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 {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.

What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away.

Triple-W's game playing:

And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO.

Or maybe this proves Triple-W's MO in not addressing the point: arches, horseshoes, and steel doobies!

While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute.

No, they don't have the complete known profile of chemical demoltion. The decimation of those buildings was too quiet to be chemical demolition. The damage to vehicles on West Broadway in the parking lot (and not to flags, people, paper) could not have been achieved by hot-and-spicy burning thermitic dust from the towers.

Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first.

I addressed the point... again. Ho-hum. It is Triple-W who does the dodge. Been smokin' a doobie, but not a steel one.

And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?

Notice the hypnotic suggestion of Triple-W: "the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail." Again, it does not.

The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light.

The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure -- both inner core and outer wall assemblies -- would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.

This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.

This is Triple-W spinning like a top and lying. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like (1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield, (2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding where they would have placed the device plus the outer wall assemblies, (3) debris, and (4) the distance from the detonation.

The fact is, of the small EMP produced, much of could be contained. What wasn't, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris and cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot. (Remember, the damaged vehicles are evidence that Triple-W can't explain reasonably, and for sure doesn't match the profile of chemical explosives.)

The electronic devices were a significant distance from the towers and out of the range of the minimized EMP.

Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.

No, my come-back is "these were neutron bombs whose design and yield are different from little nukes of the run-of-the-mill fission or fusion variety." The neutron profiles are apparent.

But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars.

*BEEP* *BEEP* Nope, weasel. You do the misframing. I never said that the EMP would "scorch steel and blow up cars." What I said, and you failed to understand, was that EMP would induce electric currents in steel (and not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people). The currents would heat the steel, and if great enough, that heat would cause things like paint, seals, and plastic handles to burn. Get enough things on fire on a vehicle, and the gas tank could blow up.

However, more telling is EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. I could see that happening with EMP heating the door and expanding it within its door frame to the point of popping off.

A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive.

Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived -- contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.

Triple-W doesn't have the government reports that measured systematically and promptly alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulated the results, and prove they were zero, so he can't claim the framing of radioactive levels as he does.

Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.

Ho-hum, Triple-W. The little bit of tritiated water was (1) 55 times greater than expected background levels, (2) wasn't measured everywhere -- not the hot-spots or even close, (3) wasn't measured in a timely or systematic fashion before dilution and dissipation.

If Triple-W does not want to rationally go down neutron bomb avenue, then he should have Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan explain:

What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures?

I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation.


x134 Señor El Once : No radiation = no nuke?


x135 Señor El Once : where is the report that documents "no radiation"


x136 Señor El Once : Reading a Book


x137 Señor El Once : Got ignorance much?


x138 Señor El Once : a tighter, more restrictive use of language


x139 Señor El Once : the best way to challenge the official story


x140 Señor El Once : consulted with his bird's brain


x141 HybridRogue1 : slurmiester maximus


x142 Señor El Once : completely misinterpret the assignment


x143 Adam_Ruff : I reject all of their work


x144 Señor El Once : throwing in a screw ball


x145 Señor El Once : a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented


x146 Señor El Once : did he address?


x147 Señor El Once : I poked at his ignoranceg


x148 Señor El Once : Triple-W misframes her work


x149 hybridrogue1 & Adam Ruff : crazy as a shithouse rat


No comments: