Señor El Once : Think about the victims and simVictims
Dear Mr. McKee,
If you felt like poking at their emotional wound, the response to "think about the 3000 victims" becomes:
Yeah, let's! Did 3,000 victims really die? I mean, they can't prove that commercial airplanes even took off. And it has been sure disproven that some special aircraft other than a commercial airliner hit the towers, so the "victims" attributed to them reduces the 3,000 number. The Pentagon aircraft also wasn't a commercial one, and even if it were, that aircraft flew over the building. The Shanksville aircraft crash had no seats, no luggage, and no body parts. Where are the victims from the planes?
Now if we go into the towers to tally their numbers, they were under-occupied with an exodus starting with their 1993 bombing, plus several floors had doors govt front companies with prominent nameplates and employees in name only. Certainly people died, but the numbers only add up to 3,000 in funny ways.
One of the funny ways is seen by the wiped out division of the Office of Naval Intelligence, its agents, and its records that dealt with the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD budget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld spoke of the day before 9/11 to the media. Another funny one are the SEC records that were killed when WTC-7 went down with one of its demolition stages having 100 feet of observable free-fall. Another funny way are the instances of simVictims.
Think about the victims, because the lives that stoked "USA patriotism" took in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan each exceed the proven facticious 3,000 number from 9/11.
Señor El Once : bashing Dr. Jones
Dear Mr. Syed, you wrote:
Meantime, while my group and I were handing out hundreds of ESO dvds on the street, the fake truthers at truthaction (Snowcrash, Albanese, truthmover, jimd3100, Hill, Gold) spent the anniversary bashing Dr. Steven Jones...
I commend you for getting out on the street to promote 9/11 insider job awareness.
Without seeing examples of how these fake truthers were bashing Dr. Jones, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on their actions. Maybe it depends on how they were bashing him and what topics they could bash him on.
Disclaimer: I've been bashing Dr. Steven Jones for quite some time here on Truth & Shadows. I apologize that the following refresher isn't comprehensive and gets a bit repetitive.
Need I remind you of nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones stepping into the picture, accepting that govt report "hook, line, and sinker" with no backtalking or contesting, and then tweaking it further in at least two scientific-slights of hand? How quickly you forget! What would have been the purpose of these juking efforts if the radiation wasn't substantial (e.g., enough to consider a nuclear component)? Even with the juked numbers, they were 55 times greater than previous background levels! Dr. Jones put his damn reputation on the line to steer us away from even considering the levels that the report mentions which we have no reason to believe were the actual levels.
But what I do have is Dr. Jones swallowing this govt report unchallenged. And then the good Dr. Jones makes some unscientific logic errors to conclude "no nukes were involved," re-defines trace levels of radiation to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11, and offers no explanation for what might have been the source for even the (juked?) amounts of the deeply flawed govt report.
The logic error from Dr. Jones is saying (paraphrased according to an Odell's Double Pilsner on Father's Day): Three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures respectively A, B, and C. Becaused we measured D, not only were these exact three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z not used, but no friggin' nuclear weapons were used of any sort or manner. As long as you are swallowing this bunk, I won't entertain any speculation into what could cause radiation levels D. And you will believe me, because I am a friggin' Bee Why You nuclear physicist who was involved with cold fusion in a nefarious way in 1989.
And now, it seems, I have more beef in the form of Mr. Prager's efforts to back-up what my well-founded suspicions were getting at.
From Page 52 of "1 - 162 • 911 America Nuked.pdf" [Part 1: 86MB]
The reasoning by Dr. Jones and others used to explain the high levels of tritium are scientific frauds... Although Dr. Jones addressed the following issues partially, loosely, imperfectly in a fragmented manner using poor science that is just good enough to fool most people, he failed to adequately and properly address the increased uranium, thorium (two elements found only in radioactive form) tritium and the high levels of zinc, barium, strontium, vanadium, and especially potassium and sodium (these 2 are crucial) among other elements found in the dust as the levels increase and decrease together across 35 sampled locations by the USGS. Dr. Jones failed to use the Product Momentum Correlation and the ‘t’ test statistic, formulas he’s intimately familiar with, to discuss the various levels of these elements as they are seen in the dust, "together". Dr. Stephen Jones himself studied Muon Catalyzed Fusion for the US Department of Energy in critical detail and is intimately knowledgeable in this area. ... Dr. Jones’ studies in muon catalyzed fusion involved deuterium, uranium and tritium which produce uranium and tritium as a by-product of fission and fusion and were both found in high amounts in NYC. ... Dr. Jones should be fully aware of the nuclear component to the events of 911... Since he’s obviously not and further seeks to hide the nculear component the only logical explanation is that he’s been tasked with covering it up.
Funny how it works that if a production is too shoddy or too slick, it will gather suspicion of being propaganda. Mr. Prager's efforts are on the slick side. At least they are a pleasure on the eyes for now [if you can get over the zig-zag reading style of multiple columns in a PDF.]
If Mr. Prager is disinformation, I haven't found what it is just yet. Don't worry. Duped useful idiot that I am, I said the same thing about Mr. Shack's September Clues, NPT, Dr. Wood's new textbook,... but I have come around in thought on these to just protect the nuggets of truth that I found in these disinformation sources that others were purposely ignoring -- by design. The analysis of the dust is a nugget of truth. Until it is refuted with properly applied science and analysis, it becomes a dusty gun damning a whole bunch of leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement including and not limited to Dr. Jones.
Señor El Once : a very similar line
Mr. Rogue writes:
I can recall another 9/11 “researcher” using a very similar line…hmmm?
[The line in question: "I can prove this and don’t need peer reviewed to confirm the science.”~Prager]
"Hmmm?" indeed, because you've had all summer to read and review a gift copy of Dr. Wood's textbook to discover what was relevant and what wasn't. Where's my chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly review? It made you sick, you said, not realizing that this could have been valid criticism if you put some meat behind it.
I brought up more than just several times [ad nauseam] the issues I had with Dr. Jones work, highlights above. The Jones errors are rather blatant, yet I've never read any capitulation on your part, or even a back-handed agreement... "Well, yeah, I guess Dr. Jones did do all of those unscientific things in his Public Relations tour, but..."
I sent you links to Mr. Prager's work in advance of posting things here, thereby exposing my game plan and giving you a leg up. And all we get is this guilt by weak-ass association ploy?
Go to the library, my retired friend. Use their network to download Prager's big files to a flash drive. Inform yourself. You won't really have much meaningful to say until you start disputing levels of [name an element] found in correlated amounts at different locations to [name an element] that both have correlation to advanced nuclear weapons as per reports by the government that Dr. Jones conspiciously ignored.
Señor El Once : no innocent or pure angel
Dear Mr. McKee,
If the Prager/Deets/Fox article is coming, I'll back down and try to keep my pollution of this thread with technical battles to the minimum already posted.
Mr. Rogue has the shot across his bow and forewarning where I will go when the opportune article is available in the hopes that it will improve the merits of both of our technical points.
And Mr. Syed has the notification that Dr. Jones is no innocent or pure angel in his 9/11 participation. He is guilty of omissions -- blatant ones in the realm of nuclear physics -- that are now coming back to haunt him like bad Karma. Some criticism of Dr. Jones' efforts is valid, so we can get at the truth.
Let's all put on our thinking caps when evaluating the newer nuclear links.
Señor El Once : simVictims sours the notes in your mind
Mr. Rogue writes correctly:
The ‘Simulated Victim’ rag that accompanies the ‘video fakery’ rag, has always hit a sour note in my mind... at least as far as a wholesale deal.
"Right you are, Mader." By design. By design simVictims sours the notes in your mind.
The Public Relation gambit placed upon simVictim by their main champions (Clues Forum and Let's Roll Forums) is purposely overplayed to purposely eventually get it discredited and taken off of the table. Doesn't mean that the victim rolls weren't enhanced a bit with the help of photoshop and social media. Don't buy it in wholesale bulk quantities. Smaller quantities at retail prices don't go bad as fast.
I think the Ohioian airport was Columbus and not Cleveland, but agreed, it was involved in "processing" a portion of the real people listed as plane victims. Being on the ground would also assist purported cellphone calls.
All four planes were so under-occupied, they all could have fit into one plane and could have been made to believe just about anything: "Your original aircraft had mechanical problems. You are being put on this flight (from Columbus) that will fly you to [Atlanta] where we will put you in 1st class on the connecting flight to where you think you should be going."
The debris spread for miles verus the staged site at the old mine shaft? My, my. That is somewhat of a pickle to explain. If there was going to be the one, then why the other? Maybe because they were hedging their bets between:
(A) A fictional story of passenger's daring-do that put a plane nose down in a mine shaft... I mean, "field". No bad karma aired in public for having shot the plane down.
(B) A fictional story of a (Vice-) President finally showing some leadership by blowing out of the sky the last "aircraft missile." If spun right, bad karma for killing our own becomes manly & decisive leadership to sacrafice a few in order to save many [in the nation's capital.]
They ran their Nielson polls on the matter and obviously opted for A as the official story for the media talking heads. Whether or not a real commercial aircraft was shotdown and whether or not it would have contained real people (much less the reported people) are pure speculation. Of the wider path of debris, I do not recall even that having bodies or body parts, when it should have.
The two fictional stories (A) and (B), however, end up being a stop-gap fairy tale with the govt deceit at the ready to be exposed. Dick Cheney fantasy speech: "Yes, you damn sonofabitches! I gave the god-damn order to shoot down that fucking plane before more innocent lives on the ground were lost, and I'm damn proud of it. And I'm guilty of lying about it and ordering the Shanksville crash site be created to distract and cover over this deed, because I didn't want any of you weak-dick-liberal media hacks bemoaning me acting like a leader sworn to protect this nation from its enemies by sacrificing a few citizens for the greater good. Get over it, assholes, and look at the complex bigger picture: we were fucking attacked by foreign terrorists, and my orders protected us."
Once this circus made its rounds,... Just another spin.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
I've got one eye shut and my head tilted by 15 degrees as I look funny at your posting:
[Willy Loman's] defamation of Jones for not going far enough in finding “other” materials in the dust samples is really a long and low shot. Anyone familiar with the sequence of Jones’ discovery chain, knows exactly why the evidence led to the thermite probability. On top of this Jones never claimed that it had to be thermite alone that did the whole job... mentioning RDX and others as possibly -even likely added explosives. ... Anyway, some of the Jones bashing is manufactured cointel, some of it is bandwagon. All of it is resulting in the SMOKING GUN evidence put in question... in my view that is the whole agenda.
Hmmm. Tsk, tsk, Mr. Rogue. This is a bit narrow-minded of you. And also a bit pre-mature, given that the Prager tabulation and highlighting of evidence originally presented by USGS data should have pointed in another nuclear direction: both for your conclusions and Dr. Jones. How far along are you in your reading there?
Where you see "some of the Jones bashing being manufactured cointel", I see how "some of the Jones defense being manufactured cointel" (... tsk, tsk, after a great run of legend establishment against Fetzer.) Keep us away from nuclear thoughts.
Face it. Dr. Jones and A&E9/11Truth did not scientifically study the dust samples for all that they might contain. Gregg Roberts came up with a lame reason -- passed the "sell-by-date" -- for not doing it even late and after the fact. They didn't look for RDX or anything else after they found their red flakes of super-duper-nano-thermite. They stopped there! How scientific is that? Not very. And as Prager points out, Dr. Jones didn't look for Uranium and other trace elements either that TOGETHER and correlated TOGETHER over many systematic measuring locations would be signature -- oh, I don't know, maybe -- to the very nuclear themes that Dr. Jones spent many fruitful years researching and studying.
Oh, and on a tangent theme.
You made all sorts of innuendo about Dr. Fetzer keeping his academic position, getting the McKnight promotion, and retiring with honors. In other words, he suffered no financial down-side from being a government shill. "I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Fetzer is a False Flag PSYOP."
[Jones] lost his teaching career, was stabbed in the back by associates, and has been raked over the coals by toadyboy pricks like James Fetzer and his F-trooper goon-squads.
Really? Lost his teaching career? Like Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Jones never suffered any financial down-side. He was on paid administrative leave (while a peer-review-posse was formed) when he himself decided to retire (which shelved the peer-review-posse), getting in the process the emeritus title and never having to vacate his BYU office or his retirement benefits.
Guess what? The Prager re-publishing of the true USGS findings would prove that the peer-review-posse would have legitimately twisted that back-stabbing-knife.
You went on with your Dr. Jones defense:
I am fairly convinced that a great deal, if not most of this alternative 9/11 truth movement has focused on the ruination of Professor Jones, and his chemical controlled demolition evidence; which by the way, never held nanothermite as the exclusive explosive used in said demolition.
True enough: Dr. Jones never held nanothermite as the exclusive explosive used in said demolition. But Dr. Jones also never properly identified all of the possible additives, when the dust was at his fingertips. Worse, he purposely missed those pesky traces of nuclear hijinx in the dust, that he, as a nuclear physicists and right up his alley of nuking research, should have spotted and expounded upon extraneously and extensively.
The performances here give new meaning to that Helgian Dialect and who might be working what side of the disinfo pincer.
Señor El Once : swiping with broad brushes
Dear Mr. Rogue swipes with a very broad brush:
Again, it is my assertion that this ‘New Wave 9/11movement’, composed of ‘No-Planes’, ‘Video Fakery’, ‘Holograms’, Nukes at WTC, DEW – is all a counter intelligence operation.
Two out of the five don't belong in that list (Nukes and DEW). The nukes themselves were directional and designed for specific forms of energy output and low radiation, thus putting them into the class of DEW.
A third one of the five (video fakery) is right on the fence. Indeed, insufficient video fakery has been proven to merit discounting videos as evidence. Indeed on the other hand, valid instances of video fakery attempts [e.g., the orb] proves that this was a technique at their disposal that they at least toyed with.
I'm surprised that you included "Nukes at WTC and DEW" in your list, given the information known to be at your disposal from Mr. Prager and Dr. Wood that you've fluffed out one excuse after another for not having completely objectively reviewed for the good, the bad, and the ugly. You, like me, can even enter the subject with a bad and ugly bent, but those good nuggets of truth ought to be irresistable and scooped up into our bucket of nuggets of truth slated for preservation and re-purposing.
It is ironic that good is so much apart of your other research endeavors and reasoning into macro cause-and-effect, but not in the nuclear DEW realm. It stands out, really. More than a tick of personality or intellect.
I agree that "[It]... is all a counter intelligence operation." As with many counter intelligence operations, it can be difficult and even counter-intuitive to reason why the efforts of such an operation is expended on one side versus the other. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Clarifying snippets from a much delayed email:
Dr. Wood's book is yours, and I'm not going to add to your financial stress by asking it be sent anywhere.
I never asked for your 100% agreement with the book. I asked for an objective review and preservation of nuggets of truth. That is the one thing that still is lacking from your comments. You dismiss too easily the whole work based on perceived flaws here and there. This is certainly by design of the disinfo vehicle, but it can't be the techniques used by truth seekers.
The overlap from the book and her website was stated at the onset. Nothing new.
The text itself isn't bullshit (100%). What is bullshit is the innuendo (e.g., free-energy from space, Hutchison) and the omissions (e.g., nuclear evidence). And where she got things wrong, she also got other things right in presenting evidence that needs explanations. The explanations that you've defended -- pyroclastic clouds, etc. -- do not address adequately the damning evidence, from the anomalous vehicle damage to the unquenchable under-rubble fires to the "Jones tritium dog-and-pony show" to the first responder ailments. [And when you start looking at the dust, the asbestos that you attributed to their ill health was found in the lowest quantities at the WTC as compared to what was blown throughout the city.]
It turns out, however, that some of Prager's and the Anonymous Physicist's work have overlap with Dr. Wood. And what is interesting is that Dr. Wood's chapter on Jumpers, that I assessed as "throw-away", is coming back into my thinking when considering Prager's work. Specifically, she writes about how there was seeming little fire near them, but lots of smoke; survivors were at the windows and had oxygen. What then compelled people to jump when death by smoke or fire wasn't a foregone conclusion, when they would have just had to wait it out at the windows? The nature of those "baseball nukes" and ones that might have prematurely gone-off or fizzled can explain their motivation to jump.
The book is serving quite well its purpose as one of my rhetorical tools to knock you upside the head in debate. But I would really prefer having us objectively agree on the good, the bad, and the ugly -- or most of it -- because the "good" are clues to the truth. Her evidence on WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 is woefully under-explained.
I've been giving you my playbook in advance on nukes and whatnot.
I remind you that I also gave you my playbook on Dr. Wood's book very early. Anything short of an objective review of the good, bad, and ugly I was going to make hay with. As it turns out, nuclear hay. Dr. Wood rightfully raises questions of energies required but avoids nukes, and Dr. Jones with nano-thermite avoids nukes.
As demonstrated with your comments and defense of Dr. Jones, evidently nuclear topics are still part of your agenda to keep serious researchers from exploring.
Señor El Once : Reasonable arguments and counter arguments
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You seem eager to "go your own way", like into "EUTECTIC". More power to you.
You are "not interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear."
Then kindly refrain from making Public Relation statements as hyponotic definitive directives to the readers:
I read Prager’s first ebook. I will say flat out, it is bunk. I looked into his assertions carefully. His argumentation is mortally flawed. And this can be addressed from numerous angles.
Your "careful look into his assertions" involved only one eBook out of at least four download links provided by me. I'm not even sure which one it was, but one of them was pretty short and concise (and appears in whole or in part within at least one other download). It simply talks about the elements found in dust samples, and what finding them in correlated (e.g., proportional) quantities at different measuring points signifies. The data comes from the USGS. Not that this in itself means it should be trusted.
Your quick draw labeling "bunk" and "mortally flawed" from "numerous angles" should be reserved for after you have read all the books, for when you are "interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear", and for when you can address your assertion from at least a couple angles of the "numerous". Otherwise, it comes off as premature and resembling what I accuse you of:
... evidently nuclear topics are still part of your agenda to keep serious researchers from exploring.
Maybe you lacked the time to find more appropriate words when you used the adjective "reasonable."
I still do not agree that you are making reasonable counter arguments.
I've provided my sources. Recently, the links were given. I've spent my own money to get a book into your hands. I've stated what I'm preserving as nuggets of truth, and flagging what might be dubious, lest there be confusion. I'm eager to have my views changed when new information and analysis becomes available.
What could be more reasonable?
I will tell you what hasn't been more reasonable: your efforts to dissuade me from nuclear DEW.
Unlike the numerous and wide gaps in every conventional and non-conventional (e.g., thermite, thermabaric) demolition method that you have ardently defended, nuclear DEW has fewer and tighter gaps. It can explain the energy of pulverization, the unquenchable hot-spots, the tritium reports, the fast-dissipating radiation, the anomalous vehicle torching, the first-responder ailments, the ease in logistics, the elements in dust pile, the government's disinformation song-and-dance away from nuclear topics...
I want serious researchers to do their own research as to their own judgement. I want any to make their case in a reasonable manner, and to be able to defend in such a manner any counter arguments.
Yeah, well, the counter arguments have to be presented in a reasonable manner as well, and not simply have crass (agenda-toting) judgments projected at readers in a PR manuever that by design lacks substantiation.