting as the starting point for your back-channel access to Dr. Jones. I've given my critique. Have him address them.
Take your time, because I'm leaving for Spring Break this Thursday (Mar 8). I plan on prioritizing my time appropriately and enjoying thoroughly my little-to-no internet access (until Mar 21).
Regarding specifics in your three postings to my one:
And if the molten metal is at the center of such an argument, keep in mind that such is a circular argument – if you simply say there is nothing else that explains than molten metal. Do you see that?
SKEW #1: You obviously missed the center of the argument, which was hot-spot duration. Molten metal is an off-shoot of that but related.
Going back to the hot-spot duration, I'm open-minded enough to consider all options for how this was achieved. Are you?
I am also open-minded enough to consider the weak areas of what I champion. Are you?
Nano-thermite together with even the slowest burn-rates of the incendiaries seems to have many weaknesses that require unrealistic massively huge quantities. Something involving nuclear energy and fizzling but unspent nuclear material comes much closer to explaining it.
A ‘nuclear weapon’ is an abbreviation of “thermonuclear” – they are all thermonuclear, and all thermonuclear reactions produce radiation. This radiation has a signature of heavy metals and radiant materials – and these are not merely ‘trace’ levels, particularly at ground zero.
SKEW #2: I said that 9/11 was a nuclear event, and I made sure to make it clear to readers that I was including milli-nukes fusion-triggered fission, milli-nukes fission-triggered fusion, as well as mini-nuclear (or cold-fusion) reactors going critical.
SKEW #3: You dodge the Dr. Jones scientific slight of hand that limited the matching of the measured radiation to only three publicly known types of weapons. When they didn't match any of those three, all nuclear weapons or nuclear sources were ruled out by Dr. Jones.
It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to see the logic error in that.
Further, no vetting was done on the govt reports that provided the measured radiation levels, which might have all too conveniently been juked low such so mild-mannered Dr. Jones could conclude they didn't match any of the three known public types.
Dr. Jones made no speculation into what could have accounted for the measured radiation. The measured radiation levels -- whether or not 100% accurate -- remain unaddressed.
And let me point out that you have yet to provide a link to a by the point debunking of Jones – as per his critique of the nuclear question. You have offered vague synopsis, but nothing compelling besides your enthusiasm.
You want a stinking link to a by-the-point debunking of Dr. Jones? Ask and ye shall receive: Look at the address bar of your browser for this very discussion and you will discover such a URL. This forum is it, baby!
Non-science-challenged readers will know that criticism doesn't have to be point-by-point. Most of Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" paper is building up to the conclusions and for the most part are assumed to be correct (for now). The problem is logical. Dr. Jones could have concluded that "nukes of those three types" weren't used; no problem. Instead, Dr. Jones leaped to his "no-nukes" conclusions without substantiation; big problem. Bigger problem still, the source for the measured radiation levels remains unanswered.
I have read Dr. Jones "no nukes" paper. I do not claim to be the discoverer of all of the weaknesses that I bring up.
I brought up Dr. Ward at one point, because he is the one who suggests through "boojie woojie high school chemistry" that Dr. Jones re-defined "background & trace levels" to be 55 times greater than their previous definition so that the published radiation levels could fit being "below trace levels." Beyond that, I have lots of issues with Dr. Ward's nuclear premise. In fact, Dr. Wood's evidence of the prestine bathtub as well as seismic readings undermines Dr. Ward's theory.
Me? I put my mony on fusion reactors powering DEW devices.
Any pretense of dealing with an unknown quality by writing mathematical equations is simply symbolic mumbo jumbo.
In other words, not only did you fail "boojie woojie high school chemistry," but you didn't do very well in "boojie woojie high school Algebra, either." We're talking about a simple math word problem with two knowns and only one unknown. What is know are: the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and the burn-rate of thermite and various incendiaries. Do the math, work backwards, and run the numbers: massive and unrealistic starting quantities pop out of the equation just in accounting for one hot-spot burning only 4 weeks. 9/11 had more than one hot-spot, and validated reports have some of them burning many weeks.
So, Mr. HybridRogue1, your Spring Break assignment is to escalate my criticism of Dr. Jones "no-nukes" conclusions to the man himself.
Before you do, it might serve you well to review again both Dr. Jones "no-nukes" paper and my criticism of his scientific slight of hand. Don't get yourself bogged down in nuclear minutia unless you have to, because the logic error is evident without such detailed understanding.
Señor El Once : the lessons learned from OKC applied to 9/11
Dear Mr. Emery,
I received the movie on Friday and am only 10 minutes short of having watched the whole thing.
I was living in Germany at the time of the OKC incident, so I was sheltered from most of the media spin and patriotic rhetoric surrounding OKC that helped pave the way for tighter controls on citizens.
Although I knew OKC and 9/11 had many parallels, I was stunned by a couple that were revealed in your OKC documentary. Allow me to plant a seed with you with regards to your next movie: the lessons learned from OKC applied to 9/11 and the OKC-9/11 parallels.
On this theme, let me say that learning about Clinton-damaging Whitewater legal files being targeted for destruction and then failing this, physical removal by agents from the OKC rubble was pretty stark on many levels. An OKC lesson learned for 9/11 was to be sure building destruction was complete. Both the WTC-7 and the Pentagon were 9/11 targets for the damaging files stored there. WTC-7 had many SEC case files against elites and corporations who financially support presidents. President Bush paid them back when these are wiped out. Those targeted at the Pentagon were the records and the investigators of the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating the $2.3 trillion in unaccounted for transactions by the Pentagon and its related agencies.
But in the end, Discovery, History Channel, Nat Geo – All based their OKC docudramas on sophomorically written scripts and final cut edits that were simply childrens fairytale stock. ... Am I saying these networks do this sort of thing all the time? No. But I seriously do wonder sometimes if what I’m watching on their cable channels is really based on or attributed to anything of substance. i.e. documentation that is actually bonafide and vetted for facts.
As far as the folks at NatGeo, Discovery Channel and The History Channel. I can say without a doubt that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE of the OKC BOMBING, they completely missed the mark on presenting a factual, objective review of what occurred here. That’s not even up for debate anymore. Their efforts were deliberate and with careful planning.
9/11 was no different in the fawning and complicit corporate media, except that they were brought into the operation as an instrumental player from the onset. Woes me for bringing up September Clues, particularly when I now assess them as being disinfo and requiring more effort to locate the nuggets of truth. Still, I find convincing many of their arguments about media manipulation. An OKC lesson learned was to not wait for confusing media reports that then have to be buried and/or re-spun. On 9/11, the media was planting seeds of the official govt conspiracy theory (OCT) before the dust of the towers had even settled, which made it easier to tamp down "toleration for outrageous conspiracy theories" at the same time they poo-poo'ed supposition of the WTC being any form of a controlled demolition.
Señor El Once : agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should
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.)
The following hair-split from you is like a blast of artic air blowing through your open trench coat and shrinking your atrophied science nuggets even more.
A "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario." and a "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate" are in fact two separate things Señor. You base your 'duration factor' on the specific circumstance of a packed hose; essentially describing a fuse. That is certainly not the "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario"
The scenario in question involved high temperatures, little oxygen, and a l-o-n-g burn duration. The WTC office content would have required oxygen to burn, and could not have reached the p-r-o-l-o-n-g-e-d high temperatures. Thus, we're discussing options on additional demolition materials that could account for observed features. You say incendiaries and nano-thermite, right?
I say, no. I've given your incendiaries and nano-thermite tons of leeway in terms of s-l-o-w burn-rates and stretching the materials out in an imaginary garden hose just like a fuse, so that it would not burn all at once: *POOF!!!* If a linear fuse is out, what other configuration would you have us install your beloved incendiaries that would have it burn even slower?
On the other theme: Dr. Ward's writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.
From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.
=> 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]
Thus we have:
=> 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
=> 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
=> 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]
In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60's, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
=> 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level
Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:
=> (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63
Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.
Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):
Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, "Traces". Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% - after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing - of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less.
Specifically, right below the quotation on measurements from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers":
Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter.
Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization "these trace levels" to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.
However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.
I have issues with some of Dr. Ward's other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.
Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward's factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,... as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.
Señor El Once : mixing up principles
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.
Señor El Once : serious scientific misconception
“The heat isn’t due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.”~Señor
Ah Señor…WTF??? Seriously my man…putting the word “fizzling” between the words, “radioactivity,” and “nuclear reaction,” will not amend the oxymoron.
“Nonradioactive radioactivity” is an oxymoron. It is a term that negates itself verbally, textually, and conceptually.
A weapon exhibiting none of the effects of a nuclear weapon, cannot be a nuclear weapon.
The nuke hypothesis does not make a credible forensic argument.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You have a serious scientific misconception exhibited in your definitions.
Uranium-235, as but one example, is in its natural state radioactive. That is, in emits radiation, albeit small amounts. When that same radioactive element is induced into a nuclear reaction, it tends to emit much more radioactivity.
So, your whole “Nonradioactive radioactivity” drama figuratively and literally has no bearing. And I have to say, WTF? Your spin done spun out, crashed, and burned.
“First, we don’t know exactly what was found, and we can’t rule out nuclear fragments.”
Mr. HybridRogue continues with a misconception:
–As a matter of point – anyone there at the time of or within days of such a nuclear event would be fried by the radioactivity – if there is enough radioactive material to smolder the pile at incredible temperatures weeks after the event, the immediate aftermath would have been lethal. Not getting cancers in months or years, but full on high scale radiation poisoning in a matter of minutes.
Radioactivity refers to the alpha, gamma, etc. particles being emitted by the nuclear reaction. Radioactive emission is one of those nuclear design features that can be tweaked. Had it not been for debris covering over the hot spots, maybe nuclear device's (weapon or reactor) designed emissions would have fried [first responders] by the radioactivity. As it were, the fizzling reaction transferred heat through the debris that could be felt by first responders telling them to stay away.
A couple other things to take into consideration. First Responders did not climb over every inch of debris initially. Between the dangers of hot-spots, holes, and falling debris (into and within holes), they were probably more prudent in how they got about.
Simon Shack has made a convincing case the even images of the aftermath are subject to tainting. Control of the media, control of the crime scene, control of the visual imagery permitted from the crime scene, control of the message given to the public...
If such weapons were “tweaked” as you put, it to be less radioactive, then there could not be the amount of radioactivity to cook the pile. It cannot be both ways. Either the aftermath would be radioactive and cooking the pile – and by the same token have dealt death dealing radioactive poisoning to anyone in the area…or their was little radiation and the pile couldn’t cook, thus lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning.
The force of the misconception runs deep with you, Anakin Skywalker.
The pile is not cooked by radioactiviy. The fizzling but unspent nuclear material would be radiating heat and well as radioactivity. The heat would transfer through debris to cook things. The radiated radioactivity would be contained by the debris and material surrounding and burying the fizzling nuclear reaction.
Because radiation is a designed-in parameter of the nuclear device (weapon or reactor), because the radiating source was buried, and because we do not have a viable public record of how they approached 100% of the task and with what protective equipment they might deploy, the "lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning" is easy to explain.
As per the supposed positioning of the blasts to avoid major EMP. If these blasts went off in the basements, the “bathtub” would have had catastrophic damage.
Mostly correct. Remember, we are talking milli-nukes whose blast effects are also dialed in, with the caveat that weakly-energetic nuclear weapons are harder to get executed as designed than strongly-energetic ones. Small nukes have a higher probability of fizzling than of nuclear reacting with the desired strength blast wave, heat wave, EMP, etc.
The point is, the bathtub would not necessarily have been affected with a milli-nuclear detonation in the basement levels. Of course, a nuke going off at the foundation level would leave a seismic signature, I believe. If we can trust the seismic reports, I don't think they indicate this.
If they went off in upper stories, you have your height for EMP “line of sight” trajectory. You are stuck with the EMP problem because the “bathtub” did NOT receive catastrophic damage.
Mostly correct as well. Remember that if things are blocking the line-of-sight EMP emissions, things like steel walls of the exteriour structure, like intact floors, or like falling debris, and if the EMP emission is forced to go through window slits, the EMP won't hit outside targets on the streets and parking lot full strength. The WTC complex was evacuated and the public pushed back a couple blocks, which then positioned EMP blocking buildings in the way. EMP strength is a function of distance.
It should be pointed out that the anomalous vehicle damage particularly along West Broadway and in the parking lot at the North-West corner of Vesey St. and West St., catti-corner from the WTC does suggest damage from large electro-magnetic fields.
Señor El Once : science-challenged understanding
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You are still partly wrong.
“Line of Sight” for an electromagnetic pulse is not the same as the visual wavelengths, a powerful EMP can penetrate think concrete walls and most metals besides lead. A lead barrier is required to protect from such a pulse. A Faraday Cage is also said to have shielding properties, although there is controversy in that.
True, EMP and EM fields are not the same as visual wavelengths. They can indeed penetrate concrete floors and some metals.
However, your science-challenged understanding is mixing things up by saying that only a lead barrier can protect from such a pulse.
Lead containers are used to store radioactive material, because lead protects against the naturally emitted alpha and gamma radiation. Lead is used in other protective barriers against radiation, like X-rays at the doctors office.
A Faraday Cage is not made out of lead.
Here is but one example from a 30 second google search that conductive metal needs to surround what you want to protect from EMP:
If your shelter is not comprised of a conductive surface (i.e. metal) then it CANNOT be HEMP/EMP protected. ... [A]n EMP shelter has to be specifically designed and fabricated out of metal (preferably steel, for low-frequency performance) with each and every penetration engineered to keep out EMP energy.
Why is an EMP destructive? The EM fields passing through metal generate Eddy currents. The larger the magnitude of the EM fields, the larger the Eddy currents. Large currents in the metal mean more heat that has to be dissipated. If the metal is a copper circuit board, such heat will melt the solder which can flow and short other things. Semi-conductors themselves have many layers, some metal. Large EM fields in semiconductors destroys the doping of semiconductor layers, while the induced currents in the metal layers literally burn it up.
Protection for electronic devices is to put them in a conductive metal case. Of course, this isn't guaranteed to save the electronic device, where close proximity to a large EM source might still heat up via Eddy currents the protective case that then "bakes" the internal circuitry.
Lead, aside from being poisonous, isn't very rigid or strong in solid form and has a low melting point. It is far from ideal protection.
As far as everything you said about Radioactivity – bullshit twirlybird word games.
In other words, you did not understand it. And proof of that are your comments about lead protection.
Señor El Once : formulating convoluted and tiresome theories
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?
Dr. Wood's textbook is not without errors. One of its strengths, however, is in shedding light on the energy requirements of the cause to achieve the effects. This is a nugget of truth worthy of preservation, whether or not you agree with any cause (e.g., space-based DEW, spire-based DEW) you think she might be advocating.
Your dogged unwillingness to go there (into Dr. Wood's textbook) in an open-minded and objective manner despite a sincere offer of a free copy, is one of those disinfo flags for "can't be bothered with the facts" or with assisting vetting the facts in a very laser-focused manner. For all your hatred of Dr. Wood, I fed you red meat on how you could legitimately take down or weaken Dr. Wood's concepts by finding the taint in her pictorial evidence. I appreciate the effort of some of your clues forum in looking into the task.
I know you don't like being called a CIA agent, and with your stated ancestry, you probably aren't. If the 9/11 perps can sub-contract, outsource, and off-shore compartmentalized tasks to Mossad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Al-CIA'duh, etc., you can remain free of CIA agent affiliations, but not necessarily disinfo agent taint, as exhibited by your forum's science-challenged responses and my banishment. Gatekeeping, eh?
[My banishment? Was that really necessary? I was taking my leave. Whatever happened to my requested limited immunity? So little do you value the nuggets of truth of your forum that you would ban me and strip away my ability to subscribe to it! Tsk, tsk.]
Oh, well, Mr. Shack. The bright side is that my Spring Break starts this Thursday (3/8), so not having posting notification from your forum is a good thing, just like getting banned from Let's Roll Forum last year in time for Spring Break also proved a good thing for my vacation.
Without my subscriptions, I do hope that you will take the time to post items of interest here on Truth & Shadows so that I and other non-subscribers don't fall too far behind.
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.
As for the “scientific method” revealed – surely the first rule of honest science is to firmly establish the authenticity of that which is about to be closely examined [i.e. video footage and still photos], FIRST, _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_, before proceeding on to theories about exactly what caused the destruction.
You are overplaying your cards. Until image editing experts cast their critical eye on the 9/11 media, nobody had reason to doubt the authenticity of such 9/11 imagery. Moreover, it wasn't always just the imagery that led to various hypothesis.
This [verification of video authenticity] was never done by _any_ of the “scientists” [e.g. Jones, Wood etc.] now happily pontificating/arguing back and forth as to the “real” method used to destroy the WTC complex.
True. And now we test their measure. If the imagery authenticity is proven invalid and if that imagery was used to substantiate a hypothesis, they have the opportunity to amend their hypothesis.
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
I did not cancel out Shacks work without investigating it myself.
Just like Mr. Shack hasn't proved that all imagery is fake, Mr. HybridRogue1 hasn't proved that all of Mr. Shack's work can be canceled out like an administrator stamping "CANCEL" on a form.
This isn't to say that Mr. Shack's work is flawless and without error. I've discovered errors myself in his analysis of a few specific items, as well as an agenda that casts a depressing light on his work. "Distrust but verify" in this realm we must as well. Truth demands that the "but verify" be carried out: validate the nugget or not.
Have a good Spring Break everyone.
Señor El Once : 9/11 video fakery stuff is psyops
Apologies in advance for defects in this posting, done from a foreign computer in a foreign country offline (and just a couple of quick dips online) with only vague notes on what I'm responding to.
Mr. HybridRogue1 made the comment that the 9/11 video fakery stuff is psyops. I agree, particularly after seeing how the likes of Mr. OneBornFree and Mr. Shack make their unreasonable arguments -- without substantiation -- that ~EVERYTHING~ caught on a medium about 9/11 is faked. A defensible position would be that "most", "much", or "some" was faked. An argument of "all" is akin to 100%, a benchmark not reached, nor necessary to be reached, making it all the more ludicrous that this is what they claim. The purpose of the psyops is to raise such doubts that none of the imagery can be used to prove anything: take it all off the table. In addition, they create a sucking vacuum in the form of applying science to explain what did happen and its mechanisms.
That being written, the video fakery crowd does have merit, particularly in the realm of pixel planes. Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1 represents the extreme ying to Mr. OneBornFree's extreme yang by not acknowledging this or any of the nuggets of truth with regards to MSM's guilty role in duping the world.
For example, the validity of no-planes does not start-and-end with the errors in the pixel rendering of the alleged planes and their inconsistencies. Errors in the crash physics are involved, as are flying physics: the pixels moved at speeds in excess of what the alleged planes would have been capable of at high altitude, and would never have been possible at 1/2 mile above see level in thick air. The tail of the aircraft entered the steel buildings at the same speed it moved through thin air. The miraculous timing of many of the snippets -- catching the planes on impact after multi-stage zoom-in's, catching the demolition start after again zoom-in's -- are glaring instances of foreknowledge.
My nuclear discussions with Mr. HybridRogue1 have been enlightening, mostly for how poor his understanding of nuclear physics, yet still he is there trying to cast dispersions on any thought in that direction, despite his own theories being inadequate to address energy requirements and duration. Just like Dr. Jones was called in to lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear means -- weapons or reactors --, it appears that this is also Mr. HybridRogue1's aim in this forum.
Mr. HybridRogue1 can't seem to grasp the difference between "radioactive," "radiation," and "nuclear reaction," and he spins both their meaning and the meaning of my words into a confusion and inaccurate summary. In Physics 112, the TA for the lab handled Uranium with tongs from the lead box it was stored in from a secure part of the lab. The small levels of the naturally occurring alpha and beta radiation were not life threatening to him or the students for our short period of exposure and the protective measures taken.
When Uranium is induced into a nuclear reaction, it releases much larger amounts of alpha and gamma radiation as well as energy. The design of the mechanism tends to optimize aspects of its by-products, like energy for a weapon in the form of a blast wave, a heat wave, an EMP. Of course, when it is a nuclear reactor, the reactions is controlled in a manner that would create no blast wave or EMP, would use the alpha and gamma emissions to sustain the reaction, but would have the chief by-product be generated heat that is used, for instance, to turn water into steam that drives turbines (mechanical energy) that turn armatures in a generator to net electrical energy.
More than one way to create nuclear weapons exist. Some are more reliable than others. Reliability goes down, particularly when cranking the energy output down into a tactical form that would take out several floors of a building, as opposed to a city block (or city.) When used in tandem with other nuclear weapons and assuming the blast/heat waves didn't decommission neighboring weapons, the amped up emission of alpha and beta particles of the first weapon could "kill" (fracticide) the other weapons by messing with their radioactive elements, thus causing them to not reach their full design potential in terms of energy release. Their nuclear reaction becomes a "fizzle" rather than a "blast", albeit the fizzle and heat by-products of the fizzling nuclear reaction would last for long periods of time.
Russia, Japan, and Three Mile Island all have experiences with "fizzling" nuclear reactions in a non-weapons application.
The reality of 9/11 is that anomalous radiation readings were measured, albeit their actual levels may have been tainted in the reporting and need to be questioned, something Dr. Jones did not do. Dr. Jones employed some scientific mumbo-jumbo and dishonesty in "trace levels" to take them out of further consideration; he offered no explanation for the source of any radiation at GZ; and the vacuum was filled with nano-thermite. This is the line that Mr. HybridRogue1 defends, despite the glaring fact that the hot-spot duration clearly indicates that neither nano-thermite nor slow-burning incendiaries can account for it, just like they cannot account for whatever level of anomalous radiation was measured.
I've been championing Dr. Wood, but I recognize that even this is not without error. She also doesn't address the anomalous radiation measurements. Worse, she tries to explain away hot-spots by hinting that maybe there weren't hot-spots. (And some of this may be because faked images were inserted into her analysis.) Back when I was in the Anonymous Physicists camp, he charged Dr. Wood with taking all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event (e.g., multiple fusion-triggered fission milli-nukes per tower) and wrapping it under a kooky "free-energy from space" or "Hutchison side-effects of cold-fusion" umbrella. We know today that the military has operational DEW devices both for taking out missiles and OWS crowd-control. Thus, DEW shouldn't be taken completely off of the table, if for no other reason than WTC-5 bore-holes and WTC-6 craters need explanations. DEW mounted on tower infrastructure and aimed appropriately would leave spires. My concern in the search for truth is that Dr. Wood leaped to "free-energy from space" to power DEW devices and didn't consider what could be land-based and provide sufficient power to account for the massive energy requirements of pulverization, like a small nuclear reactor akin to something on Navy vessels. Pack that sucker in nano-thermite to get it to burn up its casing when done.
Yes, Dr. Wood does make a lot of hay with Hurricane Erin. They set up their emergency command center on a damn peer, even though Hurricane Erin and its storm surge could have wiped it out and only makes sense if they knew they controlled it. Mr. Shack notes that hurricanes suck clouds away to make for better video manipulation backdrops. Hurricane Erin might have been stand-by, if not to clean up mistakes then to obscure the evidence further. HAARP's weather controlling nature is one of those mechanisms that the govt would not want exposed. Why else would the MSM lock-stop shut-up about Hurricane Erin on 9/11?
In summary, Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree overly rigid stance about "all 9/11 imagery being faked (planes and demolitions)" is a tell. Whereas I could be convinced of the examples of fakery they have provided, their dispersive statements about that which they haven't proven shoots that which they have proven in the foot. Mr. HybridRogue1's true colors are showing in how he attempts to tackle video fakery (overly rigid in the other direction "none happened") and hot-spots (mal-framing of physics and the evidence.)
Señor El Once : "Fizzling" is a bullshit term?
Mr. hybridrogue1 wrote:
 "Fizzling" is a bullshit term having no real technical meaning in nuclear physics. You are making it up.
Unfortunately, a simple googling on "nuclear fizzling" proves how full of bullshit you are. Here's what Wikipedia says:
In nuclear weapons, a fizzle occurs when the testing of a nuclear bomb fails to meet its expected yield. The reason(s) for the failure can be linked to improper bomb design, poor construction, or lack of expertise. All countries that have had a nuclear weapons testing program have experienced fizzles. A fizzle can spread radioactive material throughout the surrounding area, involve a partial fission reaction of the fissile material, or both.
Mr. HybridRogue1 goes on with his ignorant bravado:
 I did not say that there is zero digital tampering with 9/11 imagery. I said that the core of the September Clues hypothesis is hogwash.
Just like I poke Mr. Shack that he has to prove "all 9/11 imagery is fake" before he can lay that claim, I clobber you with the much easier task of proving "the core of September Clues hypothesis is hogwash" before you can lay that claim. This, you haven't done. Not on September Clues 1-9 or A-H individually or collectively.
Mr. HybridRogue1, I detest calling participants "disinfo agents" unless their action and demeanor set them up to be such. Your four postings to my one sets you up as such. The content of your postings, as already exhibited above, proves it. I don't think it is because you are stupid or incapable of googling/reviewing information to come to proper conclusions. That isn't your assignment.
Oh, goodie, goodie. We have below many examples below of you flailing about in ignorance, spin, and skew to maintain your a dubious argument that purposely directs objective readers from the stumbling upon an understanding of the reality of 9/11 that is closer to the truth. Case in point, you write:
Señor, Your whole argument against a creeping-wandering "smolder" of thermates in the pile relies on the argument you made concerning packing the material in a hose, the speed it would ignite in such a circumstance, ie, a "fuse". BUT, as with the evidence of thermates in the dust, this is not the scenario we are dealing with. We are dealing with this material mixed in with other materials "“ not in one solid pile or mass, but distributed throughout the pile. We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation "“ pretending that is the case is dissembling.
Bullshit on many levels, and further proof that you are willfully and purposely misconstruing my points, either out of ignorance, lack of comprehension, or disingenuous intentions.
My argument has nothing to do with the mixture of materials. Mix together (or not) whatever you like except that it has to have the ability to smolder very hot without Oxygen. Also, if your chosen material has a burn-rate anything less than the lower-bound 300 fps that I purposely chose, your material probably wouldn't have been able to cause any of the destruction in the 9-17 seconds of an individual tower's demise.
My argument also has nothing to do with a "packed fuse" situation literally. The salient point that you consistently miss (in a very disinfo sort of a way) is quantity of chosen material required to achieve many weeks of burning. The volume of the 884k mile long garden hose translates into a "ginormous" mass of incendiary material that would be totally unrealistic to expect to have been slipped into the towers in the several days of the bomb-sniffing dogs pre-9/11 holiday.
However, as the "884k mile long garden hose (or fuse)" metaphor would have it, this is a useful way of describing somewhat of how your mixture of (non-nuclear) materials would have to be configured in order to achieve the hot-spot duration, but with this caveat: the hot-spot didn't move. Therefore the garden-hose fuse (if it existed) would have to feed the hot-spot like a garden-hose, but with this caveat: even a slow burn-rate of 300 feet per second is super duper damn fast whose pressure alone if it were water in a garden-hose could probably rip the skin right off your bones.
You seem to be good with imaginings when they fit your agenda of nuclear "fizzling", but ignore such imaginings with "thermatic fizzling". I think YOU are the one who is fizzling, Lol
A noteworthy trait of disinfo agents in the deployment of ad hominem attacks in lieu of EVER admitting they were wrong.
This constant assertion that Professor Jones "was called in" by somebody to "lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear,"is based solely on your own suspicions with no verification of any sort beyond your own personal bias.
True. I plead guilty to the charge.
Mr. HybridRogue1 continues to make his disinfo case using John Bursill, someone with his own disinfo reputation in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Boeing 767 560 mph at 700-1000 feet altitude. Simulator Proves "Impossible Speed"was "probable"for Flt 11 and Flt 175, By John Bursill " Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series
1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
Got the old peer review canard to act as an appeal to authority regarding what is or isn't fact. To dispel this (non-)fact, let us be more accurate with regards to what was seen: pixels on the telly. The fact that these pixels are inconsistent from various perspectives casts reasonable doubt on whether they actually represented real aircraft. Piled on top of this are things like certain aircraft (of the four) not being scheduled to fly that day, certain aircraft (of the four) with no black-box info on the cockpit door ever being open mid-flight, Boeing documents that specify maximum speeds for aircraft flying at altitude that when exceeded lead to aircraft structural failure, the flying ability of the patsies, ...
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.
Gotta love the above slight of scientific hand. Such speeds refer to high altitude. They do not refer to 1/2 mile above sea level. FAIL.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
The key word in the above piece of disinformation is "simulator."
Makes me recall the classic Star Trek episode and how recollection of Capt Kirk as a cadet beat some simulator that was designed for no optimal, no-win solution. The Cadet Kirk simply reprogrammed it.
Simulations are also an issue with NISTs reports on WTC-7, where they have refused to release the software and the parameters they used to make 100 feet of free-fall (over 8 stories) plausible to the science-challenged media and public.
In conclusion, Mr. HybridRogue1, you should take a lesson from me. You see, I don't use everything from Mr. Shack or Dr. Wood, both of whom many consider to be disinformation. No, I just use the nuggets of truth. When you blindly rely on the the full extent of someone else's disinformation, guess what you do? You got it. You provide another data point further pegging you as a disinfo agent yourself.
Señor El Once : profanity at spin and skew and disingenuous misunderstanding
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
My posting yesterday was prevented from being made, with WordPress throwing up a most curious message. I'll probably be mining snippets from that in this response to you.
And I gladly trade my error on the word "fizzling" for your admitting that your problems with Prof. Jones are based on your own personal bias.
Nonesense. I think Dr. Jones is a very nice person.
My problems are with what Dr. Jones did that was misleading and unscientific. When are you going to admit that? The examples were: (1) redefining "trace" to be 55 times greater than its 2001 levels; (2) brushing aside all anomalous radiation measurements just because they didn't match the radiation signatures of 3 known nuclear weapons type and offering no thought into its source; (3) letting science-challenge 9/11 yeomen such as yourself extrapolate nano-thermite into erroneously explaining features in the aftermath (e.g., hot-spot duration) that it cannot.
My argument has nothing to do with the mixture of materials. Mix together (or not) whatever you like except that it has to have the ability to smolder very hot without Oxygen.
"That is the thing about the thermates isn't it -- they produce their own oxygen.
But you can't seem to get it into your understanding the improbability of such thermates in reasonable quantities burning for weeks (and having radiation signatures.) You dance around these issues and play your little games, and that more than anything flags your disinformation agenda.
Case in point, your write:
"Again, it's the "one or the other" game about the type of explosives used. And as you likely know the word "fizzling" is older than nuclear technology and is very often used to describe a "fuse fizzling out".
I have posited over and again that there were several types of explosives and incendiaries used in the destruction of the towers.
Shit, I can agree too that several types of explosives and incendiaries were used for redundancy and overkill and who knows what, BUT IT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOT-SPOT DURATION with quantities less than massively "ginormous."
Now to present this as you do, that it doesn"t matter whether the explosive was packed in a hose or not is disingenuous -- any containment vessel will mean a more efficient burn.
Sitting at this foreign computer in a foreign country, I can no longer contain my profanity at your spin and skew and disingenuous misunderstanding: $%&*#@ $#@#$!!! The garden hose was a $$%$ing metaphor! Its purpose was to get you to conceptualize volume and quantities.
Your postings from a couple days ago suggested "salting" of incendiary material throughout the destruction caused the hot-spot duration. [sarcasm] Yeah, right. [/sarcasm]
It is when an explosive material is "salted" throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not "burn-rate" which is only correct in a continuous "burn scenario" and that is the whole point -- wandering smolder throughout -- not a continuous burn.
You are making things up.
What you're implying is that after large quantities of incendiaries were consumed doing what they were designed to do (e.g., allegedly pulverize the towers), massive ADDITIONAL overkill amounts of the same were unconsumed and "salted" and dormant throughout the pile until heat or something touched them off. "Salted" incendiaries still have their inherent burn-rates, and would burn relatively fast when ignited from their "salted" location under the pile. The hot-spots wouldn't have been localized, they would have traveled to the "salted" locations; they would have been short duration; they would have been explosive enough to be a danger to first responders crawling throughout the pile; and they wouldn't have had a radiation signature needing explanation.
In other words, your lame explanation for thermates and other incendiaries still does not match observable evidence and testimony.
I've already run some low-ball rough calculations on the amounts of a slow burn-rate (3,000 fps) incendiary required to achieve a continuous 4 week hot-spot: it was the volume of such incendiary that could fit into a 884k mile long garden-hose.
Now you want to use the term "salted" to avoid a continuous 4 week hot-spot. So how was it salted? 1/10 of my estimate? 1/100? 1/1000? Even with the latter, you're still talking about the volume of such incendiary material that could fit into a 800 mile long garden hose. Ignoring the weight of the imaginary garden hose, what would be the weight of the incendiary material packed into the inner volume of that 800 mile long garden hose?
Maybe you can find it in your science-challenged heart to admit that the weight of ADDITIONAL incendiary material to account for a "salted" 4 week hot-spot also represents a massive amount which is way beyond the baseline amount of what would be required to just bring down the towers.
Even the "lesson" of discovering the word "fizzling" is an actual word nuclear scientist use comes with a caveat: The definition of "fizzling" then, is a continuing "fissile chain-reaction", which is precisely why you used the term -- as I intimated previously. You don't want to openly admit to the fissile chain-reaction, because that means the heat is fissile, ei, nuclear reactions with radioactive byproduct and all the issues surrounding that I bring up.
Yes, fizzling nuclear material would be the result of a continuing chain reaction, but obviously less ideal than originally designed for either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear reactor. Your weak understanding given in past postings suggests that you believe alpha and gamma particles would be radiating off of the pile giving the first responders radiation burns just for being there.
First of all, the hot-spots were under the pile, which provides a barrier to contain alpha and beta particle emission. Second, recall that magnitudes of various radiation types are to a certain degree dial-in factors in the nuclear device's design. Third, first responders have suffered a high level of sicknesses that parallel those experienced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.
Radiation was measured at Ground Zero.
For those seeking truth, those published radiation measurements should be studied carefully. For example, they weren't measured at any of the hot spots or with any rhyme-or-reason grid pattern or with any regularity (that the public is aware of). They were measured at relatively far-flung points on just a couple of random days after 9/11. Between this unscientific measurement practice and what can be juked into a published govt report (ala NIST, ala the EPA), I wouldn't trust their voracity. Although complaining bitterly about many other govt reports, Dr. Jones trusted this report. As far I know, Dr. Jones "no-nukes" non-peer-reviewed paper is about the only effort made by the 9/11 Truth Movement to address the fact that anomalous radiation was measured and with little to no speculation into its source.
This should be a red-flag, Mr. HybridRogue1, because nano-thermite and a host of combinations of other incendiaries can't account for it.
[I]t is an absurd proposition, as I have illustrated throughout this thread, [that] "ALL of the videos and photo's are digital fakes".
Agreed. In case you missed it, this is what I've been saying as well.
I have also shown that positing that the airplanes were digital fakes, must eventually lead to the proposition that all of the visual evidence after the airplane strikes are fake do to the damage the planes inflicted in plain view upon the buildings:
No, you haven't shown this. In fact, it is ludicrous for you to make such a claim. I call this spin and skew.
The explosions were real. The WTC tower resident artists could easily have planted artistic explosives to create the Road-Runner outline of a plane and created a really cool canon for launching aircraft parts (e.g., a partial wheel assembly, a turbine).
So, In conclusion Señor, pertaining to "nukes", "space beams", and "digital fakery": These ideas are oinking bullshit patties dancing on a woowoo griddle.
First, you haven't disproven nuclear anything: weapon or reactor. If anything, you've exposed your ignorance of science, because you have no explanation for the measured radiation and your explanation for the hot-spots is even easier to poke holes in due to the massive amounts of initially unspent incendiary material that would be required even to account for the duration of "salted" hot-spots.
For several reasons, I'm not completely in the nuclear weapons camp for the destruction of the towers. I'm leaving the door open for mini-nuclear reactors providing the power to DEW devices. However, a tiny nuclear weapon might be just about right for hollowing out WTC-7 and causing its 100 feet of free-fall in its demise and neat destruction into its own foot print.
Second, you haven't explained the boreholes in WTC-5 or the crater in WTC-6, thus space beams can well remain on the table. Remember, it doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive proposition about what caused the destruction of many WTC buildings.
Third, you haven't proven the premise of no-planes and its digital fakery wrong. You've only kicked up sand. To prove it wrong, you've got to address it point-by-point and all the clips amassed by September Clues that shows (1) inconsistencies in flight-paths from clip to clip, (2) digital errors [e.g., missing wings] in various clips, (3) lack of crash physics [e.g., tail entering tower at speed it traveled in thin air], (4) in accurate flight physics [e.g., too fast], (4) nose-in/nose-out, (5) miraculous zoom-in that does not show plane where it can easily be calculated to be in a reverse-play zoom-out.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not no-planes digital fakery remains on the table or not. The salient point of September Clues is that the mainstream media (or corporate media, or military media) had demonstrated foreknowledge and were a willing & active conspirator in what was presented to the public on 9/11, and their active participation in the cover-up these last 10 years is just as glaring.
Señor El Once : The Black Swan
A lesson from high school driver's education is not to use your car's high beams in snowing or foggy conditions, because they'll be reflected off of the snow or fog and blind you.
Thus, in the image in question when given the direction of the sun, the placement of the smoke, and shading/lighting of the sides of buildings, Mr. Shack's assertions about smoke not being a light source to lighten certain building faces are in error. Moreover, he focuses on the Federal Post Office, when several other buildings (like one catty-corner to the Post Office) also have light building faces on the side in the shade.
Mr. HybridRogue1 has found other aspects within this one instance where Mr. Shack is trying hard in a dubious manner to run down the validity of this image. In my hampered research of the Clues Forum, I have found a few other instances where Mr. Shack's analysis is wrong (in the collapse hoax), and many more instances that weren't entirely convincing (in simVictims).
The Latin escapes me, but Mr. Shack -- in quoting OneBornFree from elsewhere in the ethernet -- sums it up as "False in one, False in All." Rhetorically speaking, is that how we should handle Mr. Shack, dismiss him and his research due to instances where he got it wrong? I don't think so, but Mr. Shack does deserve a couple of spanks of the form "what is good for the goose, could be good for the gander."
Allow me to clarify that the isolated instances of errors that I found in Mr. Shack's work (in fringe areas ala collapse hoax and simVictims) does not in my estimation outweigh the many instances of no errors that I could find (there and in core areas ala September Clues) and that were seemingly building to convincing arguments.
A more decisive measure of that work is how Mr. Shack handles objective criticism. I loved this statement from Mr. Shack, which also provides a clue as to why my research of the Clues Forum (and its companion, Let's Roll Forums) has been hampered:
See, my Cluesforum has a different policy – in that we promptly stop such entities from infesting our peaceful and thoughtful corner of webspace. This entails of course the risk of being called “ban-happy”, but what exactly are we to do – in order to counter the might and clout of the now obvious internet armada (for lack of a better definition) of government-financed 9/11 gatekeeping trolls?
You know, when you establish a gated community, you need to be aware of who you keep in as well as who you keep out. The character of the android Data of Star Trek:TNG said it best in one episode paraphrased: is your position so weak that it cannot tolerate dissenting opinions?
For the sake of discussion, let us try a little Gedankenexperiment. Let us assume that the above image of 9/11 destruction aftermath is tainted. What would the digital manipulation of the image be trying to hide and why?
I mean, it still exposes so many aspects of the demolition that the govt hasn't explained: the neat flattening of WTC-7, the crater in WTC-6, the boreholes in WTC-5, half of WTC-4 being leveled, and lingering smoke.
From my exchanges with Mr. Shack elsewhere, I'm guessing that he'd make the argument that due to his discovered (alleged) tainting, nothing about the image can be trusted... and fooey on the fact that most of the features in the image can be correlated with features of other images, because they are (allegedly) tainted, too... and fooey on the fact that most of the destruction features depicted in images haven't been disputed by camera operators and on-site observers as not depicting the essential reality.
I didn't consider September Clues 1-9 and A-H (from what I recall) a distraction. But I am siding with Mr. HybridRogue1 regarding "side carnivals and distractions" like the more recent efforts by Mr. Shack to caste doubt on aftermath images.
P.S. Mr. HybridRogue1, nothing has been vetted or questioned [and glariningly so] regarding radiation charts and reports on measured radiation coming from govt sources. "Garbage in, garbage out" in terms of those who mislead us based on this information and posit that residual particles from Tritium can be due to known items, like emergency exit signs in aircraft. The argument isn't against the physical proof of the existence and usage on 9/11 of incendiaries -- thermite, thermate, and others -- as secondary or redundant mechanisms. The argument is that these can barely account for the pulverization of the towers but in no ways can account (for the radiation or) for the duration of hot-spots no matter how you spin it by massive quantities of unspent incendiaries being "salted" throughout the pile. Everything, including any effort to control the images and taint them if required, points towards a nuclear source (weapon or reactor to power DEW) for certain aspects of the destruction.
On the one hand, whether thermitic incendiaries or nuclear powered mayhem, state-sponsored terrorism by the US govt on the USA is a point we can all agree on. Thus, nuclear discussions are a distraction.
On the other hand, shock-and-awe got us into the mess. Shock-and-awe regarding the weapons that were used against us from our own arsenals is important knowledge for ~when~ it happens again. After OKC and 9/11, third times a charm, right?
From "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:
Before the discovery of Australia, people in the Old World were convinced that all swans were white, an unassailable belief as it seemed completely confirmed by empirical evidence. The sighting of the first black swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornitholoogists (and others extremely concerned with the coloring of birds), but that is not where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans. All you need is one singe (and, I am told, quite ugly) black bird.
From an Amazon book review:
"A Black Swan is a highly improbable event of extreme impact that appears obvious and explainable in hindsight. Psychological tendencies blind us both before and after the appearance of the Black Swan, making the Black Swan hard to predict beforehand, yet making it appear plausible through our rationalizations afterward."
From another Amazon book review giving favorite lines from the book:
- Luck is more important than skill.
- Risk is the most when you feel the safest.
- Look for evidence that proves your ideas wrong.
- There are no experts of things that move.
- Too much information becomes toxic.
- The wise plead ignorance to world events.
- Be prepared for multiple contingencies.
- "I don't know," is a sign of intelligence.
- We are swayed by the sensational.
- Seize every opportunity, for they are rare.
Señor El Once : The OKC video put a hole in my boiler
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I'll be happy to read Mr. Legge's 9/11 nuclear and digital fakery review.
I'm sorry to admit that going into it, my opinions will be jaded. I was less than impressed with the Legge/Chandler 10-th anniversary 9/11 publication efforts that tried to knock out CIT flyover claims. The faulty foundation upon which they based their analysis was glaring even to a non-pilot such as myself. Turns out this was known months before hand, yet still they pressed on with their efforts. (And of course, I noticed their unrelated, unsubstantiated, but dismissive remarks of Dr. Wood and others. Maybe you should ask him to do a chapter-by-chapter book review of Dr. Wood's book.)
So like the tainted flight data recorder (FDR) information from that article and their unfounded and faulty suppositions about barametric pressure altimeters, I'm looking forward to seeing what scraps the govt throws his direction to help him dismiss nuclear mechanisms. I'm willing to bet that it'll be based on nuclear weapons, that it won't consider nuclear reactors (powering DEW), that it'll rely on unvetted govt radiation reports (probably the very one that Dr. Jones uses), that it'll make no substantial supposition into what accounts for the radiation, and that it'll have no substantial supposition to account for the energy requirements of the destruction other than nano-thermite.
But let me be surprised!
Maybe he'll have a nugget of truth that can get me to re-think and dismiss my 9/11 nuclear aspirations.
BTW, I thank you for engaging Mr. Shack, viewing his analysis, and offering critique. You're doing a stellar job. I have absolutely no objections to seeing his disinformation get rattled, although I hasten to add that much truth remains and we must be vigilant in our "distrust but verify" efforts.
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 too good to be true. Nothing like the current Republican circus to shed light on it from a different direction.
Good work, Mr. HybridRogue1 (and by extension Mr. Legge).
I have just a few hair-splits. Mr. Legge writes:
There is no nuclear device that does not emit neutrons when detonated. Neutrons impacting surrounding material will cause it to become radioactive. This will be no mere trace but gross radioactivity. It was not found.
As I've written before, radioactivity types and levels are side-effects that can be tweaked and dialed in to a certain degree. From the video provided and the mention of "gross radioactivity", Mr. Legge is framing the discussion to be large nukes. Not the framing I put on it (were I actively championing milli-nukes).
Let us not forget the whole song-and-dance by Dr. Jones' paper that bumps up some 55 times the level that is considered "trace." Who knows what downward juking of the measurement numbers happened in the govt report before Mr. Jones' blind acceptance and analysis.
I have no problems with taking nuclear devices (e.g., weapons) off of the table, maybe even for the reasons Mr. Legge provides, but appropriate explanations for the amped-up "trace" levels of radiation is still wanting.
Mr. Legge writes:
What was observed in the destruction of the twin towers was countless small charges going off, layer by layer, approximately every third floor.
In the realm of mixing and matching incendiaries and explosives, I've given you plenty of latitude.
Nothing excludes "countless small charges" being used in tandem with one or a few milli-nuclear devices (or some other mechanism with a nuclear power source). Stilting the argument to being exclusively nuclear devices (e.g., "thirty nuclear devices were used per tower") is just another mal-framing. Pulverization was also observed and is an enormous energy sink.
For the sake of this discussion and because I'm being lazy, let's assume that the smallest nuclear weapon is still very substantial, and maybe even too substantial for deployment high in the towers. I know that cranking down nuclear yield increases the probability of nuclear fizzle, as well as the probability of fracticide between weapons inducing them to fizzle rather than explode.
Thus, for these reasons, I've been careful in framing my argument as nuclear mechanisms that I have often stated includes nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors to power DEW is my tweak to various hypothesis.
Nuclear reactors do not detonate like a bomb and emit neutrons everywhere, unless breached of course. If deployed on 9/11, say, to power DEW devices, they'd be positioned lower in the tower will all sorts of debris landing on top to absorb and contain its radioactive badness. Nuclear reactors can possibly explain the amped-up "trace" radiation haphazardly measured and reported.
Mr. Legge writes:
It is possible however that some pockets of unreacted thermite may have existed in the collapsed debris and were ignited later by the creeping fire. ... Such pockets of thermitic material going off later would lengthen the period in which high temperatures would exist.
Going with this assumption of unreacted thermite and its primary role, we have the glaring exception to this hypothesis that such pockets of thermitic material going off would go off in a manner consistent with -- oh, I don't know, say -- pulverizing explosions like what they were designed to do in bringing down down the towers?
I do not recall any testimony of creeping fire and its extent, but let's grant this assumption. I definitely do not recall testimony of pockets of pulverizing explosions going off. Minor steamy/smokey flare ups when movement of debris allowed oxygen to reach buried hot-spots, yes; but not ignition of unreacted thermite.
Mr. Legge writes:
Regarding the duration of the hot-spots, the cooling rate of hot material depends on the volume of material. We do not know the volume. As we don’t know the volume we can make no calculations as to whether the duration was normal.
This is such a cop out. Shoot, we know the duraction wasn't normal. Any calculations into its normalness is a distraction.
And is he talking volume of debris material surrounding the hot-spot to which heat is transferred, or volume of incendiary material causing the hot-spot? Well the latter is really what we're trying to get very rough gross estimates on and get our heads around. The former is a complexity that can be added to the equation later. (When it is incorporated, it just makes the very rough gross estimates on the volume of the incendiary material even larger.) Therefore, it can be ignored in this early very pass.
Mr. Legge writes:
All we can say, regarding the rather amazingly long duration, is that the amount of material must have been surprisingly large.
EXACTLY MY POINT!!!
Not just "surprisingly large"; massively "ginormous".
Have Mr. Legge do the math using various burn-rates (from slow incendiaries to faster thermite to super duper nano-thermite) to come up with even very rough gross estimates of required quantities of "salted" "pockets" of unreacted thermite. The numbers are neither pretty nor reasonably believable.
Señor El Once : playing on emotions and fears got us into this mess
Should you focus on the human cost of this horrific event? ... Cohen says he believes that for the film to reach a wide audience that might question the events of 9/11, it has to reach them on an emotional level.
It seems to me that playing on emotions and fears is what got us into this mess (e.g., the destruction of America and its values).
Many factors from my research have me convinced that the human cost of 9/11 on 9/11 (plus a week or month) is far less than the touted ~3,000. The numbers were trumped up, played up, and manipulated by design.
The true human cost of 9/11 needs to expand to foreign lands, where our military purposely did not keep accurate casualty numbers.
If an emotional element of a 9/11 movie is to be brought into play, it has to be shock-and-awe. Think of the footage of the Nazi death camps after the war, and how the US military forced the local Germans to tour the camps to impress upon them the understanding of the atrocities that their leaders inflicted, whether or not they participated or were aware.
9/11 shock-and-awe would need to be cause-and-effect. The US leaders faked an attack on American soil so that Americans would dispense with any moral or religious qualms in the measure of their retaliation on both an individual human level and a society level in the lands and their riches that America wanted to control. Invasion and toppling of governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to allegedly prevent further state-sponsered terrorism is one thing. Yet, the utter distruction of infracture together with the torture and mistreatment of prisoners contrary to any code of international law is entirely another, and was in the planning of 9/11. It was designed to be rubbed off on Americans at home in the destruction of their rights as well as their morals.
Señor El Once : Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth
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.
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?
Kevin Ryan wote:
The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC. Thermite ... is such a pyrotechnic mixture that cannot be easily extinguished and is a common component of energetic nanocomposites. Unusually high detections of sulfur, silicon, aluminum, copper, nickel, iron, barium, and vanadium might all be explained by physical release of materials from such energetic nanocomposites. Additionally, the detection of 1,3-DPP at the WTC supports this hypothesis. Finally, the spikes in VOCs, detected by EPA on specific dates, are more readily explained as a result of short-lived, violent fires caused by energetic materials.
I can agree with all the analysis in the above quote, especially the passage: "The presence of energetic materials... has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC."
"Much" is not all. That is the point.
An additional source of energy must be sought that can explain the aspects of the aftermath that energetic materials cannot.
The short-lived, violent fires probably were caused by energetic materials. No problem. The problem is that the other hot-spots at Ground Zero could not be put out, despite:
* 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).
Señor El Once : disagree with certain specifics
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
I agree with the spirit of what you write and that the public should distrust (and validate or not) everything about 9/11.
I disagree with certain specifics (bolded) in what you write in application to 9/11:
“False In One False In All” is a term for a perfectly normal, unremarkable, “boiler plate” courtroom procedure whereby in a trial jury, if a witness is proven to have been giving false testimony, then the jury has the right to disregard/regard as false,any and all “evidence” supplied by that same witness.
The assumption you make is that all images come from the same source, the same witness, and the same channels of editing and publication. They do not. They took many different detours in getting into the public realm. Even if we were to say that a certain class of imagery came from the govt (or the Military-Corporate Media), they also are not from always from a single individual.
The image at the top of this article came from a govt source X. (It may have been some Naval or Coast Guard Recon Plane; let's just call it source X for simplicity.) This same source X is credited with many high resolution still imagery as well as a video, if I'm not mistaken. This class of images shows remarkable consistency from image-to-image and in the video.
Tell us: is the image at the top of this article faked or simply tainted? Is the video above faked or simply tainted?
The arguments presented by Mr. Shack suggest he may have found (subject to our opinions; he hasn't convinced me) digital artifacts of tainting in the image at the top of this article. No explanation as to why it would be tainted or what such tainting would be hiding.
hybridrogue1 : grand mythological construct
As the clock goes ‘tic tic tic’, and the faucet goes ‘drip drip drip’, I find myself left to my own ruminations…
And it occurred to me what is happening here:
What Shack has done here is recognized that 9/11 is a ripe new myth with many avenues yet as a frontier. By dawning the mask of the perpetrators and thinking in their ritual robes, he came up with a grand mythological construct that had all the elements to answer every question in a single vision.
The ritual activities designed to achieve the inner secrets of this new grand and sweeping mythology are simple and can be executed in the comfort of ones home or office; all one needs is a personal computer and internet connection. If one wishes to join the priesthood, one might invest in some graphics programs, and a Wacom tablet.
Once one becomes an initiate in this new mythic cult, all questions within the 9/11 milieu are answered completely to utter emotional satisfaction.
Encountering these new initiates is an experience much like meeting any evangelical true believer: “One Way” to heaven – truth – enlightenment, and they own it as a gift that MUST be shared with the unwashed masses.
In psychological terms, all the aspects of a voodoo style ritual are present at September Clues forum. All the ones I have previously noted, plus one of the most important of all, the enforcement of strict adherence to the dogma and ritual of the the great prophet Saint Shack.
Whether this great prophet understands or can even guess at his own psychological drives in this situation is doubtful, for he must first and foremost be himself a true believer before convincing any other.
To merely expose Shack as a hack in his technological grasp of the tools of his ritual can never be enough to persuade one of his true believer followers, they have gone through the emotional branding of this ritual process. It has now become a psychological question, not one of facts and reason.
This is no different from the situation the larger population faces with their being enchanted by the mainstream 9/11 myth. Only when some experience strong enough to break the spell set through the trauma will they be willing to look at things anew through the eyes of reason.
For the dupes of Shacks new mythology, theirs is more complex, for they have willfully entered and enthusiastically partaken in these mystical rituals as active participants.
For further study see:
Under the heading of: Myth, symbols, and ritual:
Joseph Campbell, Victor Turner, Erving Goffman, Lewis Henry Morgan, Clifford Geertz, James George Frazer
Señor El Once : Any wholesale advertising
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I fully understand what you are writing about and sheepishly agree.
Before Mr. Shack, Mr. Goldberg, and Mr. OneBornFree got engaged here, I was the resident champion of no-planes and September Clues... BUT WITH THIS IMPORTANT DISTINCTION: I would promote nuggets that I thought were truth.
DISCLAIMER: Any wholesale advertising of the complete September Clues and its forums that I may have performed was intended to get readers to think outside the box, to objectively review the material on their own, to come to their own conclusions, and to mine, re-fine, and re-use nuggets of truth discovered (if applicable). My endorsement of SC and the clues forum has never been 100%, if for no other reason than hedging my bets from collected comments may by many others [some with axe-grinding reputations parallel to Mr. Shack's] that the above may be disinformation.
Thus, before the no-planes and Shack rabbit holes have their entrances beamed closed by directed energy weapons powered by nuclear reactors, let us evaluate various nuggets contained therein for truth or disinformation.
To merely expose Shack as a hack in his technological grasp of the tools of his ritual can never be enough to persuade one of his true believer followers, they have gone through the emotional branding of this ritual process. It has now become a psychological question, not one of facts and reason.
Chops for exposing his technological grasp of the tools, but you can't deny these true believer followers' ability to shoot themselves, their cause, and nuggets of both truth and disinformation in the foot in the shoddy and obtuse manner in which they defend it. "Found instances of A in a set: some solid, some shaky. Thus all in the set must be solidly A. False in One, False in All." [A = image manipulation]
It makes this true believer follower cough up some of the injested Kool-Aid through his nose.
Señor El Once : believable annihilation
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Please don't let this posting interfere with the fun you are having with Mr. Shack. I, too, find the differences between analysis posed by Mr. Shack here and the maker of September Clues to be curious, as well.
Mr. Shack and September Clues was not the first entity to propose no-planes (at the WTC on 9/11). From what I've gathered, those who first proposed it were ruthlessly marginalized, sometimes with their own cooperating hand. Be that as it may, the relatively polished effort of September Clues stepped in to wrap it all together, take ownership, and then add a few more twists. SimVictims is one such twist, one that I can buy but not in the quantities that the Clues Forum and Let's Roll want to sell it at. The alleged collapse hoax and the "False in one, false in all" analysis add some more revolutions to the twist.
My purpose for writing isn't to belabor those points, but to re-focus on a core element of no-planes. Yes, explanations of how pixel manipulation was carried out is interesting. Here is a Bill Lear affadavit that adds details from another research direction regarding why no-planes is still on my table and within my beliefs cabinet.
In fairness, those with pilots credentials posit that the planes might have been special military planes, that were stronger, faster, and could survive the alleged operating conditions (540 mph at 800 feet in altitude.) Whether they were military planes or pixel planes on the telly, it pours cold water on a very large house of cards built around alleged hijackers and the legacy they left behind.
You mentioned in other postings how flying a plane into the structures was the Occam Razor simplest solution over manipulating the imagery (to include fake pixels of planes.) To get the this-could-have-been-you-on-this-plane shock-and-awe, yes, real planes would have sufficed. I agree.
But that shock-and-awe wasn't the entire purpose of the planes. They needed sufficient damage to the WTC towers that would make "believable" their annihilation, as well as other key buildings in the complex like WTC-4 (holding Gold) and WTC-7 (holding SEC records). To this end, real planes would not cut it. Real planes present too many risks: Could they be hijacked? Could they fly their course unintercepted? Could they be controlled and accurately targeted? Would they result in sufficient damage?
What are the risks of pixel manipulation in comparison? Maybe that the raw footage would be leaked.
[In one case, raw footage was leaked. A helicopter shot that doesn't show anything, and neither the pilot nor reported noticed anything until the tower exploded. Except that this shot was manipulated into three other versions: one showing an orb; one masking out the background and showing a plane flying some other direction; one showing a fuzzy pixel plane where the orb was. The funny part was that the orb was purposely taken up by a British crew and foisted on us as UFO's or super-secret flying technology based on UFO designs.]
Thus, maybe pixel manipulation isn't so risky. Media offers great help in messaging. Label and libel this as kooky disinformation, get a Clues Crew to own it and shoot it in the foot regularly (e.g., by taking this to the extremes in its "false in one, false in all" dogma, over-extending themselves with vicSim, hollow towers, and fake collapse & debris footage.) Business as usual. Everything you see and hear is under control. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.
Señor El Once : top-down demolition
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
... [F]or what its worth, like Mr Shack, for reasons explained here http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm , I presently lean towards a real life standard ground-up demolition- the exact opposite of what is seen in the [fake] network collapse video sequences.
Most of the reference physics on that page is valid. However, Mr. Shack is purposely skewing it, and you've swallowed his weak understanding of science and physics "hook, line, and sinker."
For the record, a building can be destroyed bottom-up, top-down, middle-up-&-down-at-same-time, or whatever suits your fancy (and lots of YouTube videos show this)... if you add energy and control when and how that energy is applied. Bottom-up is the preferred method in how it reduces the amount of extra energy applied and makes use of gravity, but it isn't the only method.
When your reference link argues against the top-down demolition, what it is really doing is proving why the govt's explaination is wrong using Newton's physics. Specifically, the govt said that once the collapse was initiated (by jet fuel and office fires weakening steel), then the top section under the force of gravity alone crushed the lower section totally and at a downward acceleration not far from free fall.
Newton's conservation of energy and momentum explain why this can't be so. Energy from the top section's downward acceleration supposedly pulverized the lower sections. But if so, then the top section's downward acceleration should have slowed noticable from having spent its kinetic energy in pulverizing. This is exactly what it didn't do. The govt's version leaves the energy equations woefully unbalanced (if you stick with the assumption of gravity alone.)
Mr. Shack wants you to believe that a top-down demolition isn't possible, unless you fake it on the telly. The reason this is so ludicrous is that if they had the ability to fake the footage of the entire demolition from lots of different angles with many of them being aired almost immediately, they could have at least made their fake videos physics compliant, e.g., not getting pulverized at near free fall downward accelerations, slow it down.
So why did it seem like the top section crushed the lower section totally and at a downward acceleration not far from free fall? Because they added energy. They didn't just blow away structure underneath the falling top section so that its downward acceleration would be largely unhindered; they pulverized content, which is a massive energy sink. In fact, if you look closely, they pulverized the top section before the roof-line passed significantly the (alleged) "impact level", so there was really no coherent "pile-driving" top section. This is yet another blatant error they could have fixed, if what was depicted on the telly wasn't real.
And in case you missed it in the discussion above, your "real life standard ground-up demolition" cannot explain the after-effects. Such "standard" mechanisms cannot account for under-rubble hot-spots burning without oxygen, nor can they account for the duration of hot-spots. Therefore, you better lean another direction with regards to what you speculate destroyed the WTC complex. In leaning elsewhere, maybe you'll see why image manipulation happened (assuming it happened in the demolition and after-math).
Señor El Once : some level of image manipulation
I wrote to Mr. OneBornFree regarding acknowledging the added energy as the cause for the top-down destruction as opposed to fake videos:
Therefore, you better lean another direction with regards to what you speculate destroyed the WTC complex. In leaning elsewhere, maybe you’ll see why image manipulation happened (assuming it happened in the demolition and after-math).
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
In “leaning elsewhere”, we had also better get some actual proof that there has been any image manipulation – this first and foremost – and thus far there has been nothing but inept visual acuity blended with absurd allegation, on top of utter ignorance of the photographic medium, as per perspective and the nature of light.
The above lacks some qualifiers and is overly broad. To my understanding, I have been convinced of some level of image manipulation in the imagery set for 9/11. The extent of my belief of such varies from "lots" for pixel images of planes flying to "little" for demolition and aftermath imagery. In the case of the latter and specifically as it applies to the image at the top of this article, I am forced to agree fully with your assessment.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote across two different postings with my bolding:
What is [Björkman's] excuse for dismissing the visual evidence? I’ll tell you what it is, Björkman is crazy as a shithouse rat.
I grow more astonished each passing day that this conversation even needs to take place among sane adults.
Sanity or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. It is all about agendas.
If "Cass Sunstein"-style infiltration of Mr. McKee's blog were a given and were to happen, what form would it take?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fingers can point at me, too. I can only hope that my arguments are convincing in the minds of objective and rational thinkers. And if they are not, convincing counter argument can get me to change my mind and alter my hypotheses. This is but one tiny proof of my meager assertion that I am what I say I am: a duped useful idiot and not an Q-group agent. Another tiny proof is that I don't drink the entire jug of Kool-Aid from sources on no-planes and nuclear DEW. I do not champion the entire party line, but pick and choose what I consider to be nuggets of truth. I encourage others to validate my hypotheses and to convince me of my errors, so that I'm not such an outlier in my duped beliefs. If I were a Q-groupie and paid-to-post ... * ca-ching, ca-ching * PAYDAY!!! You can bet I'd ramp up my postings here, expand the internet forums where I participate, and wouldn't give an inch on the agendas I'm paid to promote.
To show how maluable I am to other ideas, the following video got me going down a nano-thermite rabbit hole:
The video is making connections between 9/11 govt players and technology. One such player was L. Paul Bremer who was later appointed as ambassador to Iraq and oversaw that countries occupation. Mr. Bremer was on Advisory Board of Komatsu Corporation during the period when Kabushiki Kaisha Komatsu Seisakusho was issued (July 2, 1996) Patent 5532449 "Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete".
The present invention relates to an improvement in method and apparatus for demolishing concrete structures. In a specific aspect, the invention relates to method and apparatus for melting concrete. ... It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
I went and reviewed plasma arc welding as background:
Plasma arc welding is similar to gas tungsten arc welding. The electric arc is formed between an electrode and the workpiece. By positioning the electrode within the body of the torch, the plasma arc can be separated from the shielding gas envelope. The plasma is then forced through a fine-bore copper nozzle which constricts the arc and the plasma exits the orifice at high velocities (approaching the speed of sound) and a temperature approaching 20,000 °C.
Plasma arc treatment directs an electric current through a low-pressure gas stream that creates a thermal plasma field. Plasma arc fields can reach 5000 to 15000°C.
In the Komatsu patent, a plasma arc is generated from a plasma torch, but with this difference. The supply gas for the plasma torch is mixed with thermite power and is jetted into the resulting plasma arc environment. The heat of the generated plasma arc causes the thermite powder to ignite, inducing a thermite reaction. When directed at the surface of the concrete structure, the thermite reaction heat and the plasma arc heat synergize each other to efficiently melt the concrete surface. The patent details a method of controlling the rate of supply of the thermite power to the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction.
From Kevin Ryan, another L. Paul Bremer connection is with Chartek (now International Paint) who is the maker of InterChar, a fireproofing primer. Chartek work with NASA
I do not as of yet speculate that this thermite plasma arc was the primary destructive mechanism on the towers on 9/11. It would require a hefty source of electricity for the electrical arcs -- oooo, maybe my milli-nuclear reactors !!! --, plus containers for the gas and powder thermite whose amounts would not be trivial. It seems to me that the arc would be visible, and could be responsible for the weird color filter that some networks applied to their footage to manipulate it.
This is all still a hypothesis is progress.
At this point, the only conclusion that readers should make is... "There he goes again, getting himself positioned to be duped by yet another scheme." Alas, at least my mind is still open to consider that which I do not know and to try to make sense of it.
Men and women of the [nineteenth] century, are you called to voice a higher order of Science? Then obey this call. Go, if you must, to the dungeon or the scaffold, but take not back the words of Truth. How many are there ready to suffer for a righteous cause, to stand a long siege, take the front rank, face the foe, and be in the battle every day?
~Mary Baker Eddy
Señor El Once : every last pixel of every minute of every one of them
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
First allow me to apologize for not having analyzed the picture on this article. Digital imagery manipulation is not my forte, so I had little to contribute on the subject except as an objective observer. Neither Mr. Shack nor you have made a convincing case for that image being manipulated, tainted, or faked.
The collapse footage is all fake- every last pixel of every minute of every one of them.
You can't. Even Mr. Shack can't. I put him and his crew up to the test, and he weasel-worded his way out of it (paraphrased) "Now Sr. El Once, you can't really expect us to have worked through every piece of 9/11 imagery to conclusively prove it is faked. That is a monumental task." In fact, the test I proposed to Mr. Shack was a tiny subset of all 9/11 imagery and more easily reviewed. Part 1 was just several images used by Dr. Wood; only two came close to having evidence of tainting. Mr. Shack banned me before I could conjole them into looking into her collected images of 9/11 vehicle damage.
The damage to the official govt theory is already done when you prove even a subset of the 9/11 imagery as tainted. You don't have to prove that the whole thing is fake. However, when you and Mr. Shack take the ludicrious position that "all is fake" without proof that "all is fake", what you do is shoot holes in what evidence of tainting of a subset of 9/11 imagery that you can (almost) prove. Plus, such silly argumentation techniques sully your reputations for stupid reasons, like not being explicit enough in your language.
Nothing regarding means of demolition can be gleaned from watching any of them.
Aha! Your true agenda item! Take 9/11 imagery off the table so that it can't be used to prove squat!
I loved your hypothesis:
The reason for the high speed of collapse seen was purely psychological- to induce maximum “shock and awe” in the population and ensure that the call to war would not meet opposition. Making fake videos “physics compliant” [with slower collapses] would have reduced the psychological impact on the viewer.
According to you, the perps were more concerned about inducing maximum shock-and-awe by flagrantly defying the laws of physics in the videos they faked, and they were less concerned that such physics defying faked videos would be deemed reality (the goal of the faked imagery, right?), would highlight destructive methods well beyond the capabilities of dead patsy hijackers in planes, and would then implicate a wider circle of conspirators and insiders. Brilliant!
I am still laughing. If I have misunderstood what you have said, then next time remove your wallet from hip pocket, because it may be muffling the apparatus through which you talk.
Practically the entire population had been prepped for the idiotic visuals via the Hollywood movie “Independence Day”, which showed the exact same, super fast, ridiculous [outside of via beams from space :-) ], top down destruction of a building, and even threw in a brief on-screen unveiling of the date “9/11? for good measure.
Yes, the population has been prepped for 9/11 via Hollywood. However, Hollywood at least tells (or shows) you that a UFO's laser beam is responsible for the tippy-top-down super fast destruction of a building, so that it isn't ridiculous.
With 9/11, none of the towers was destroyed tippy-top-down. Destruction started at the alleged plane impact level and the top accordian'ed in on itself before any significant advancement into the lower tower structure. Gee, if I was Hollywood and involved with faking this, this is an error I would not have even incorporated into the simulations to get approval from my superiors. And if the audience is going to be told that gravity did it, then as Hollywood I would have showed in my simulations gravity doing it, which would have involved modeling properly elastic and inelastic collisions that would slow down the destruction to not be so super fast.
So why weren't these errors fixed in the faked imagery? Because the imagery wasn't faked in terms of the essential reality of what it depicted. Remember, the demolitions from various angles were broadcast close to real-time live. The imagery has always depicted something close to the essential reality. If the hand of manipulation entered, it would have been to mask out any unsightly colorful flashes of bombs, lasers, or arcs.
As for the hot-spots, the proof does not rely on imagery, although that is part of it. If there were no hot-spots, there would have been no need for govt reports that documented them, now would there?
No need to respond to this posting. Instead, feel free to focus on responding to Mr. HybridRogue1 from March 30, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.
And in doing so, know that your leash is getting shorter. Be reasonable and rational. Irrational and stupid games like your last posting (... or even most of your postings in this thread...) won't be tolerated for much longer. You'll suffer a fate worse than banishment: ignore.
Señor El Once : didn't read Mr. Shack's quotation closely enough
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You didn't read Mr. Shack's quotation closely enough. You are correct in saying:
The plane crashing into the building would not have caused any seismic signal at all. The linkage to the ground is buffered by countless physical factors – the vibrations would have shuttered down the structure with an ever weakening and dissipating signal.
Mr. Shack wasn't saying that the (alleged) plane is responsible for the seismic spike. He is saying that underground explosions are responsible for this.
Let's not forget Willy Rodriquez and others from the basement who reported a bomb going off. Let us not forget the videos of the firemen arriving in the lobby and seeing marble displaced from the walls and lots of other evidence of destructive energies that could not have been from an (alleged) airplane impact and fireball some 80 or more stories above the lobby. Such bombs to prepare the basement levels to contain debris would account for a seismic spike.
The discrepancy is the reported spike (9:02.54) and the (alleged) WTC-2 plane impact (9:03.11) is most curious and should not be dismissed too fast. The 17 seconds difference -- or delay -- is significant, and dovetails nicely with several anomalies featured in September Clues.
This whole argument by the prophet of magic pixies is bunk.
All disinformation has to be based on a solid foundation of truth. I believe the 17 second enigma and Mr. Shack's analysis is one such nugget of truth. The disinformation comes in when he and his minions erroneously extrapolate one instance of faking to be "all was faked" and "don't even look at the 9/11 imagery anymore to postulate what might have been the cause, because it is unreliable and faked."
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I think I have made a very strong case that September Clues is an elaborate hoax, that the main purpose is to take the best evidence off the table.
Unless there is something more than hand waving the critiques I have offered here, I will offer my simple summation: September Clues is a scam.
A hoax and a scam September Clues might very well be, but to what degree?
What nuggets of truth do you purposely bury in your efforts to get all of September Clues and imagery manipulation taken off the table from others objectively reviewing it and making their own conclusions?
From my perspective, Mr. HybridRogue1, you have been deploying the same techniques as Mr. Shack and company but with a different agenda. Mr. Shack dubiously argues that if some media manipulation exists, then all must be fake & nothing was real. However, you have dubiously argued that if Mr. Shack had certain flaws in fakery analysis of newer material, then all of Mr. Shacks prior efforts (or what is credited to him) must also be flawed: don't look there anymore.
The no-planes argument did not originate with September Clues and does not rest on the video evidence alone that it collected and analyzed. September Clues 1-9 and A-H provided many other nuggets of truth, albeit probably salted with disinformation.
In fact, you have repeatedly brought up comments pertaining to media's active role in 9/11 on 9/11, which September Clues introduces to those unfamiliar; a nugget of truth worth acknowledging and saving.
Most of the clues forum's newer areas of research -- demolition fakery, debris fakery, and parts of simVictim -- are riper for criticism, because they aren't supported by strong evidence and analysis and are defended even more poorly by their champions.
Señor El Once : grazing on dirt
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.
Looks like you've found a trick to make your two postings of March 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm and March 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm the last postings and final word in this thread. So you have nothing to lose by letting me have the last chronological word with this. You've wanted to put this thread to rest; let's let Mr. McKee lock it down. We can continue this soon enough under some new posting from Truth & Shadows. Enjoy the time off!
Señor El Once : read such tripe and not see through it
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote an excellent observation in one posting:
If people wish to understand the postmodern Public Relations Regime, ... [t]here is ... a huge volume of study, beginning with Bernays and Lippmann, and moving through to Marshal McLuhan, and forward that gives the basis for understanding. Moving on into the realm of PSYOPS; there is as well volumes of research available on the web and in physical libraries for such studies. Some solid foundation in these things, plus a serious study of history and gleaning the distinction between the lollipop BS myth of academia, and the real thing is also essential.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote in another posting in reference to Mr. Shack (and probably Dr. Wood):
[I]t is deeply discouraging that anyone can read such tripe and not see through it. I stand in wonder at such incredible gullibility.
The first passage from you explains the second passage from you. And it is discouraging to me that you can admit century's long (roughly) application of Public Relations manipulation of the perception of the masses, yet so quickly discard September Clues when some of its nuggets of truth are exposing some of the dastardly deeds of the military-corporate media on and after 9/11.
The duped useful idiot label that I apply to myself can indeed make me gullible. Those little sparkly nuggets of truth attract me like a fishing lure, but that doesn't mean I swallow them hook, line, and sinker.
Allow me to give you chops for this link:
My apologies for not having reviewed it before my last posting when I wrote:
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.
The PDF from 2007 does indeed attempt that episode-by-episode review of September Clues. Hell, I'm gullible enough to see where its criticism is valid and shoots some holes in a concept here or there. (And, of course, first-hand interactions with Mr. Shack here and on his home court expose other holes.)
But that gullible saloon door swings both ways. I also see where some of Mr. Irving's criticism, argumentation methods, and conclusions are questionable, and thereby expose agendas along the lines "False in one, false in all", so that all nuggets of truth can be buried.
Abstract from Nick Irving:
This article is a point-by-point analysis of each of the eight episodes in the “September Clues” series. This article will demonstrate that none of the alleged proofs presented in the series has been proven conclusively to be an artefact of ‘TV Fakery’, and that every alleged proof has a more rational and likely explanation.
As we all know, "all", "every", and "none" are slippery slopes to defend. All it takes is one Black Swan to the contrary to send it into a crushing avalanche: "False in one, false in all", eh? Why couldn't the authors have been more cautious and exact in their language? [Agenda.] And in the realm of Black Swan, once discovered, 20/20 hindsight provides "a more rational and likely explanation".
One would think that it would have been updated since 2007 to account for Episodes 9 and A-H. And, it cherry-picks the bad & ugly to review. What of the good and of the incontrivertible nuggets of truth that the wave of bad & ugly analysis wants to wash away?
Anthony Lawson assisted and contributed to this. He made his own debunking video since then of September Clues ["September Clues - Busted"], but by my estimation he hardly covers the material in Episode 1. When challenged on this, he essentially parrotted "False in one, false in all"; no reason to review subsequent episodes for anything of redeeming value.
My concern isn't for the totality of September Clues (or Dr. Wood's textbook or nano-thermite).
My concern is for preserving the good: the nuggets of truth.
The disinformation ploy being played too often in the realm of 9/11 is for an expert to take ownership of a research area and to steer it. When steering fails, discrediting of the owner happens, sometimes by their own hands.
To Mr. McKee:
A mighty fine comment. Thank you for your kind words and summing up my views so nicely:
Señor El Once ... is willing to look at controversial areas of study with the belief that you don’t have to accept the whole case in order to find some truth.
Señor El Once : an incomplete thought
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I made my last posting with an incomplete thought:
The disinformation ploy being played too often in the realm of 9/11 is for an expert or champion to take ownership of a research area and to steer it.
The completion of that thought is that this is exactly my perceptions of Sgt. Shack and Cpl. OneBornFree with regards to imagery tainting. According to them:
[Sgt. Shack and Cpl. OneBornFree] don’t have to [prove the collapse footage is all fake- every last pixel of every minute of every one of them.]
Why? Because of the monumental ...
ASSUMPTION that any piece of evidence useful to the government that could be conceivably used by the government in a criminal trial is false, until proven otherwise.
This is not a court of law. This forum is a court of public opinion where "seeing is believing." I have not "seen" that all 9/11 imagery is fake. What I have "seen" through various sources including Sgt. Shack, is some evidence of imagery manipulation.
One of Sgt. Shack's and Cpl. OneBornFree's tells is not reasonably claiming victory with (my) acknowledgements of "some evidence of imagery manipulation" for the valid shadow of distrust it casts on all other 9/11 imagery. One would think that would be enough for truth seekers.
Instead, they continue to press and expose how their agenda has them playing both ends. That is, one end is for those who chug the Kool-Aid and by edict must dismiss all imagery and can make no conclusions, extract no meaning, and derive no truths based on imagery. The other end is for those who see the foolishness of their extreme "false in one, false in all" argumentation, because such obtuse agent-behavior takes the bullet out of Cpl. OneBornFree's shirt pocket (ala Barney Fife), loads it in the gun, and promptly shoots a big ass hole into the validity and merit of any imagery & media manipulation. The two ends they play are win-win for the cover-up, and assures that no nugget of truth survives.
Mr. HybridRogue1, it gives me a great deal of Schadenfreude when you expose the limits of Sgt. Shack's technical understanding in the video editing realm. To be sure, a distinct gap exists between the intelligence, skill, and analysis exhibited in the September Clues series versus what Sgt. Shack's offers up in the clues forum on new topics, from simVictims to collapse-hoax.
The creative team behind September Clues was seemingly disbanded after publication, and maintenance (and steering) was evidently assigned to Sgt. Shack.
In my haphazard study of Sgt. Shack's clues forum, what keeps running through my mind is the phrase: "Why can't we all just get along?" This is reference to the clues forum and others, and the lack of synergy and re-use of nuggets of truth.
I had written that the goal of faked imagery is for viewers to deem it real. Otherwise, why bother? I felt that if the perps could have faked the demolition imagery, they would have made it appear real and not flagrantly defy the laws of physics building up their cover story. Real looking faked demolition imagery could have nipped a whole lot of uncomfortable questions in the bud from the get-go.
We should give Cpl. OneBornFree some applause for his response in support of his premise that inducing maximum shock-and-awe (via a too-quick demolition in the "faked" videos) was more important than cutting off cover-story shredding questions later:
Except that [duh!] if, for the sake of argument, an “energy beam ” had been used, then the exact same argument I made would still apply. [Shortness of collapse times induced maximum shock /awe] .It would also apply if a nuclear destruction method had been used. Again “duh!”
For the sake of discussion, I've tried unsuccessfully several times to write on behalf of Cpl. OneBornFree how the methods of destruction [nano-thermite, directed energy, milli-nuclear devices, etc.] would be more desireable in a too-quick demolition to induce maximum shock-and-awe than they would be deployed in a manner that cut off cover-story shredding questions later. Just can't do it, because it doesn't make sense. (What makes sense to me is that an overly redundant and thorough covert operation is guilty of overkill in their methods of destruction that too many camera views caught real-time that would have been too difficult to taint into s-l-o-w motion or some other believable faked rendition.)
Duh, I'd have Cpl. OneBornFree clarify this, but I think his comments about being on/off meds and having delusions might be a tad too self-reflective.
"[Irrational and stupid games] won’t be tolerated"? ... And just WTF do you think you are?
Not the owner of this blog, but a participant who puts a value on respect and truth.
Cpl. OneBornFree's attempts at a inducing flame wars makes his leash even shorter. My ignoring his postings is the least of his worries. He needs to worry about Mr. McKee ignoring his postings and not posting them if he continues in similar manner.
Señor El Once : It's only talk
Something many of us anticipated as far back as the 1970s – 21st Century Schizoid Man.
The album of the same title is extraordinary in it’s intuitive take on what has now come to pass. Even naming the perp, the Crimson King, with his red shield…for those who know that term in the German.
I have that album. Never updated to CD, though, and no longer can play it. (Paraphrased from what I can recall:)
Said the straight man to the late man
where have you been?
I've been here and I've been there
and I've been in between.
I talk to the wind...
On CD, I do have "Discipline" [Fripp, Belew, Bruford, Levin], "Beat", and "Three of a Perfect Pair", whereby the synergy from their work with other great bands I was following [Yes, Talking Heads, Peter Gabriel] made getting their collaboration on King Crimson a must. "Elephant Talk" is a work of art:
It's only talk
It's only talk
It's only talk
Bicker bicker bicker
It's only talk
Talk talk talk
It's only talk
It's only talk
It's only talk
These are words with a D this time
It's all talk
Too much talk
Talk that trash
It's all talk
My CD library is now divided into two, one downstairs and one up. Downstairs is rock, and I never listen to it any more. Upstairs is world music. (Nuggets of Truth, and finding good outside of what the music business pushes.) If it is in a language I don't understand and the musicianship good, I would be inclined to like it and listen over and over and over.
Of course, even this addiction to constantly new music, new sounds, new venues, and following my fav's from my bachelor days and needing an outlet for my earnings ran its course with marriage & kids. My MP3 player used for my workout has maybe 5% of my collection, but hasn't been updated or change in 4 years. Just the same music randomized over and over and over.
I was looking for some stats in the thread:
So far, I've made ~50 postings as I both defended and attacked Dr. Wood and video manipulation, etc. trying to establish a reasonable and rational position that doesn't use "all or nothing" arguments and tries to keep nuggets of truth in play.
Mr. HybridRogue1 has ~152 postings, beating me 3-to-1. This is a sign.
I like debating Mr. HybridRogue1. He's articulate and respectful -- just the kind of agent who can take me on and attack my two hobby horses of DEW and video manipulation as well as the nuggets of truth I mine from Dr. Wood, September Clues, and other "disinfo" sources. I mean, if he was any less respectful, less articulate, and less reasonable in his points (ala Albury and A. Wright), he'd be easy to dispense with and would only strengthen my side of the debate. Only the A-team of the Q-group.
But, yes, I do think he's an agent. I half-way think that Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree's participation was staged for Mr. HybridRogue1's benefit. I mean, the stilted way in which they made their case ("all was faked") was like an under-handed pitch for Mr. HybridRogue to hit out of the ball park ("none was faked"). Coincidence that he has skills in the video arts and employers who make fantasy a reality on the telly?
The first tell is the extreme "all was faked" versus "none was faked" positions. Mr. Shack has his own issues in how he wants to get all imagery taken off of the table and his poor grasp of science to account for how the destruction of WTC happened. Can't handle nuggets of Truth from Dr. Wood, nor can he help in finding the tainted images that she may or may not have used that led her astray.
Mr. HybridRogue's issues are not being able to mine nuggets of truth from either september clues or Dr. Wood (and in the case of the latter, not even going there). He compounds it by defending nano-thermite despite the science beating him over the head that it cannot account for the hot-spot duration. He tends to wind up the known disinfo agents (like A. Wright and possible Mr. Shack/Mr. OneBornFree) as if they were opponents in a faked WWF wrestling match. Building his legacy, establishing his chops...
I'm sure that I present doubts in your mind, as well. However, you've got more details about the real me than most (e.g., web sites). You've experienced my human fickleness. I champion bat-shit crazy premises, for sure, and might rub off as being the same, but not like a lock-stepping blinders-on soldier with an agenda to defend that can't admit defeat and will adopt all manner of obtuse arguments to avoid acknowledging nuggets of truth.
I'm not saying ban Mr. HybridRogue1; just to keep an eye on him. Better the devil you know, eh? The debate is good reading, kind of like Jefferson versus Adams of our times, eh?