Monday, November 11, 2013

Nuclear 2001-09-11

This piece was written by Maxwell C. Bridges for Truth & Shadows. It addresses the issue of what destructive force could have been employed to bring down the World Trade Center towers. The predominant belief within the 9/11 Truth movement appears to be that nuclear devices were ~not~ used, and that conventional chemical based explosives and incendiaries, including some form of thermite, were the primary destructive mechanisms. But here, Mr. Bridges looks at the reports that substantiates those beliefs, finds them untrustworthy, and points out the deliberate disinformation that has steered our understanding. He documents some of the key aspects of the destruction that can't be explained (e.g., duration of under-rubble hot-spots, tritium measurements, vehicle damage, etc.) without the involvement of some other force. Mr. Bridges is a frequent contributor to this blog under the alias "Señor El Once." ~Craig McKee

Instructions: Because some sections are long and induce lots of scrolling, all section titles are hyperlinked to show or hide their content. The controls below show or hide the content of all sections.

Show All / Hide All

While this article provides a rational sequencing of the sections for the nuclear argument being made, it can also serve as a reference piece where sections are read out-of-sequence. For this reason, some seeming repetition does occur to give context to readers who skim, skip, and hop.

1. Introduction

Mark Twain once wrote:

It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled.

This is one of many reasons that make discussing the details of September 11, 2001 so difficult: we've all been fooled by some aspect of it. To top this off, purposeful, crafty disinformation was created, was promoted by mainstream media, and was injected into the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) to dupe even the best of us idiots.

Apologies in advance: this article itself might be serving up its own share of misinformation, so readers are encouraged to prudentially consume this with a healthy dose of distrust. Verify it, nugget by nugget. And because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject, please correct me where I've been misinformed.

Nuclear weapons were used on 9/11

This article proves the nuclear 9/11 premise by reaching into the maw of disinformation sources and preserving the nuggets of truth. That such nugget-mining efforts haven't already been exerted is testament to the infiltration depths of disinformation efforts. The nuclear argument is cummulative and not completely destroyed should individual nuggets be proven inapplicable or wrong. More importantly, when not proven otherwise, nuggets of truth remain and must be addressed in any theory-du-jour.

Executive Summary

A re-configuration of the neutron bomb ( or ERW: enhanced radiation weapon) was deployed on September 11, 2001. Such neutron devices (a) are a variant of fusion, (b) expel the lion's share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, (c) can direct those neutrons and subsequently some of the blast and heat wave, and (d) may ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly (<72 hours), such radiation from the neutron devices dissipates quickly. The phrase is coined "neutron nuclear DEW" (directed energy weapon) to describe it. More than several were deployed per WTC tower.

Señor El Once and Herr der Elf

I am fully aware of the half century mark of that coup d'etat in the USA.

Destiny can be strange. Want to know the true story of how my Batman-alias came to be?

The eleventh day of the eleventh month, I came into this world. Eleven days later, assassin bullets violently departed JFK from this world. Conspiracy Truth were how the stars & planets were always going to align for me, with nine-eleven (2001) being a klaxon song to rally just another Blues Brother onto a mission from God: "Feed my sheep."

I had no choice. I donned the masks of my birthright.

I became: Señor El Once (and sometimes Herr der Elf).

// neu nookiedoo woo-hoo!!!

Friday, September 13, 2013

The Dirt On That

Hide All / Expand All


x192 Señor El Once : The dirt on that

2013-09-13

2013-09-13
2013-09-13

Mr. Adam Ruff wrote [2013-09-12]:

I now place [Barbara Honegger] in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther.

I admit to not having studied Barbara Honegger's videos or Mr. OSS's analysis in detail [due to other things in my life requiring focus], so such an assessment may be valid. However, this does not alleviate anyone of the task of preserving the nuggets of truth from those works that merit such.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Preparation meets Opportunity

Hide All / Expand All



x188 Señor El Once : Preparation Meets Opportunity

2013-09-10

You can always tell when Mr. Rogue's argumentative position is up against the ropes, because both his frequency in postings and his disrespectful tone increase in volume, and he is more inclined to insert a lie or cheat to bolster his losing case.

- 2013-09-09 at 9:23 pm
- 2013-09-09 at 9:36 pm
- 2013-09-09 at 11:23 pm
- 2013-09-09 at 11:54 pm
- 2013-09-10 at 12:21 am
- 2013-09-10 at 2:46 am
- 2013-09-10 at 5:15 am
- 2013-09-10 at 9:20 am


Mr. Rogue (2013-09-10 at 12:21 am) is under the mistaken impression that when he posts in other public venues boastful links to his "works", he can pick-and-choose to whom the "invitation" is intended and who can and cannot read it.

Another mistaken impression that Mr. Rogue harbors is when he insults someone (repeatedly and as his main argument in the debate), he believes that this person is not allowed to defend themselves or correct the record. And should they be so bold, they must do it at his gutter level.

[2013-09-08] "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity"~Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Monday, September 9, 2013

Conductive dust blowing up cars?

Hide All / Expand All


x181 Señor El Once : Conductive dust blowing up cars?

2013-09-09

2013-09-09 at 4:41 pm
2013-09-09 at 4:45 pm

Unless noted otherwise, the following are quotes from Kevin R. Ryan's Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. I apologize that I cannot give meaningful page numbers from the book, because I'm using a Kindle. However, when a quote includes an endnote number, this should help locate the exact position in the book.

... [T]he Bremer Commission essentially wrote the USA PATRIOT ACT. Sonnenberg boasted that 20 of the Commission's 25 recommendations made it into the controversial and poorly reviewed legislation.

I learned a lot from the chapter on L. Paul Bremer and how his WTC tower office was one floor above where the impacts occurred.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) first helps define the problem of terrorism and then profits from that problem through contracts worth tens of billions of dollars. ... [SAIC] has become a private business that cannot be distinguished from a permanent form of government. In short, SAIC is the "fraternal twin of teh intelligence establishment." [849]
[849] Donald L. Barlett and james B. Steele, Washington's $8 Billion Shado, Vanity Fair, March 2007
Therefore, LTC Blirtch of SOCCOM and SAIC had the means and opportunity to neutralize any unwanted explosives that might have been buried in the pile at Ground Zero.

I've learned a lot from the chapter on SAIC. The above is a true Helgian Dialectic stoke: "an interpretive method in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis), the contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis)."

... {the response had the appearance of a} careful rescue operations. [802] But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.
[802] Suzanne Mattei, Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration's Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation, Sierra Club, http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/sierraclub_report.pdf

This is where I take issue with Mr. Ryan, one of many instances where he frames the discussion to be "the use of explosives." However, remnants of nuclear devices (like multiple neutron nuclear DEW) would exhibit the same "hurry to remove evidence."

... shipped out of the U.S. Some of the citical pieces of steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns -- were gone. ... bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. ... The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, ... done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.

My apologies for the imcomplete and disjointed quotes above. [The above was just what I high-lighted.] What struck me was that they were in such a "hurry to remove evidence", they sold it as scrap at below-market (bargain) prices. Note the critical pieces that "were gone", either by removal and/or the demolition means.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

obsolete words for high school graduates

Hide All / Expand All



x177 Señor El Once : obsolete words for high school graduates

2013-09-04

{Disclaimer: Most links on obsolete words go here. Enjoy the re-deploy of today!}

Will wonders never cease?! Every wonder-wench and snoutfair who particpates here graduated from high school or the equivalent! From there, it is anyone's guess the rough and rugged road they took to further their education, be it academic pursuits at an institution or the school of hard knocks.

I don't want to jirble over the complaints of organized education by the spermologers here, because the dreadful curglaff of education is that we always have to be learning and can't be beef-witted about it. A shock-and-awe for me in these days and times is the resistentialism of higher education exhibited by unreasonable debt, which quickly applies slave shackles to all who attempt it (in the USA) despite employment prospects not far above a soda-squirt.

High school math is important in this regard. Today's minimum wage is $7.25/hour ($15k/year), but an inflation adjusted 1968 mininum wage of $1.60 would be $10.96/hour (or $22k/year) [and some argue that it would be $21.16/hr ($44k/year) if it had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, and if the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained.] What should really put the snoutfair of wage earners into a pussyvan is recognizing annual incomes LESS THAN $44k/year is less than 1968's equivalent decency standard of minimum wage. The outrage should bubble up the income ladder and piss more people off.

Joe-Six-Pack high school graduates act like California widows and display their own brand of snobbery against formal education that rings a bit like groaking. The issue with academics in our for-profit educational system is that they know which slide of the bread gets buttered and by whom in terms of research funding. It becomes very easy to leverage silence across the board, and to manipulate, smear, control, etc. those with the vaginas to speak up. 9/11 is no exception.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

I feel special, oh so special.

Hide All / Expand All


x168 Señor El Once : Do I ever feel special!

2013-09-01

2013-09-01
2013-09-01 { expect it to not be published.}

2013-08-30 {This sat in the moderation queue. I asked Mr. McKee either (a) to publish my response or (b) to delete my Rogue's comment (2013-08-29) and my response. I prefer (b), because it is a distraction from Mr. McKee's article and Mr. Rogue has other places where he's re-posted the same.}



Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn't just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.

[1] 2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm
[2] 2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm
[3] 2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm

To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) dedicated to me, when I thought PROLOGUE was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an "Autodidact Polymath" who "worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention" (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm); who has ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology" (2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM); and who has been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years and 9-11 Psyop... is an issue that [he understands] quite well (2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM). One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: reference links.

I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:

Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation... When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.

Regarding his [third] retread posting (2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm and here) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I've used to describe Mr. Rogue -- cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent --, the cherry-picked quotations from me lack substantiating links.

Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his "doctorates equivalent studies in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation". Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those terrible things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the "or not."

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Proper Recourse to Handle Disinformation Sources

Hide All / Expand All


x164 Señor El Once : proper recourse to suspected disinformation

2013-08-28

Dear Mr. Ruff,

With your 2013-08-27 posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the third time in the row by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., "everthing" and "all"), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:

Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer.

There's that catchy phrase, "I reject all of their work" that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread "I reject everything from a particular researcher"... once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. "All" and "everything" leave no room for exceptions (e.g., those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain't nobody had no issues with).

It isn't a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can't.

But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:

(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.

Finding instances of disinformation -- particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace -- does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you've got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Assume that Triple-W is the infiltrator

Hide All / Expand All


It slipped through the cracks that this re-purpose didn't happen. Useful to see how much effort Mr. Rogue put into side-lining nuclear considerations with lies, cheats, and weasel energy.

Monday, August 12, 2013

lives up to the "weasel"

Hide All / Expand All


x133 Señor El Once : lives up to the "weasel"

2013-08-12

2013-08-12
2013-08-12 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}


Triple-Dubya lives up to the "weasel" that I append to his initials. It starts out that he is too weasely to post on my thread, posting here instead 2013-08-08. He charges:

Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions.

Triple-W previous wrote:

To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being "like a foundry" down in that mess.

There are four main pieces of evidence the the weasel tries to brush aside by not addressing specifically: (1) the arches A & B, (2) the horseshoe C & D, (3) the twisted-up stuff E, and (4) the steel doobies F and G.

In order to create the horse-shoe D, the physical space needs to be available for one end of the beam to be bent to "kiss" the other end, after of course something heated its mid-section to be bent. That physical space would not have been available once the pile had come crashing down and was sitting smoldering.

Just as importantly, take a look at the multiple examples of what I call a "steel doobies". In G, it stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image (I'm told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The "steel doobie" is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble. In fact, steel doobie F wasn't under the rubble either.

So, one can't malframe the discussion, as attempted by Triple-W, that "a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them" deformed them into what they are. In fact, Triple-W has no explanation for how chemical explosives with or without thermite could make this doobie.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

to the absurd, and planting doubt in even highly gullible persons


x103 Señor El Once : to the absurd, and planting doubt in even highly gullible persons

2013-03-12

Peter writes:

I think Dr. Judy Woods – is an example of pushng to the absurd and planting doubt in even highly gulible persons. I’m not saying she’s a hired gov’t dis-informant but her theory is so implausible I think it would cause most rational persons to say, “Nahhh. She is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible. These examples pertain to 9/11.

I have Dr. Wood's textbook and have read it from cover-to-cover. I'll be the first to admit that (IMHO) Dr. Wood purposely inserted absurd elements and distractions, which include the Hutchison Effect, free-energy from space, downplaying hot-spots, and weak nuclear analysis. In her defense, I view them as "get-out-assassination" moves. [She did lose one of her students under suspicious circumstances, and he was the one helping her with her website which kind of stagnated in 2006.]

Her book is very crafty. Those who say "her theory" obviously haven't read it, because she has little in this regard. She introduces concepts; she presents lots of evidence that any theory-du-jour has to adequately address in order to be considered valid. [Her textbook is worth the investment just for the collection of images and correlation to map positions to give one a much better understanding of the WTC destruction.] But she has nothing that ties together concepts or evidence into a cohesive whole or into a decisive statement: "this is how the WTC was destroyed." Nope, it ain't there. And also what isn't there is anything that addresses criticism of things from her website (e.g., Dr. Jenkins), which is a shame. She could have fixed errors from her website instead of re-hashing them (e.g., cars towed to bridge). She could have addressed other concepts, like those from the Anonymous Physicist and the nuclear angle. She could have included more data points, such as other videos of the expiring spire that clearly show it "telescoping" and "falling", yet to this day, the one viewpoint she uses suggests erronously "vaporization of steel".

I find it very suspicious that not a single prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever done a chapter-by-chapter book review to highlight the "the good, the bad, and the ugly." They give sweeping dismissals using phrases like "looney", but offer scant few details. They can't afford to acknowledge the nuggets of truth contained in her textbook -- however few and far between some might claim them to be --, because those nuggets of truth are very damning.

Dr. Wood isn't as wrong as most 9/11 Truthers make her out to be, though. And she does an important job of getting people to think outside-the-box.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The G.P. of Hybridrogue1

Hide All / Expand All


x86 Señor El Once : "best evidence" is really a ploy to have it been deemed the "only evidence"

2013-03-06

The skew of Mr. Rogue -- the proven liar and cheat -- goes like this:

Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as Thermite in the dust from the WTC towers?

The problem isn't that thermite *might* have been involved. The problem is that what the cheat calls "best evidence" is really a ploy to have it been deemed the "only evidence" and for honest researchers to stop looking.

The fact of the matter is that this "thermitic best evidence" does not account for all of the observed side-effects of the destruction, from the pulverization to the maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots for many weeks. It comes up very short.

Plus, there's tritium, tritium, tritium and what proper analysis of the WTC dust reveals: correlated elements signifying involvement in the destruction and representing a recipe for nuclear hijinx.

Encounter with the COTO-Crew-Cuts

Hide All / Expand All


It slipped through the cracks that this re-purpose didn't happen. Useful to see how Mr. Rogue comes unhinged on his home court.