Señor El Once : do not expect any further replies
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!
June 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm
I would say based on a dubious assumption, the question is asked; ‘Why would anyone want to hide the fact that nuclear devices were used to demolish the World Trade Center?’
Nice malframing in your question, but I'll bite anyway.
First of all, nuclear devices [using a broad definition that includes nuclear means of powering DEW] shoots to high heaven the whole cave-dwelling hijackers, airplanes, jet fuel, and gravity legend that they spent the last decade building and defending. Nuclear devices in the towers could not have been planted by hijackers in airplanes, particularly when the extensive monitoring of their whereabouts (e.g., Mossad cells living next door, flight schools, Jack Abramoff's gambling yacht) did not show them spending sufficient time in the right dubious places to acquire such devices and plant & arm them appropriately. The circle of conspirators grows larger and at the same time more select with a laser-like focus on (foreign and) domestic govt agencies with access to nuclear devices. [To be fair, most of this can be said about controlled demolition.]
Second, evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a "toxic waste dump": nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of a city shrivel up & die as inhabitents and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The Field of Dreams message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."
Third, assuming spin to direct attention to foreign entities as the culprits, the US govt would find it difficult to curb the public mentality that those who nuked us shouldn't be nuked back. And up in smoke goes the very natural resources that PNAC and the neo-cons in office wanted to control.
Fourth, assuming the deflection onto foreign entities is easily seen through and domestic conspirators in the US govt and its agencies are pegged, this revelation could end the status quo for everyone elected or employed by the US govt. In fact, it could lead to the dissolution of the USA of 50 states and the creation of smaller regional countries out of those states, and with the might of the vote, any Federal & on that level becomes a quaint concept for the history. Major change that would have deep reaching effects, and obviously one those "in power" would try to avoid.
I'll stop here at those four.
More to the point I would ask; Why are there those who want to diminish that which is the most coherent and fact based evidence, that of explosive demolition?
Ooooh! Very clever framing, Agent Rogue. However, it really isn't about diminishing anything about explosive demolition, because just about all of us are on board for the vast destruction of the WTC to have had many different mechanisms, back-up mechanisms, and redundancies to achieve its goals.
A better framing might be: Why is the nuclear evidence being given short-shrift? Why isn't it being addressed? Why are you "settling" for a lesser solution, when the features hinting towards nuclear sources still have to be addressed?
Postulating the existence of mini-nukes is unnecessary; these weapons are well known to exist. Speculating to there use on 9/11 to bring down the towers is another matter entirely. The first question to be asked is, WHY?
Truth simply is. Gotta follow it where it goes.
Why with all of the high powered munitions capable of and known to be sufficient – why turn to an exotic weapon such as nuclear or DEW?
Do you use a hammer to insert screws? Not if you have a screwdriver. Not if you have a screwdriver bit attached to a power drill. Use the proper tool for the job, and make the job easy. Why make 50 trips with a bicycle if you have a pickup truck in your garage that can do it one trip?
The exotic weapons exist in the arsenals of the PTB. Generals and Majors with itchy trigger-fingers would be literally dying to use them.
The second question is more critical however; How is it that the signature characteristics of the destruction so positively matches that of these non-nuclear devices?
Nobody argues against non-nuclear devices being used in tandem and with some redundancy with nuclear devices. Remember, it isn't just the towers that were decimated: WTC-3 was seemingly crushed, WTC-6 had a massive crater, WTC-4 had its main edifice leveled, WTC-5 had "bore-holes".
Before going on with the next posting from Agent Rogue, allow me to summarize my impression of the previous posting. Agent Rogue is trying desperately hard to keep errant thought, brain-storming thought, and imagination-within-the-realm-of-possibility away from exotic weapons. This trend continues. The following quotes by Agent Rogue are from June 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm
And to this I would add that Señor el Once is as free as the wind to expound upon his nuke/nukeDew theories to his hearts content.
Let him and others who will make their case to the candid world.
Don't mind at all if I do! Thank you very much for that invitation, Señor Rogue.
As to the issue of cancer illnesses and deaths among first responders; let us remember we are not just speaking to asbestos, but all manner of toxins, including mercury, much of it reduced to micro-fragments. There are more to the dust studies that Jones’ search for thermite. These show this material to be a soup of ultra toxicity to the extreme. Just to take asbestos as an example; it was blown to tinier particulates than any normal asbestos hazard.Yeah, yeah, true enough. However, the cancers caused by, say, asbestos do not have such sudden impact on victims. It takes significantly more time for onset of such cancers to be noticable.
Not so, for the ailments of 9/11 1st responders. They were suffering within weeks just like Hiroshima survivors.
Tell me: where is it documented that those toxins -- asbestos being the one you like to peg the most -- result in the loss of teeth? Because we don't have to google very far to discover that loss of teeth and sudden onset of various cancers happen pretty rapidly from too much exposure to radiation.
On to the next posting from Agent Rogue from June 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm
At this point I am coming to sense that, DEW, Nukes, No-planes, Digital Fakery…the whole new ‘Alternative 9/11 “Truth Movement” is the full press court by the Sunstein Counter-Insurgency Group.
Nah, I would say that the Sunstein Counter-Insurgency Group has a full-court press to prop up super-duper nano-thermite in sol-gel form (yada yada yada) by the likes of its Q-Group A-List Players, Agent Rogue.
Seeing how you bring up digital fakery -- that coincidentally you are an expert in --, let's just say that your attitude in this genre has been less than genuine. You're as bad as Mr. Shack (and his representative, Mr. OneBornFree).
Mr. Shack and Company say: "I have possibly some evidence of imagery manipulation, therefore everthing was fake! Can't trust a damn thing in any of the imagery."
You say: "Mr. Shack is a low skilled idiot in the realm of imagery manipulation. I have proven that some things presented by Mr. Shack as examples of imagery manipulation are not; they are examples of Mr. Shack's poor understanding of the tools of that trade. Therefore, all imagery was valid and no digital fakery took place in any shape or form." [Obviously, these really aren't your exact words, but "no digital fakery" is certainly the hard-line agenda-toting message that you want to get across with no wiggle room for imagery manipulation at all. Most closed-minded of you.]
I'm open-minded enough to recognize nuggets of truth in both. The most obvious example is that I no longer promote "no planes." I promote "no commercial planes," because video evidence seemingly of different flight paths was proven (using 3D modeling) to actually represent a real and singular flight path (for 2nd plane) and because velocity-squared in the energy equation has a decimating effect on common materials. However, the velocity in question exceeded that of commercial planes; when combined with the precision targeting and even the "pod on the plane," the planes were not commercial.
A more subtle example relating to my still being open-minded towards imagery manipulation are the whacked out color schemes presented by various networks and the unclarity in many versions of the towers decimation. Could not digital filters have been applied that would handle "nuke flashes"? Just some wild-ass speculation.
Better examples of my mining of nuggets of truth from September Clues -- the go-to location of digital fakery -- are (a) the speed and complicity of the media in getting the "official story" out and (b) much of the research into simVictims.
As for DEW and Nukes, I could go either way and both ways with my nuclear powered DEW or nuclear X-Ray devices. The point is that the decimation of the towers is not something you'd do with 5000 trips by bicycle (conventional chemical explosives) but something you'd do with a few trips with a Mac Truck Semi (nuclear hijinx). If both are sitting in your garage, WTF?
It should be red flags high, when it is shown that nano-thermates are indeed explosives, and the family of sol-gels they are related to are certainly in the ‘High-Explosive’ category, but yet those who campaign strongly for nukes deny the open record on this by maintaining that “superthermite is not an explosive”. With a whole leg of their argument stuck in an obvious lie, I would be highly dubious of the other leg.What you write isn't "red flags high," it is "red herring" which I will address in more detail when responding to your posting from June 27, 2012 at 11:59 am
Anyone who has watched a fire in a fireplace should understand the physics of what a chaotic wandering flare will act like; how a piece of paper can suddenly flame up from heat in the ashes. We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation in the rubble pile.
Correct. Agent Rogue goes on to quote from Ryan et al:
The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of the rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, shortlived, and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOCs seen on those dates.
VOC stands for "volatile organic chemicals."
Table 1 had six dates of maximum detection for five species (of VOC) in air at GZ.
Here we've got Truth and Shadows.
The Truth may indeed be how the spikes in VOC detection could be explained. No problem. Let's assume that energetic nanocomposite materials were buried in the pile in pockets and ignited on specific dates giving us those spikes. Indeed, the volume of energetic material required for such spikes would not be equivalent to what could be packed into a 664k mile long imaginary garden hose.
The Shadow is that fires smoldered under the rubble with little to no oxygen for that period of time. In fact, that very same paper ("Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials") begins with the passage:
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.Sure, I'm fine with Ryan, Gourley, and Jones making the case that energetic material was in the rubble and caused these spikes. I'm fine with the extension of this that these materials were involved with the destruction. (Redundancy and back-up to achieve a thorough destruction was 9/11's hallmark.)
- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC
- 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 issue is that nano-thermite is extrapolated erroneous by 9/11 yeomen (and agents) to account for the duration of the smoldering fires that could not easily be put out, with no correction by the authors about this fallacy.
Woe, wait a minute! Ryan writes:
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.
Maybe I'm wrong. It wasn't just science-challenged 9/11 yeomen trying to peg the duration of the smoldering fires on chemical energetic materials. Ryan is doing that himself. He purposely left this impression for the 9/11 yeomen. Ryan covers his ass by then focusing on the spikes:
The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events.
After each of the six major spikes, the source chemical energetic material at that location was consumed. What caused the fire to smolder without oxygen despite fire protection efforts?
The source (or fuel) of the smoldering fires is not nano-thermite, because to achieve this with its very fast burn rate (2908 fps) would require overwhelming ginormous volumes of unspent material in the pile: [for 1 hot-spot burning just 4 weeks equivalent to what could be packed into an imaginary garden hose 664k miles long.]
The source (or fuel) of the smoldering fires is not plastic materials and such, because (a) these require oxygen to burn, (b) these would have been put out by the fire suppression efforts, and (c) these are what are suggested get consumed by the energetic spikes (see speculation by Ryan in first quote) and release their signature toxins in the air that the EPA measured and is a major basis for this paper.
The source (or fuel) of the smoldering fires is... WHAT?!!
Due to the narrow focus of their paper that does indeed PROVE in my mind that chemical energetic materials were present in the rubble pile (resulting in VOC spikes when ignited), they were able to sidestep speculating into the source for the smoldering fires.
Not to pass up low-hanging fruit, here's another quote from the paper with such fruit high-lighted:
Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ.
... The same EPA who told 1st responders and NYC residents about how safe things were. How come its data was accepted unchallenged? Just like the Tritium Report was accepted unchallenged by Dr. Jones in his no-nukes paper.
Agent Rogue writes:
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 better put some science and experimentation behind that supposition. Burn-rate is burn-rate. Characteristics when it is ignited even in "salted" quantities is for the "salt particle" to reach high temperatures and be consumed very fast. "Salt spikes," albeit small, but still noticable: not observed. The evidence is that the smoldering of the fires was rather constant and continuous EXCEPT for those big spikes noted in the Ryan paper.
Certainly, some of the smoldering was wandering, but some of it wasn't. And for the part that we think was wandering, the "salt particle" might have been immune to fire suppression efforts and the lack of oxygen, but the surrounding material that the "salt particle" was supposed to ignite to keep the smolder going until the next "salt particle" was torched off was not immune to such. Turning to the smolder that didn't wander, that "salty" dog don't hunt.
Another source for the smolder needs to be sought.
And gee. It just might have a correlation to the juked evidence of nuclear hijinx...
June 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm
There are multiple points, including visual evidence, physical forensic evidence, wound evidence, sonic evidence, witness testimonies of their own sight hearing and physical experiences of multiple explosions. Some of these describe the sounds of perimeter wrap-around cutter charges, characterized as “bam bam bam bam,” punctuated by deeper rumbling booms. There is visual photographic evidence of ‘squibs’ – the whole litany every 9/11 researcher should recall from from 9/11 – 101. All of this must be weighed against any alternative theory challenging it.
Sure, they threw all that and the kitchen sink at it and much much more.
Now address the duration of the under-rubble smolder, the nuclear signature, the torched vehicles in the distant parking lot [but not the closer offices of the World Finance Centers, etc.], and the 1st responder ailments... Oh wait! You dismiss then in a delphi concensus slight-of-hand.
And let's not get too hung up on WTC-1 and WTC-2, when WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 are oh oh oh so interesting.
Keep cranking away at the steering wheel, Agent Rogue! I love your nuggets of truth, but will continue to mine them from other sources as well in order to get the true big picture that you are trying to steer us away from.
WooHoo!!! And I've got the added benefit of Agent Rogue being tired of addressing my shit, so maybe I'll get the last word. Yee Haw!!!
Señor El Once : mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense
Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.
Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!
How about this scenerio? Nuclear powered or enhanced DEW -- directed energy weapon -- decimates the inside while your sol-jello nanny-therm-i-bob chunks the outer wall structure milli-seconds later, so as to hide the inner shinnanigans while releasing aforementioned forensic signatures and leaving salted pockets in the pile.
As per the nuke hypothesis; there are obvious signatures, as pointed out above.
So we are now to presume that mini-nukes were used to take down the towers…but they supplemented the nukes with some standard demo charges, for what reason? Any weapon on top of a nuclear one is just needless redundancy, and the show was obviously to blame the “terrorist hijackers”, not inside job pro demolitions. There are no nuclear weapons characteristics, other than blatantly hollow assertions.
Quite the strawman. First off, look up "nuclear fizzle" yet again and maybe it will dawn on you why it wasn't needless redundancy.
Secondly, even I'm not saying that mini-nukes were involved, although I keep pushing the nuclear evidence.
I'm saying that the energy requirements of pulverization were massive and that nuclear sources of energy were more likely to meet those. A nuclear device designed for energy output or for channeling of specific wavelengths of electromagnetic energy is a vastly different nuclear beast in all aspect than a mini-nuke.
Yep, I agree: "there are no nuclear weapons characteristics" when the weapon is narrowly defined as Dr. Jones did in his "no-nukes" paper.
It is by far not "blatantly hollow assertions" that there were no characteristics of nuclear devices. Refer to smoldering hot-spots, tritium measurements, 1st responder ailments, etc.
Agent Rogue displays his stellar level... no, genius level... skills at the computer by being incapable of doing anything useful to readers to differentiate his words from that of Mike Philbin. Not even a single lowly instance of bookending Mike Philbin's words with <blockquote> and </blockquote>. Not even as much as a +++++ or ---- or ===== line.
I gather that the Mike Philbin source was given to Agent Rogue to fill the void and distract us. This is the second time he's pasted in the same information with the same piss poor attrition techniques.
Mike Philbin wrote:
I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.
I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.
So Agent Rogue via Mr. Philbin is saying this thermobaric particles were salted in the debris pile and accounted for spikes and smolder, eh?
Mike Philbin wrote:
Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). ... Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.
Unspent thermobaric explosives, relying on oxygen and being unsuitable for use underwater, kind of makes them poor candidates for explaining the duration of under-rubble smolder upon which massive amounts of water was discharged.
Agent Rogue, you should have Mr. Philbin calculate the quantities of thermobaric explosives necessary to pulverize the innards of the towers. Is it reasonable?
Have him explain how thermobaric explosives would relate to tritium radiation. Would it account for 1st responder ailments mirroring that of Hiroshima survivors?
Señor El Once : what constitutes a good solid bowel movement
Señor Rogue can't address the criticism of his theories, so in typical agent fashion, he dishes out the ad hominem.
The edge of hysteria to Señor Bridges’ current postings are more than apparent. Perhaps he should settle down with a glass of wine and collect his wits before he himself implodes.
Señor Rogue, who at one point not that long ago had 380 out of the last 1000 postings on Truth & Shadows, ought to take his own advice. With ~228 total posting (so far) to this thread, Agent Rogue has contributed 80 of them making up 35%.
True to form, Agent Rogue says that my 10 postings (4%) represent "the edge of hysteria." Gee, and I thought I was just being thorough going point-by-point through his mess, lest the Agent Rogue come back and say: "You didn't address this point X, so you must either agree with it or be too [fill in ad hominem adjective] too tackle it, which by [dubious] default means that I win."
If he wishes to make a case for nuclear demolition, it is certainly his right to do so.
Proof that Agent Rogue isn't reading things, just posting.
Right now, I'm making the case for nuclear-powered DEW.
Mr. David Howard, on the other hand, is making the case for a nuclear demolition with the help of the Anonymous Physicist's work. It is well worth the read for the evidence and analysis presented.
However, I am not completely in that camp, so please stop putting words in my mouth, as is your habit.
However this lunatic approach of spurious accusations, and run-on textual diarrhea is very unpleasant theater.
Very clever, Agent Rogue. My spurious accusations into agency your agenda aren't so spurious. It is the impression you make on me from your behavior.
You obviously have no concept of what constitutes a good solid bowel movement versus what doesn't. Yesterday, I made just two solid, detailed postings in response to seven of yours, and yours dribbled on for yet four more.
Of course, if it his goal to appear an unhinged loon, he is making that point particularly well.
Oh how I love it when your arguments so run out of steam that they must scrape the bottom of the barrel for insults.
Señor El Once : The China Syndrome Aftermath
I love how Agent Rogue is starting to squirm.
Was Fukushima a China Syndrome? May 16, 2011
The China Syndrome refers to a scenario in which a molten nuclear reactor core could could fission its way through its containment vessel, melt through the basement of the power plant and down into the earth. While a molten reactor core wouldn’t burn “all the way through to China” it could enter the soil and water table and cause huge contamination in the crops and drinking water around the power plant. It’s a nightmare scenario,the stuff of movies. And it might just have happened at Fukushima.
With respects to 9/11, China Syndrome at the WTC: Rabbit Hole WARNING!!!
The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath, 2nd Edition. I have this and read it. It essentially republishes concisely what can be found on his blog.
One should research WTC-4 a bit more closely.
Cavern below WTC-4 Video. Granted, this might be a natural thing. Might not. In any event, the main edifice of WTC-4 was supposedly leveled by the falling towers while its North Wing, also within the same radius of falling matter, was not.
And by golly, what is with that damn massive crater in the middle of WTC-6?
9/11 Conspiracy - The Mystery of WTC6 (video), shows that WTC-6 burned before falling tower debris came raining down.
The Smoking Gun from WTC 6
According to Kevin Ryan:
The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained... The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire... But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events.
According to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos:
The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out. ... The chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
So, Agent Rogue, does your "boojie woojie JFK/LBJ era high school chemistry" allow you to see the inverse mathematical correlation between something that releases energy very rapidly and something that can burn for many weeks?
Or rather, if you are using the same substance to account for both pieces of observable evidence -- the release of rapid pulverizing energy and a 4 week under-rubble burn --, how much of that substance "unspent" from the original purpose would be required to be "salted" in the pile?
The phrase that pays is: "if you are using the same substance to account for both."
Obviously, if you are, don't be tripping over that damn imaginary garden hose to help us understand the concepts of massive volumes of materials necessitated by the burn-rate and "salty" burn time.
If you aren't, then do tell: What second source accounts for the duration of oxygen-less hot-spots under the rubble?
And now that your noggin is pried open to let the thought of a second source enter in, answer if that second source has a nuclear signature?
After all, something has to account for the nuclear signature and the resulting nuclear cover-up starting with
- the unchallenged tritium report,
- the re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater,
- Dr. Jones' logic errors attempting to rule out all forms of nukes,
- Dr. Wood ignoring the tritium report and questioning hot-spots,
- the attribution of the sudden onset of radiation-style ailments to other causes
So as the duped useful idiot here, my fervent desire is to be free of the yoke of this label. Alas, the key is sound analysis of the evidence with math & science, which out of necessity requires that the evidence not be waved-off.
Señor El Once : non-radioactive nuclear reactions
Agent Rogue writes with such manly strength and vigor:
I have dismissed the idea that there is any value to concepts relating to ‘non-radioactive nuclear reactions’, and to fanciful ruminations of science fiction scenarios such as “The China Syndrome”.
Of course, he posts this below my June 28, 2012 at 7:40 am posting when it belongs under my June 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm posting.
Playing your game of juking the comments again, no?
Dr. McCoy on Star Trek used to say things like: "I'm a doctor, Jim, not some damn [----]!"
Agent Rogue needs to be reminded that "he is an artist, not some damn [scientist, engineer, mathematician]!" He maketh his "non-radioactive nuclear reactions" accusations from his imagination and doth not understand whereof he speakest.
Whereas a science fiction movie with the name “The China Syndrome” does indeed have fanciful ruminations, Agent Rogue deftly waves-off some of the very real concepts that formed the premise for that movie.
Looks to me like Agent Rogue is running scared, is running on empty, and doesn't have the chops or back-up to address the specifics, so he purposely mis-posts his non-response and waves his hand in the air like a gay Hitler, "Zuruecktretten! Ich bin fertig damit!"
Whereas I take the time in my responses to go point-by-point through my discussion opponent's argument to find both common ground and where we differ, Agent Rogue writes on June 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm:
It is true, I no longer read [Señor El Once's] book length postings but for a glance.
Alas, with my June 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm posting, I wrote but a tiny novella readable in its entirety without scrolling (on my computer) [albeit with Rabbit-Hole Warnings].
Instead of following the white rabbit into the sites that explain how and what part of the China Syndrome applies to 9/11, Agent Rogue does his own googling into Wiki for its fanciful understanding. And in doing so, Agent Rogue with deft and purpose misses the point.
I acknowledge that the term “China Syndrome” has entered the popular lexicon as meaning any full on meltdown of a nuclear reactor.Not so gracious:
This still does not admit to its application to 9/11, which is obviously a case of Neuromarketing techniques of disingenuous PR.
Na, that is not so obvious.
The way I see it, we have (unchallenged) evidence of tritium radiation at WTC. This report was released probably as a "Neuromarketing techniques of disingenuous PR" so they could get away with not releasing any other reports on, say, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. [The EPA was busy shooting itself in the foot with its reports "all is within safe margins, go back to work or shopping."] Because were they to do so, valid concerns with the source of the under-rubble hot-spots would mirror that of: Was Fukushima a China Syndrome? May 16, 2011.
[Unspent but fizzling nuclear material from the 9/11 destructive mechanisms] could enter the soil and water table and cause huge contamination in the crops and drinking water around the power plant.