Hide All / Expand All
Señor El Once : adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".
2012-07-20
Mr. Rogue wrote:
Niels did a calculation based on a false assumption, that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized — they were not, and this can be proven by they debris samples themselves as Prof Jones points out. Only a portion of the materials were pulverized to nano particulates – that is a FACT.
To pulverize anything into nano-particulates is still a large energy sink.
The assumption that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized is worst case. [However, I have doubts that assumption applies in a straw man fashion, but let's go with it anyway.]
So, Mr. Rogue, please do some math and scale back Dr. Harrit's supposition of the "source" materials until you think the nano-particulates and the not-so-nano-particulates output are representative of the actual evidence. The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be "massive" and "ginormous".
One other thing, possibly a misframing (or "science-challenge skewing.") My understanding of Dr. Harrit's email was to account for the extrapolated-from-dust-samples amount of spheroid iron estimated in the debris pile. Again taking a worst case approach (albeit very conservatively) and assuming the iron spheroids were one of the resultants of a nano-thermite chemical reaction with steel, the quantities of nano-thermite had a significant number of "000,000" between a non-zero digit and the "kg" units [for just one tower], making logistics an Occam Razor negating factor.
Now I know that in recent discussions [July 6, 2012 at 1:56 pm, July 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm], Mr. Rogue has been talking mixing (either chemically or in a tandem parallel fashion) nano-thermite with another explosive [e.g., PETN, Semtex, super-RDX, and thermobaric] with more "brisance."
Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. It is a measure of the rapidity with which an explosive develops its maximum pressure. A brisant explosive is one that attains its maximum pressure so rapidly that a shock wave is formed. The net effect is to shatter (by shock resonance) the material surrounding or in contact with the supersonic detonation wave created by the explosion. Even within high explosives which build up a supersonic shock front, some build up faster than others, yield higher detonation velocities, and tend more towards controlled shock fronts in bulk, all of which lead to higher brisance.
I've highlighted the nugget of truth: a shock wave is formed. Shock waves produce sounds... loud sounds... sounds measurable as high decibel levels.
I've written before that Dr. Sunder -- neither an actor nor a politician -- said on camera with a straight face and no lying ticks paraphrased words to the effect: "We ruled out known conventional controlled demolition explosives and known military explosives, because the signature decibel levels were not present." [I think Dr. Sunder was told what it was, that it wasn't chemical explosives, which then enabled him to talk with a straight face and say the words that it wasn't chemcial explosives. So could I.]
However, this posting here is mixing together different things. One thing is accounting for the iron spheroids (Dr. Harrit's email.) Mr. Rogue is now trying to explain nano-particulates -- and seems to be pointing to the same Dr. Harrit email.
Doesn't matter. Those "brisant-y" materials can have math estimates made regarding their likely initial quantities. As I've done mathematically before (July 10, 2012 at 4:44 am), you can start at one extreme -- 100% nano-thermite -- and scale back its usage in favor of those "brisant-y" materials. Quoting myself and so soon:
The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be "massive" and "ginormous".
Ain't so Occam Razor, and those pesky hot-spots and "tritium" reports suggest something else was involved.
//
Hide All / Expand All
Señor El Once : brisance explosives reach a decibel limit (of the evidence) very fast
2012-07-20
I made the following statement:
Those “brisant-y” materials can have math estimates made regarding their likely initial quantities. As I’ve done mathematically before (July 10, 2012 at 4:44 am), you can start at one extreme — 100% nano-thermite — and scale back its usage in favor of those “brisant-y” materials.
I forgot to mention that due to the correlation of brisance to a shock wave that would have high decibel readings, the substitution of some of the 100% nano-thermite [as per Dr. Harrit, one extreme] for some percentage of brisance explosives will reach a limit very fast, else its usage will not be compliant with the audio evidence [harped by NIST and Dr. Sunder].
//
Señor El Once : eleven (11) flat-screen TV's
2012-07-20
As per my admission of going to the fitness club at oh-dark-early [after taking a few minutes to appreciate celestial wonders], I was indeed at the club this morning.
Late in my workout, I got on a piece of new equipment towards the back in one room that has [rinky-dink coincidentally] eleven (11) flat-screen TV's along the front wall. [As usual] I did not have my headphones plugged into the tuner, nor was I close enough for my eyes (without glasses) to read all the fine print in the banners, just the larger titles. I wasn't paying attention on purpose, and was just visually scanning between the eleven televisions.
Did I mention that I live in Colorado, the same state in the news today because of the Movie Theater shooting last night? As such, all of the local news talking heads and footage (abc, nbc, cbs) were hot onto this theme. One of the stations had a helicopter that was circling the theater, by that time basking in the dawn light.
I thought the helicopter was from station A. Here was the strange thing. All of sudden on the adjacent TV that was tuned to local competitor station B, I see the exact same LIVE helicopter feed, but with this one distinction: its banners were different and didn't credit the source station. Not just different, less. And when it comes to TV station banners, less is more in my book, and that is why I first noticed it. Station B was actually showing more of the raw feed with its modified, smaller banner.
Then, of course, on both station A and station B, the producers independently shift from two tiled windows of the helicopter shot and their talking heads, to just the helicopter shot, to reporters-on-the-scene, yada, yada, yada. But because I wasn't tuned into the audio and wasn't reading the text, I could focus on the moments in time when a version of the LIVE helicopter shot appeared in parallel on both stations.
But as mentioned, there were eleven (11) television sets. At least abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, fox, and msn were part of those tuned into news for the early-morning die-hard fitness fanatics. The amazing thing is that eventually the exact same LIVE helicopter shot began appearing at the same time on these various news outlets. [Occassionally, the LIVE shot was delayed by several seconds.] From what I could tell without my spectacles, none were really attributing a single-source but were applying their own banner on top of the identical feed and branding it as their own.
Aside from the eleven (11) television sets and this being the eleventh (11) year since 9/11, I was reminded by this inexplicable sharing of common footage between "competing" networks of the sharing that happened on 9/11 between "competing" networks (a surviving nugget of truth from September Clues.)
Consolidation of our news into a few hands is complete.
What really struck me, though, is why there is not raw feed from 9/11 without obnoxious banners -- that another surviving nugget of truth from September Clues proves was particularly tall and obnoxious on 9/11? Yep, this is another sign of media complicity on 9/11. And we see today's news coverage has integrated even further into their productions "single-source" feeds.
Now go back to what you were previously doing. And don't forget to make an effort to view the oh-dark-early sky [4-5 am] for the celestial wonders happening this very instance.
//
Señor El Once : wouldn't want to walk from Columbine High School in Littleton to the movie theater in Aurora
2012-07-21
You wouldn't want to walk from Columbine High School in Littleton to the movie theater in Aurora. Certainly not during the heat of the day; drink plenty of water. But if you were to use a bicyle, easily a one to three hour ride, depending on fitness level and ability to navigate bike paths and neighborhoods with less traffic. Driving time in a car depends on traffic and route, but 25-45 minutes easily.
Suspect is neuroscience Ph.D. candidate
Holmes was studying neuroscience in a Ph.D. program at the University of Colorado-Denver graduate school. University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery says Holmes was a student until last month. Montgomery says Holmes enrolled in the program in June 2011 and was in the process of withdrawing.
Mind control experiment gone awry... (or as planned.)
Señor El Once : welcome to drink my bong water
2012-07-22
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
The trained monkeys or three stooges with whom I share my bong is none of your business. You are welcome to drink my bong water, though.
they believe that aluminum cuts steel and that planes penetrated WTC1 and 2.
I believe that any substance A accelerated to large velocities can do damaging and crippling numbers on just about any other substance B, even as substance A gets decimated into nothingness in the process. This is why debris left in space -- even a tiny screw or nut -- can be so dangerous. While lead is very heavy and dense, it is also very maluable but can punch through steel when projected as a bullet.
With your (repeatedly proven) superficial understanding of physics, it is easy to see why you would make an issue of light sheet metal and aluminum of the aircraft seemingly slicing the heavy outer steel of the tower structure. However, I submit to you that velocity of the aircraft [confirmed by multiple independent video angles and radar data] is a key.
Velocity-squared in the energy equation -- as demonstrated by several MythBuster videos with rocket sleds and rocket wedges -- can be decimating, with surprising material failure unfathomable at much slower "human" or "car" speeds.
While speeds of 400-500 mph should introduce some uncertainty to your superficial knowledge of Newtonian collisions with regards to perceiving what would happen to impact points, those velocities are also a smoking gun that disprove the govt contention of "what types of aircraft" were involved, because normal commercial aircraft could not have flown those speeds with such precision (manually by non-professional pilots, no less) at those low-altitudes. The engines alone would have been incapable of producing the necessarily thrust in the thick air.
Therefore, when the very real prospect of NPCT [no commercial plane conspiracy theory] is entertained that uses suped-up engines and computer guidance to get the velocity and precision targeting, all of your conjecture about "(weak) aluminum (wings) cutting steel (columns)" may be based on a faulty assumption as to what materials were truly in the wings.
hybridrogue1 : reply from Prof Jones
2012-07-22
July 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm
I did receive a reply from Prof Jones today.
I may or may not discuss that reply here, depending upon whether he approves my sharing it.
I will say that none of my detractors will like nor approve of what he says. That is a given, as they obviously don’t like real physics getting in the way of their ideas.
July 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Senor Once,
After the emails I received from Professor Jones this afternoon, I have more confidence than ever that I am on the right track with what I have been saying.
I will have to put this in my own words, because I did not ask for nor receive permission to quote anything from those emails.
Jones did not mention anything about Harrit’s calculations. But he did suggest a way for me to determine for myself what the probable amounts of explosives would be to take down the towers.
That amount would be 52 tons of explosives with the brisance of TNT.
Considering that there are explosives far more powerful for a 2001 event, I can be comfortable with the 52 ton amount, as a standard to be reduced or added to depending on what combinations of explosives and flagellants we wish to propose.
……….
On a separate note:
I submit to you that measuring the actual decibels by a sound recording is impossible unless one knows the exact mic and attenuation of the recorder. It would then need to be determined precisely where that mic was, in both distance and in terrain detail; to account for deflection and reflection of the sound wave.
A seismograph would be more adequate in estimating the soundwave through extrapolation – but then it must be taken into account the attenuation caused by the building itself which is reacting to the blasts with oscillations/vibrations, that will be exhausted before reaching ground level for most of the sequence. So there is no certainty as to exact measurement of Db, by either process – just speculation based on extrapolation.
If anyone knows the exact manner in which NIST came to the Db conclusion they came to I want them to show me.
ww
July 22, 2012 at 11:32 am
Tamborine man,
I never denied that Senor and I have out differences. However, you will note that he doesn’t agree with you on many issues, and he doesn’t agree with Fetzer on many issues.
Senor Once gets very heated in our exchanges and makes remarks like the ones you note here, because of the brisance of our exchanges.
Now if Senor wants to step in here and say that overall, he actually believes the bullshit you quoted him as saying in this post. Fine I will accept that, if he really believes that I am an ‘agent’, we can go with that; he can form any opinions he wishes. If he does actually believe this to be so, let him state thus in no uncertain terms now, while we aren’t in a heated exchange, but now in a state of reflection.
As far as you Tamborine man – I am dead serious, I think you are too ignorant to discuss any science in any fashion whatsoever, and I don’t give a flying fuck what you think about anything. We are clear on this. Right?
ww
Señor El Once : separate my beliefs from Mr. Rogue's actions
2012-07-22
Dear Mr. Rogue wrote:
Now if Senor wants to step in here and say that overall, he actually believes the bullshit you quoted him as saying in this post. Fine I will accept that, if he really believes that I am an ‘agent’, we can go with that; he can form any opinions he wishes. If he does actually believe this to be so, let him state thus in no uncertain terms now, while we aren’t in a heated exchange, but now in a state of reflection.
Mr. Tamborine Man is not quoting from me. He is quoting from the 25 Rules of Disinformation & 8 Traits of the Disinformationalist that I linked to repeatedly and dropped heavy hints as to having parallels with Mr. Rogue's actions.
At this point we should separate my beliefs from Mr. Rogue's actions.
Mr. Rogue has rightly called me gullible and naive on several occassions. I happen to agree with that assessment. [I tend to look for the good in people.] Which is why lots of seemingly reasonable and agreeable postings from Mr. Rogue has me thinking that -- if Mr. Rogue did drink -- having an indepth conversation over moderate amounts of libation would be a pleasant experience. I would be easily persuaded into believing that Mr. Rogue is not an agent.
Whenever I've wound up "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" for a swing at Mr. Rogue's agency associations due to his actions, it's true intent was to jar Mr. Rogue into reflecting on his actions that have such a negative reflection upon him and to open up his mind to being more objective. This was also the purpose of my giving Mr. Rogue a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook. It remains a test of his objectivity that coincidentally will allow me (and others) to push his Q-Group agency buttons until a good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review is forthcoming.
Disclaimer: I am not 100% in Dr. Wood's camp, and neither will Mr. Rogue so be upon completion of this commissioned task. But the surviving (good) nuggets of truth are going to be so, so, so important.
Seeing how Mr. Rogue has established contact with Dr. Jones, maybe Mr. Rogue will find an opportune moment to present him with links to my criticism of Dr. Jones' work.
~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement (2012-02-14)
lead the readers in circles (2012-03-04)
Possibly even more important that jabbing Dr. Jones with the blatant failings in his reports, Mr. Rogue gives us a great opportunity for a valuable exercise.
Preamble to the Opportunity
Mr. McKee included in his article "The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research" this quote from me:
When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement 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.
When I opened my wallet to pay for Mr. Rogue's copy of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook
"Where Did the Towers Go?", I placed these conditions on the transaction that Mr. Rogue agreed to:
Conditions:
- You will give Dr. Wood's textbook an objective and thorough [cover-to-cover] reading.
- You will share your good, bad, and ugly reviews. If the "good" is missing, I clobber you with your own copy.
- If pressed in debate (e.g., on Truth & Shadows), the good, bad, and ugly reviews will extend down to the chapter level. Again, if the good is missing, I clobber you.
- If the book is found worthy, you are to pay-it-forward (or loan/give your copy) to someone else influential in the 9/11 discussion (or leadership).
- If the book is found totally unworthy at the end of your reading, then you should probably give it to someone who will appreciate it.
Details to the Golden Opportunity
Pay-the-book-forward to Dr. Jones, Mr. Rogue, so that the entire world can benefit from his good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review of Dr. Wood's efforts.
From your own experience with me, you can inform Dr. Jones that refusal to accept (or acquire) a copy will be made into hay as will all actions that don't lead to an objective and thorough assessment.
hybridrogue1 : I am going to read Wood’s book
2012-07-22
hybridrogue1 says:
July 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Senor el Once,
I am going to read Wood’s book, and I will keep the book regardless of my assessment of her analysis, simply because it is a handsome volume, with the most comprehensive collection of images from the events, plus interesting charts and figures.
As far as Prof Jones is concerned – like I said in another post, he is fed up with all of the contentions and bickering in the movement, and has moved on to working towards a more sane energy solution for the planet.
I feel it is a great loss to the community that he was harassed to the point of bowing out.
Whatever your take on him is utterly inconsequential to my opinions.
Although I won’t send anything critical of him myself, his email is well enough known, and if you don’t have it, Mr McKee does, and will surely advance it to you, or just go to the BYU web page for Jones.
I will however myself, read your two ‘critiques’ to see if there is anything there that hasn’t been floated to me before.
ww
Señor El Once : third law from Newton
2012-07-23
Dear Dr. Fetzer, you wrote:
Senor, PLEASE CONSULT SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS PHYSICS.
With all due respect, I encourage you to do the same. Although the physics department of your alma matter received honors during the time you were taking classes, did such excellence extend down to the TA's teaching the entry level "Physics without Calculus" courses that you took?
Let's talk about that third law from Newton regarding an equal an opposite reaction.
From the perspective of the aluminum aircraft, a 500,000 ton mesh steel building was closing at 500 mph. Yes indeed, the velocity squared in the energy equation is very significant, and much greater than the structural energy of the materials in the plane.
Luckily, for the parts of the aircraft going into the 40 cm wide windows (on 100 cm centers), we expect to see shredding ala a "hard-boiled egg slicer." Plenty of space for the shreddings to go.
For Newton's third law, the parts of the aircraft hitting the 60 cm wide columns (on 100 cm centers) or the eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external steel support columns at the other and filled with 4-8" of concrete, we expect to see energy transfer (recall the velocity-squared term) from the building obstacles which then overwhelm the structural energy of the light aircraft materials resulting in decimation of those aircraft materials, when they aren't redirected into the empty spaces of the window slits and between floors.
Think of the bullet hitting a steel plate. The equal and opposite energy coming back at the bullet from the plate splatters that bullet to kingdom come on the forward side of the plate. The equal and opposite energy going into the steel plate breaks the steel and sends a plug of steel out the backside.
When impact between building and plane happens and energy is being transferred from the building to the plane, lo and behold, Newton's third law says that an equal an opposite reaction is happening! Thus, those materials of the plane hitting building structure -- though getting decimated themselves -- transfer energy into the steel which has the effect of breaking and slicing those steel columns.
Ask if a plane could enter its whole length into the building without any loss of velocity or how it could do that without exploding on entry.
This without any loss of velocity nonsense is patently false.
We are not talking about velocities of humans or cars with < ~160 mph closing velocities in a head-on crash, where the velocity-squared term is still about on the order of the structural energy of the vehicle. [However, if we were, it would behoove you to study race car crashes, whereby hitting a wall often leaves the vehicle in pieces hardly recognizable.]
With the 9/11 NCPT (no commercial plane theory), the velocities are even greater, and the energy exponentially so. Parts of the planing hitting the solid parts of the building STOPPED with such overwhelming force compared to the structural energy of the materials, they were shattered and separated from the aircraft mass, and their momentum carried them into the empty space between floors -- path of least resistence. Not being part of the aircraft structure or mass anymore, they could play no more role in slowing down the aircraft's tail. [Those parts entering the window slit "slicing & dicing" empty space wouldn't have slowed the tail observably in milli-seconds, either.]
If you haven't alienated all of the physics professors at your college, ask them why they aren't involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement? Surely WTC-7's 100 feet of free-fall ought to convince them.
//
Señor El Once : can’t get much more “special” than that
2012-07-24
Dear Dr. Fetzer, you wrote:
You can’t get much more “special” than that. Even Senor El Once, who is not dumb, seems to believe in miracles on 9/11, since he, too, apparently agrees with rogue1.
Why thank you for that compliment! Miracles, though? Hardly. Special planes and velocity-squared, I can believe in.
You also wrote:
Pilots have shown that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, at the time this was occurring, but they seem to believe it was some kind of "special plane."
We are in agreement that the model of aircraft designated Flight 175 did not hit a tower.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your theory involves (A) holograms and/or (B) video manipulation to explain most of the unusual and uncommon features, some downright physics-defying if the aircraft were truly the aircraft of Flight 175.
You lack substantiation for your hologram claims [except for what we've seen on Star Trek: The Next Generation.] I've given you lots of leeway here, and even did extensive legwork of my own [as did Mr. OneSliceShort]. Your links were the weakest and worst, but it all came up way short. Nothing I've learned suggests that it can be "projected." And suspending belief about holographic projections, they lack physical attributes that would allow them to be picked up by radar, whose data corresponds rather well with the various "amateur" video footage that 3D modeling has proven [to me at least] represents a singular flight path.
I guess you maybe need to get your head around the word special in the phrase special plane. First and foremost, this enabled the aircraft to obtain its closing speed and target the tower with unwavering precision. You copied & pasted:
(2) entering the building with no collision effects whatsoever;
(3) entering the building with no loss in velocity–none at all;
(4) entering the building also without exploding upon impact;
(5) entering at 500 mph but not exiting the other side, even though the plane was 160' long and the building 208' wide;
Perhaps Mr. OneSliceShort will post links to his videos on bunker-busting bombs. They are pretty good about getting penetration before exploding, which then negates much of momentum's efforts to continue traveling and exiting the other side.
All of the above points fit neatly under the phrase special plane.
(1) a vanishing left wing, no strobe lights, no shadows cast;
The instance of the vanishing left wing [in how many clips? One?] can best be explained by video glitches and anomalies coming from the frame rate versus object velocity with respect to the frame. No strobe lights fits in with the moniker of the phrase special plane. No shadows? I saw shadows as it neared the building, and so did you when you were promoting "pods on planes" and the laser flash prior to impact.
(6) where the only engine component alleged to have come from the plane was planted at Church & Murray by agents in FBI vests, who unloaded it from a white van and which was found under steel scaffolding, sitting on an undamaged side-walk, where that part did not even come from a Boeing 767!
Professor Fezter, dude, ah, like... if we're saying the phrase special plane again and again, that could also account for aircraft part that did not come from a Boeing 767. Not a mystery.
With regards to what was planted and what wasn't, the videos consistently show something fairly massive being ejected through the tower and landing about that location [probably after impacting somewhere else and bouncing to where it was found.] Planting a passport, I can believe. Planting a wheel assembly, not quite so much. I prefer to connect the dot that the smoking aircraft piece that flew out of the towers was the same that was discovered there. [Otherwise, what do you think happened to the "item" and what was the "item" that multiple videos captured being ejected from the towers after "impact"?]
I know you didn't get to be a PhD, a professor, and a Marine Corps Officer by being dumb, so some other factor must be at play [that might relate to your military affiliations.]
The piddly amount of evidence that you [and your radio guests] have thrust forth [here, on Veteran's Today, and in your radio program] to promote the viability of projected holograms would barely suffice for a college sophomore research paper.
Shore that up, and maybe I'll flip-flop and believe in your miracles.
Señor El Once : less of a (passenger) plane and more of a missile
2012-07-25
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
Count me in to participate in your discussion. What I lack in posting frequency, I'll compensate with verbosity when I do get around to the few postings I can muster. Don't expect rapid-fire response, response, response. I do R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E and then go away. [Bare in mind that I'm trying to have a real life, which means curbing some of my T&S addiction.]
You asked Mr. OneSliceShort:
Was it a laser-guided “bunker buster” bomb, or are you of the opinion that it was a modified 757 or 767 or something similar?
If we trust the multiple "amateur" videos...
If we trust radar data...
THEN it was not the standard 767 associated with Flight 175 from the speed & precision at low-altitude alone.
Once deep-pockets get into modifying an aircraft, the enhancements can change its nature from being less of a (passenger) plane and more of a missile in terms of its intended functionality and targeting technology. Could even account for Secretary Rumsfeld's slip-of-the-tongue, even though the profile of this missile would resemble a commercial aircraft.
I was going to include in the "If..." clauses:
If we trust eye-witness accounts before television really began jerking with our perceptions...
I don't think we can.
Señor El Once : ridicule of the ridiculous
2012-07-25
With regards to the conventions or rules of this forum, Mr. Rogue wrote on July 24, 2012 at 9:00 pm:
Let us battle it out as we are, and let a candid world decide.
I disagree. Without guidelines, not just a discussion thread but the whole article forum and the blog itself quickly dissolves into flame wars that may even reach the limits specified by Godwin's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one (1).
Haven't heard us calling each other Nazi's, but today's 9/11 equivalent is probably "agent" and "Q-bot". [Yep, these I've flung more than once, albeit generally with a list of specific character examples to substantiate my opinion-du-jour. I would have found "Sashadik" much harder to substantiate had I flung that though.]
The thing is, a candid world doesn't get to decide until after having vicariously experienced the distasteful battle tactics [and may reward or side with the underdog soley for this reason.] This experience with negative tactics can distract and sour readers to the truths & errors of what the battle was really about. At which point, the distraction becomes evidence of the disinfo game and its purpose; the salient arguments on the subject are swept aside [by design] by squibbles and squabbles; the worthiness of the entire blog suffers in esteem and certainly in lasting value to latter-day lurker readers.
And do remember, ridicule of the ridiculous is not ‘Ad Hominem’, there is nothing in the classical rules of argumentum that excuse ridiculous argumentation.
- EXCEPT when ridicule is the core and the first and only argument.
- EXCEPT when ridicule is all that is repeated with nary even a lowly link to substantiation.
- EXCEPT when the claims of ridiculousness are shallow veneers for ad hominem aimed at the individual.
Think about it. For over 10 years, the perception management in media labeled & ridiculed everyone with alternative theories on 9/11 as "nutty, looney, and crazy" [conspiracy theorists.] Their very eye-rolls and smirks provided the on-the-spot overlay commentary that such-and-such was ridiculous.
The ridiculousness wasn't proven, because to attempt such necessitated taking the premise seriously. And worse for the ridiculer, it often validated the premise and invalidated the perception of ridiculousness. [Best for the ridiculer not to go there unless they can show the "error" line-by-line.]
Mr. OneSliceShort on July 25, 2012 at 12:25 am wrote:
... when already proven flaws (or at least highly suspect claims) are brushed over and repeated.
Not really an issue, particularly for those with words worthy of preservation. With preservation comes re-use, re-purpose, and links. Assuming no disingenous games are being played with the destination link, then what can go a long way in a response to another spin on the carousel is a short concise less is more style:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I went through that with you at this link [to a specific comment.]
Without the link, then it is just talk.
Sometimes no response at all is merited. Turn the other cheek and Don't feed the trolls. If the smashing board isn't playing, isn't giving fodder and opportunities for responses, then the conversation becomes boring and stale, if it can even hobble along mostly one-side. Most likely, it can't (or shouldn't). And it stands out like a sour statistic when it does.
Mr. Rogue writes on July 25, 2012 at 11:34 am
I put it to this forum, that those who are disgruntled at my presence here, are discontented not because I am ‘too aggressive’ or use crass language – but are displeased that I am effective in pointing out their outlandish errors which they cannot defend.
From another perspective, when your outlandish errors which you couldn't defend were pointed out, that's when you became aggressive and used (clever) crass language and carousel analogies, and tried to dismiss by saying "we already did a spin on that carousel where I debunked it" [when you didn't really, hence the missing link.]
I further put it to this forum, that none of their arguments against me had merit...
That is rather narcissistic.
But I have made no secret that the suggestions of some to remake this forum into some tepid ‘academic’ round table of “my dear dear So-and-So,” saccharine patty-cake, would ruin what this place has going for it.
I disagree. It takes a lot of discipline & thought to address consistently an opponent in a formal, respectful manner. Emphasis is on thought. When all that can be hoped for is that the "dear Mr. so-and-so" is read aloud with a sarcastic voice, the writer must focus on the subject, its arguments, and its merits, because discipline & thought should excise the insults and clever ad hominem in the pre-publication editing pass.
In some ways, I sense that you are trying to counter my online demeanor [which helped set the tone of T&S and has a longer precedence here] and to turn this forum into a back-shanking free-for-all. [If that is the case, you are welcome to re-start you blog(s), establish its battle rules, and occassionally post links here to fish for new opponents.]
Maybe it is narcissistic of me, dear Mr. Rogue, but I tend to think that by taking the high-road and using wordsmithy jujitsu to note [and even embrace] the insults that you directed at me was far more damaging to you in a reflective, kharma way. Slippery you called me, and indeed such “my dear dear So-and-So” saccharine patty-cake tactics were.
BTW, I have never advocated publicly or privately for your banishment.
What does all of this agency suspicion mean for Truth & Shadows? I'm not saying [Mr. Rogue] should be booted... NO, no, no!!! Better the devil that you know than the one you don't. [Mr. Rogue] writes well and makes many good points (when they aren't dubious), which helps refine my own thinking and waffle-y position.
Mr. Rogue wrote once:
It is obvious [Señor El Once] cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board.
To which I responded:
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..."
Señor El Once : confirms the use of a hologram?
2012-07-25
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
I'm glad that you posted the links to your videos. I'm also sorry that I am not going to watch them [in the very near future], and this response is made in ignorance as to what they contain.
With them being each at 58:00 minutes, they are somewhat of a bandwidth-suck and a time-suck in order for me to watch them and find the nuggets of truth that might prove your assertion:
The radar data, in this case, refutes the official account and confirms the use of a hologram on the South Tower and also the North.
Assuming that you got the highlighted passage from something that could be referenced and read on the internet and that this is the basis for your two-hour talk in Seattle at University Temple United Methodist Church (and with special guest Dr. Nick Kollerstrom), I'm hoping you could provide references.
I've heard that the FAA radar data and the military radar data disagree -- by like 1400 lateral feet. Richard D. Hall makes hay of this in his video, by essentially saying (paraphrased):
One set of radar data is faked. The other (off by 1400 feet) represents radar pings to a cloaked advanced technology aircraft, which then used holographic projection to display the aircraft.
I'm not saying that this is your position or thinking, so maybe you could clarify how you agree or disagree with that and provide links.
Also, when PilotsFor9/11Truth analyzed the radar data, they concluded that it represented velocities that the OCT model of the aircraft (Boeing 767) could not have achieved. This refutes the official account, but -- if the radar data has any validity -- this does not refute a physical aircraft BY DEFINITION of how radar works.
Meanwhile in my own quick googling, I find this:
These delusional fantasists claim that they have radar evidence which PROVES that the towers were hit by a holographic plane! Using 3D "analysis" to support this theory. You may need large wellies to wade through this one:
richplanet part=1
richplanet part=2
richplanet part=3
Followed by this:
Debunked already...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236532&page=12
Yep, I know the debunking is on JREF, but it seems reasonable; a nugget of truth, as it were, from the bowels of a disinformation source.
Here is how jammo sees radar data.
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_line.jpg
He sees (and plots it) as a straight line. Although this image does not show it, the radar path does veer to the left in the final seconds towards the South Tower. This is NOT how a radar path is to be seen.
This is the proper way to see a radar path.
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_block.jpg
It is NOT some pencil sharp line. A radar path is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The red (ASR) path is narrow because it has a greater known accuracy than the blue (ARSR) path. The blue path cannot be used alone to say that the plane in question "hit" a specific spot in time and space. What can be said is, if something "hit" a specific spot in time and space, that it's radar path "hit" it (which in this case it did). The plane can be located anywhere inside the path, but the radar path definitely hit the WTC South Tower.
For the red paths (we have two if you recall, EWR and JFK), both the paths AND the plane can be said to have "hit" the spot.
...
Maybe these graphics will help you with that, maybe not. But at least I tried.
Hmmm...
To the above, we have the fact that NOTHING Dr. Fetzer has ever linked/posted confirms the SCIENCE of being able to project a hologram.
Señor El Once : haven't proven anything
2012-07-25
Frankly I don’t think that Señor El Once has proven anything as per an alternative theory to explosive demolition of the towers by chemical energetics.
Correct, Mr. Rogue. But just because I haven't proven it was nuclear DEW or other exotic weapons (to your satisfaction), doesn't mean that your theory of explosive demolition by chemical energetics is proven or valid either.
Played a role? No problem.
Primary mechanism? No way. Ain't logistically Occam Razor and don't account for all the evidence. (And doesn't fit in with the mentality of those who would attempt this when they have such deep arsenals that the public can only imagine and wouldn't be the wiser.)
Pick any number between 1 and 500. Put "000,000 kg" to the right of it.
For just one tower, this is the estimated quantities of chemical energetic materials (e.g., nano-thermite) that the perps slipped into the towers in the several days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a pre-9/11 holiday.
And it still can't account for under-rubble hot-spot duration, tritium, and vehicle damage in the car park and West Broadway.
So, whereas I'm still searching for a reasonable explanation (and being duped left-and-right), Mr. Rogue wants to park our research at known inadequate and deficient theories that even NIST poo-poo's with decibels.
No comments:
Post a Comment