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.
I agree with everything I've quoted from you except the last sentence, where you wrote:
[The spire] 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.
Assuming your premise of the use of explosives for a moment, I don't see how the spire could have gotten coated with dust from the surrounding materials in the quantities that we see. Turbulence in the destruction and resulting winds would have made it difficult for dust to settle.
Assuming Dr. Wood's premise of the use of directed energy weapons, I view the spire as the supporting structure for one of the top-level DEW devices, which were aimed away from it. By the time we see the spire, that DEW device has long since served its purpose and was disposed of.
The way I understand and view this event, DEW devices would excite residual water molecules in material (e.g., concrete, drywall) instantly into steam, whose expanding volume pressure would "dustify" the material. What we see lingering in the air is the dust and steam from material that was moments before still attached to the spire and got zapped from below (I presume) by a clean-up beam.
Similarly, when you view videos and images of the destruction, you'll see major pieces falling but with trailing gray matter as if on fire. Only they weren't on fire, and the trailing gray matter wasn't smoke. I view it as being dust and steam. David Chandler does prove that some of that falling matter does have "energetic" properties that allowed it to change directions like fireworks. I'm not arguing for mutual exclusivity of demolition mechanisms, so don't discount this in the least. However, most of the "steaming" falling pieces of debris lack other indications (e.g., flames) of a thermitic or incendiary process.
Señor El Once : Not so fast in ruling out spaced-based DEW
2012-06-04
Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:
A space based DEW can therefore be ruled out. There are other reasons a space based DEW can be ruled out as well which I can get into if you want me to. A ground based DEW can also be logically ruled out because of the way the buildings exploded.
Not so fast and be more specific.
If you want to rule out space-based DEW for the towers and WTC-7, I'll probably be in agreement. But let's not take it off the table too quickly for WTC-6, WTC-5, and WTC-4 that don't have adequate explanations.
In a similar vein, you frame ground-based DEW in a stilted fashion.
The proper framing is multiple DEW devices and "spire-based DEW".
You write:
There are a whole assortment of other issues with her analysis. Her photo analysis for example is very poor and she mistakes explosive damage and fire damage for something inexplicable.
I can find agreement with what you say. Sometimes her analysis is questionable. I have found errors (repeated in her book), but not to the extent that it discredits everything.
You write:
Her “toasted cars” for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.
I disagree with this strongly. It is the
"specificity" of the destruction that rules out
"pyroclastic flow generated by explosives" and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a "hot" (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
Another major problem with her theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser.
You are very much correct that DEW would require a massive energy source. This is why my modification to Dr. Wood's "hinting" has been "nuclear-powered spire-based DEW". A small nuclear reactor akin to what the US Navy uses seems to me would be easier to come by that trying to get "free-energy from Hurricane Erin". Radiation was measured at ground zero; the govt did write up reports on those readings; Dr. Jones did comment on those readings and did a nifty slight-of-scientific hand by saying:
"These don't match three known nuclear weapons types, so no nukes were used." [... and no further speculation was made into the source of such radiation.] First responder ailments also mirror that of Hiroshima survivors.
Wood’s theory is full of holes I am afraid and it does not and cannot explain how the towers exploded from the inside out. A DEW cannot skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out.
I'll bite that Wood's theories are full of holes. Of course, we don't eat the holes from Swiss cheese, so let's not get hung up on too many of the holes with Dr. Wood. Case in point, both a space-based and a ground-based DEW device could not get its beam to
"skip past the outer walls and destroy the building from the inside out." But gee, a spire-based DEW wouldn't have to skip past outer walls; it'd be destroying the building from the inside out, as observed.
Señor El Once : "crazy" purposely put into her work
2012-06-04
Regrettably, I champion Dr. Wood in a left- and back-handed manner.
Dr. Wood could prove here case of the incompleteness and other errors from the govt reports. Yet, if she would have had her day in court [which she did not -- and the way in which she was sidelined is par for the course, lest we forget Sibel Edmunds, April Gallop, etc.], Dr. Wood probably would have lost her case, because she was driving towards space-based DEW, free-energy from Hurricane Erin, and Hutchison Effects that she could NOT prove.
It is as if the
"crazy" were purposely put into her work (and court case) as a
"get-out-of-assassination-free" card. If she discredits herself, she'll live to endure the embarrassment. If she doesn't, she won't.
"Double Jeopardy", right? By presenting a wild-ass case and getting it thrown out, no one else can present a saner-case on the same topic, right?
So, Señor Rogue, I agree with your assessment:
Wood and her handler/promoter, Morgan Reynolds, made a preemptive strike on the Federal Court system with a clearly spurious quack driven case, to blunt any further possibilities of rational cases having a chance at getting a case to court.
But I disagree with:
"[a case against NIST for their fraudulent 9/11 report] is being kept out of court because the charges are ludicrous and absurd."
Señor El Once : significance of a hurricane some 200 miles off the coast
2012-06-04
Dear Señor Rogue,
You recently asked:
I would appreciate it if someone might explain what the significance of a hurricane some 200 miles off the coast could have to the events occurring in NY.
You asked the same thing on
2012-01-31. Here's the snippet from my reply:
Señor Rogue wrote:
Is there no one capable of explaining in some actual rational manner what the significance of hurricane Erin being 200 miles to the east off the coast of NY?
I can point out five points regarding the significance of hurricane Erin. I preface this by stating this is my speculation, but based on data points mined from both Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack.
1) The primary purpose of hurricane Erin may have been as a last-resort back-up clean-up plan, should other 9/11 events not got off as expected or been too exhuberent in the energy of their execution. The perps could have suppressed media reports (and later re-written and re-broadcast them) while Erin was steered in to further "obscufate" the already mangled evidence.
2) Mr. Shack (rather recently in these forums) suggested that "hurricanes suck" in the sense they would draw all clouds and present perfectly clear skies as the ideal backdrop for the media fakery they were going to deploy as part of their hoax.
3) Dr. Wood brought up hurricane Erin in the context that it represents lots of energy. In the sense of Tesla and free energy, this storm could have been the energy source for either or both space-based and land-based DEW. (Ruling out space DEW for the towers does not rule it out for WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.) I do not discount the science potential, but I remain on the fence regarding its operational applicability to 9/11.
4) Dr. Wood's research into hurricane Erin, however, has the side-effect of supporting Mr. Shack's views of how the media was controlled on 9/11 before any pixel hit any tower. Hurricane Erin still could have presented dangers in a storm surge and a hazard for cross-Atlantic flights; it could have changed direction naturally and hit New York, if not some other city along the East Coast. They were tracking it all week. Thus, it should have still been news as a top item for the cheery weathermen at least. Dr. Wood points out the lock-step media silence on the topic (with only one or two early exceptions).
5) Lots of people have questioned the many stunning coincidences on 9/11 with regards to FEMA as well as the many simultaneous military exercises. If memory serves me, FEMA had set up on 9/10 (the day before) some sort of a command or emergency response center on a pier in preparation for their emergency exercises on 9/11. Why on pier, particularly if the news stations had been tracking a hurricane all week as it went up the coast? This exposes foreknowledge in a major way, because a hurricane could well have been the emergency FEMA was called to, yet being based on a pier right on the coast, their very preparations would have been wiped out in literally the first destructive waves of a hurricane. ... Unless of course, they knew better and that the hurricane was a non-issue.
6) The devil in these details is HAARP. Deploy HAARP to steer a hurricane, and FEMA can set up on a pier with no fear (unless things went horribly wrong), the media footage can be faked more easily, and the just-in-case clean-up surge is waiting in the wings. HAARP and weather control is one of those military secrets that the govt does not want to let the public know they have. This is a deep rabbit hole with much validity in some of the anomalous yet very destructive weather patterns (and earthquakes) experienced through out the world (including Japan) over the last decade at least.
Here's some more history from our discussions.
2012-01-25
Hurricane Erin? Its suppression on 9/11 in the media? I'm sure you've looked into HAARP. HAARP was probably steering Hurricane Erin. If things would have gone horribly wrong, they might have suppressed media coverage and called in Erin to help destroy and obfuscate the evidence. A connection I'm making is that FEMA was setting up a command center for their exercises on some pier the day before 9/11. They knew a hurricane was coming and could potentially hit NY (if left alone). The questions Dr. Griffin asked were why they were so omniscient to set up the day before 9/11 and the coincidences of their training exercise with the real-world events? The question I ask is why they set up on a damn pier if their tent base would be wiped out by the hurricane being tracking? If they didn't know definitively that the hurricane wouldn't hit unless it was called by HAARP, I doubt they would have chosen the pier.
2012-03-13
Yes, Dr. Wood does make a lot of hay with Hurricane Erin. They set up their emergency command center on a damn pier, 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?
So in your recent posting, Señor Rogue, I think your framing and analysis is wrong:
... Erin was tracked ... I think the assertion that there was a news blackout on this hurricane is unfounded. As it was closer to the eastern coast, the communities that might be effected were certainly kept abreast of the position of the storm.
Yes, Hurricane Erin was tracked. It was a major news item all week long.
The issue is that Hurricane Erin suddenly and pre-maturely went into a new blackout on the morning 9/11 when it still could affect communities (and air travel) on the eastern coast.
Señor El Once : image has artifacts of digital manipulation
2012-06-04
Señor El Once : testimony of Patricia Ondrovic is worthy of considering
2012-06-04
Dear Señor Rogue,
Please use <blockquote> {what you're quoting} </blockquote> more diligently. I was wondering about the funny formatting of your posting and it wasn't clear until your
"~Jenkins" that it wasn't you writing it. How come no link to the source PDF file (I assume)?
Dr. Jenkins gets it right by faulting Dr. Wood for her analysis of vehicles that were towed to new locations, like the police car at the bridge. However, he makes like of the damage to the vehicles.
No doubt that serial-type burning of vehicles parked closely in the parking lot occured to a degree.
Dr. Jenkins speculates:
One mechanism which would ignite vehicles, buildings, paper, and other flammables in the vicinity of GZ is burning material ejected during the collapse of the towers. Also, it is well established that extremely hot metal and glass were ejected from the collapsing towers which could easily ignite flammable material.
If such ejaculations of hot metal and glass happened, the issues are: (a) Remants of such items would have been present on the targets. They weren't, except for dust in cases. (b) The targets wouldn't have been just vehicles but would have been trees, leaves, paper, and humans.
The
testimony of Patricia Ondrovic is worthy of considering:
As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the West Side Highway. ... I ended up running through this park, and I couldn't even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North [through North Park]... As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren't near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys hadn't gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.
No comments:
Post a Comment