Friday, June 29, 2012

You're the ying to my yang

Hide All / Expand All

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

2012-06-29

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

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

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

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

do not expect any further replies

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : do not expect any further replies

2012-06-27

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

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

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

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

Monday, June 25, 2012

don't wave off the nuclear signatures

Hide All / Expand All

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

2012-06-25

Señor Agent Rogue wrote:

There are ZERO nuclear characteristics to the event itself.

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

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

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

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

Hide All / Expand All


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

2012-06-13

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, June 4, 2012

Dr. Judy Wood: Position Statement and Book Review

Hide All / Expand All

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

2012-06-04

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

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

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

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

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

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


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