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 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,

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.

During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that "Security is unbelievable. It's really on a need-to-be-down-there basis."[809]
[808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators,
[809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.

... Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. ... The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.

The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.

... highly secure site, as well as the authority to hire suspected crime syndicate companies to perform the actual cleanup.

The above quotations sets the scene. If the outcome was as the official conspiracy theory spins, there would have been no reason for the unprecedented and tight security at Ground Zero. Pictures of a gravity collapse would not be damning to anyone. On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.

... hypothesis that unexplained explosive or incendiary events were occurring at the site during the cleanup efforts. The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extingished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]
[901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trace Center.

I agree that "unexplained explosive or incendiary events occurred at the site during the cleanup efforts." The cited paper notes a half dozen or so of these; spikes in the release of toxic gases. Yes, this indicates the presence of energetic materials (e.g., chemical explosives or incendiaries). The issue is that these spikes were different than what would be required to maintain the long-lasting nature of the fires.

If we're talking remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- then this explains the ineffectual "extreme firefighting efforts" on the "violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile" as well as the "unbelievable security."

At any rate, Mr. Ryan's book is providing lots of insight into the important questions of WHO and WHY, and HOW in the sense of entities that could be coordinated to pull it and its cover-up off. Unlike Mr. Ruff, just because I have found some skew in Mr. Ryan's work, I'm not "rejecting all his work" but I am approaching it initially with high levels of distruct.

Carrying on with Neu Nookiedoo...

Mr. Rogue out-of-the-blue posts twice (2013-09-08 at 8:12 pm and 2013-09-09 at 12:09 am whereby the latter time stamp is actually 3 minutes before the former, because Mr. Rogue's blog doesn't have its time zone configured properly). He posts quotations from Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins from "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" relating to his analysis of an extensive study of the Banker's Trust building at 130 Liberty Street performed by the RJ Lee Group.

The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings' mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker's Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.

I believe that the above is partially true, but does not tell the whole story. To explain, let me re-tell of an experience in "Solder School" at my first employer during my teenage years. Whenever we hand-soldered components to circuit boards, the rule was that we had to remove the flux used in the solder process to get the heat transfer. I pointed out that flux was petrolium based so would actually serve as a protective barrier on top of the Pb solder and metal lead of the component; water would not get in and rust it; so why remove the flux? The authoritative reply was: "Flux would indeed protect the solder joint in the manner you described, but for a short time. In reality given the long service life of our equipment, flux left on the circuit board would attract dust. Dust in harsh, hot, and humid environments -- where our equipment was deployed -- would attract moisture. That moisture collected by the dust that the flux attracted over time would corrode the leads and electrical connections. Our equipment would not live up to its (extremely long) warranty."

In one of my early jobs out of college, the product in question was a surge tester for three-phase electric motors used in production environments that were often very dusty and humid. Same principle: dust collected in the windings of an electric motor would, over time, attracted moisture that could eventually create corrosion and thus potentially little shorts between individual coils of the windings. Eventually due to the tiny shorts, the three phases of the motor would not be balanced. [The surge tester tested two windings at a time and detected such inductance imbalances between any two phases even in the early stages of corrosion, which allowed maintenance workers at such production facilities to plan and schedule when such pieces of equipment should be taken off-line for cleaning and refurbishing, well before big imbalances that can lead to unplanned catastrophic equipment and production line failure.] It took a significant period of time (a year or more) for such tiny failures in the winding impedance to get to a critical point, and such were the maintenance schedules.

I would like to see examples of "WTC Dust [being] corrosive to unprotected metal." I think many are cases where other mechanisms caused the protective paint coating to be burned off. NYC, being at sea level and at the end of summer, would be a humid place. Thus unprotected and with dust landing on metal that would attract moisture, we observe many instances of the rapid onset of rust and corrosion.

As for the dust affecting "the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures," this doesn't tell the whole story. As my real-world experiences prove, that dust in computer/electrical systems over time would definitely start to cause problems, like intermittent shorting. But in order for the dust to cause immediate problems of this corrosive nature, the dust would have to be highly conductive.

Oh, but in Mr. Rogue's quotes from Dr. Jenkins (with my emphasis added):

Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction.

This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.

[1] This is a highly speculative effort that Dr. Jenkins was trying to use to explain torched vehicles. And it doesn't match real world expectations. Farm/Ranch work [also performed by me in my teenage years] is a very dusty endeavor. It takes a very long time for dust and environmental (e.g., humid) conditions to reach accumulation levels that would lead to shorting or other electrical problems in such equipment.

[2] More troubling to Dr. Jenkins speculative theory is that the vehicles were torched in cases seemingly from the outside-in or strange patterns that did not impact the engine/battery area. The vehicles were turned off and parked, which significantly limits the active electrical circuits & places within the engine/battery/starter area that could be shorted together to start a fire immediately: like between the two battery terminals. If you put a highly conductive metal screw driver across the battery terminals, you'll get a spark; you might even get the battery to explode; whether or not this will lead to fire in the engine compartment depends. Right across the battery terminals or at the starter are pretty damn near the only location within the engine area that could possibly cause a fire, and the electrical conduction of the dust would have to be assured and not intermittent or flaky.

Dr. Jenkins drops a lot of innuendo about conductive elements measured within the dusts (true), but that doesn't measure up when talking "point A to point B conductivity" that would cause a fire igniting short. Dr. Jenkins seems to believe in "magic dust" that can wind its way under the hood and across the battery terminals (or starter terminals) in sufficient and conductive quantities, or that could wind its way through the air filters and into the passenger compartment behind the dash and into the cooling vent holes of constantly powered electrical devices (e.g., security systems, clocks, or stereos) to cause conductive-dust shorting.

Experience (personal and otherwise) proves that, while dust can cause electric shorting, it is something that takes significant time to happen.

[3] Dr. Jenkins speculative theory does not match the evidence of timing of the "spuriously ignited vehicle fires". He implies that a thicker layer of dust deposits may have been required to ignite the vehicles Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place. EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, among others, discounts this view. The cars were "popping off" well before a "thicker layer of dust deposits" could work its way into the engine cavity and, say, short the battery. She also talks about a car door popping horizontally right out of its hinges and smacking her into a wall. It was not because the car was on fire, because it wasn't. [I attribute this to Eddy currents generated in the metal of the door by an EMP side-effect of neutron devices. The Eddy currents heated the door such that it expanded within its door frame to the point where it popped out of the door frame.]

[4] The RJ Lee Group study, costing 33 million dollars, had a feature common with the USGS analysis of the dust but out-of-sorts with Dr. Jones' dust samples. The RJ Lee Group and the USGS detected no thermite or nano-thermite. They detected no red flakes, and no "highly energetic particles," as was found in the apartment dust samples given to Dr. Jones. [I don't rule out that all three entities are lying in some fashion.] The RJ Lee Group did find a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust.

(a) If thermite did it and as was calculated by Dr. Nils Harrit, it represents a significant amount of thermite in the chemical reaction to achieve this [not to mention the overkill and obscene amounts of unspent thermite needed to account for the duration of hot-spots.] But curious that such unspent, overkill, and obscene amounts of thermite weren't in the dust of the Banker's Trust building at 130 Liberty Street.

(b) Nuclear devices can explain these iron spheres, created from its tactical but intense heat wave from the steel and blown by its tactical blast wave into the Banker's Trust building at 130 Liberty Street. Not a problem.

(c) I do not discount that the permeation of dust would necessitate extensive building renovation and refurbishing of equipment. This would have been true for nearly all buildings surround the WTC. Yet the Banker's Trust building was demolished after repairs were made. I attribute this to embrittlement of steel, which is a side-effect of neutrons on metal [like from a mis-aimed or jarred askew neutron nuclear DEW devices.]

[5] Here's some nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's website. They show the sequence of when fires started in the parking lot. The quotations are from Dr. Wood. She correctly asks why the "hot-and-spicy dust" does not catch paper, leaves, people, etc. on fire? The fires do not all originate in the engine/battery area [and I am presently stumped to speculate on where within a turned-off automobile a fire from conducting dust could be achieved other than right at the battery. Due to configuration of air conditioning vents, it would be a challenge for unfiltered, conductive dust to wind its way to the insides of the vehicle and then into the compartments of powered-portions of a turned-off vehicle (e.g., security system, clock) in order to short them into igniting a fire.]

Figure toast1. afterWTC2 was destroyed there don't appear to be any fires.

(9/11/01) Source:

Figure toast2a. The cloud from the destruction of WTC1 rolls toward the parking lot.

(9/11/01) Source:

Figure toast2b. Just after WTC1 is destroyed, fires start to burn the vehicles in the large lot, but not the paper. Why?

(9/11/01) Source:

Figure toast3. The vehicle fires increase in strength as sunling begins to emerge through the clearing dust cloud.

(9/11/01) Source:

Figure toast4.The air upwind of the WTC has visably become clearer. The vehicle fires continue increasing and flames can be seen.

(9/11/01) Source:

Figure toast6. Sunlight begins streaming through the intersection.

Figure toast7 The intersection and the grasssy lot are covered with paper and dust that did not burn. So, what caused the vehicles to suddenly catch fire?

(9/11/01) Source:

(9/11/01) Source:
Figure toast8. How did these cars catch on fire?

Dr. Wood presents More Toasted Cars

Dr. Jenkins was a co-author on Dr. Jones nano-thermite papers (if memory serves me), such as hot-spots. I have issues with that work because its technical babble skips over the salient point [as stated by Dr. Jones himself] "Something maintained those hot-spots (not just NT)". He (with Dr. Wood's help) has misframed the vaporization argument and its energy requirements. He has produced other stilted work that I have issue with. I don't want to take Mr. Ruff's position of "rejecting all Dr. Jenkins work once instances of deliberated disinformation are discovered", but that doesn't mean that I should trust any of Dr. Jenkins work (without vetting) either.

So the alternative to the magic, conductive, energetic dust theory of Dr. Jenkins is a side-effect of neutron nuclear DEW devices. Namely, EMP (electrical magnet pulse). An EMP can be mitigated by many things, from the design of the device to its placement to its distance from an object to other "metal" obstacles in the way (like other buildings). To be sure, an EMP originating within the steel core that themselves were surrounded by external steel wall assemblies of the towers (and metal floor pans for concrete) would reduce EMP from that device, except what slipped out line-of-sight through, say, window slits and falling debris.

EMP would generate Eddy currents in metal that it hits line-of-sight. [For the sake of discussion, let's say the trunk of a car.] The magnitude of the Eddy currents depends on distance from source and how much surface area gets hit (e.g., isn't shaded by obstacles.) Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat in the metal that could be great enough to cause paint on the metal as well as rubber & plastic & things touching the metal to burn (e.g., door seals, door handles, plastic gas caps, etc.) Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn (or not).

Something of note from the fire damage exhibited in some of the images of torched vehicles in Dr. Wood's collection are the delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.

[Disclaimer: police car 1 was just behind a mail truck that was also on fire. More views from this police car, Figure 9(a). In this one instance, it could be argued that the proximity of a burning mail truck to the rear of the police car caused the fire damage on the police car. However, one is left with still explaining how the mail truck as well as vehicles not as close on the same side of the street and the other side of the street caught on fire, as seen in the image before WTC-7 came down. Plus, explanations for the other anomalous "pattern" fire damage from other vehicles are needed, which EMP does.]

Police car 1

Police car 1 (another view)

Police car 2

Police car 3

Police Pickup


FDNY car

Proximity of one flaming vehicle to another can and does determine whether or not the second vehicle will go up in flames. The issue is in accounting for the torching of, say, the first vehicle in a cluster. Magic, selective, mobile, conductive, hot-&-spicy, energetic dust doesn't convince me.

++++ begin to be deleted from T&S

Mr. Rogue complains 2013-09-08 at 10:44 pm:

FALSE ADVERTISING: There is NOTHING of substance that is new in this book [from Dr. Judy Wood] that is not on that website! So there is nothing out of date as per Jenkins' criticisms either.

Mr. Rogue has admitted that he never finished reading Dr. Wood's book before he violently tore out 500 pages -- 10" x 7-1/4" and stacking to just over 1" thick -- from this hard cover book and used them to line his bird cage. Thus, having not finished the book, Mr. Rogue has no basis to say "There is NOTHING of substance that is new in this book [from Dr. Judy Wood] that is not on that website!" Substance may have been in the part that made him "slam the book shut in disgust" and that he didn't read.

Indeed, Dr. Wood's textbook overlaps the content of the website, but the organization of the book as well as the more extensive correlation of images of WTC damage to map positions are but two examples of differences of substance from the website. Just with these two noted exceptions, Mr. Rogue's over-generalization -- "NOTHING of substance" -- gets shot down.

Indeed, a failing of Dr. Wood's textbook was in not addressing Dr. Jenkins' criticisms. However, some of Dr. Jenkins' criticisms are built on a faulty premise (admittedly exasperated by Dr. Wood). For instance, Dr. Wood is often attributed with saying "the steel was dustified (or vaporized)" without specifying quantities of steel that she is talking about (and with her own images proving that clearly not "all of the steel was vaporized"). Yet, when Dr. Jenkins goes after the vaporization of steel, he purposely misframes it by calculating the energy it would take to "vaporize all of the steel in a tower" (to take steel from a solid to a gas) and comes up with a ridiculously large number exceeding that of the sun.

The above demonstrates a multi-level cheat from Mr. Rogue that get defeated by several technicalities. Ignoring them for a moment, one level of cheat is still glaring. Even when the significant overlap between Dr. Wood's website and textbook are acknowledged, the fact remains that her website needs to be take on image-by-image by whatever theory-du-jour is trying to explain what happened. As was pointed out on 2013-08-12, here is just a sampling: (1) the arches A & B, (2) the horseshoe C & D, (3) the twisted-up stuff E, and (4) the steel doobies F and G.

The following statement is so important, it appears in many places but particularly on a sticker that gets placed on the inside cover of her textbook and should truly guide our attentions:

"Thank you for having the courage to look at the evidence."~Dr. Judy Wood

The cheat is to avoid such a discussion about the evidence and to frame a new discussion as "false advertising" with respect to what the book covers. Until the website carries (a) improvements made in the book and (b) corrections to the book or website, then the book should be given deferrence (unless book and website in that area are identical.)

Mr. Rogue complains 2013-09-09 at 2:02 am. {This is really 2013-09-08 8 pm MST. Truth & Shadows and COTO are on EST; SEO for purposes of email is on MST (2 hours behind); Mr. Rogue's blog is 4 hours ahead of EST and 6 hours ahead of MST.}

Maxitwat won't give it a break for even a day.

Log of SEO activity shows:
[1] 2013-09-04: Public posting from SEO.
[2] 2013-09-05 1:34 pm: email #1 from SEO to Mr. Rogue.
[3] 2013-09-05 at 3:56 pm {1:56 pm MST}: hybridrogue1 notes having received the email.
[4] 2013-09-05 4:20 pm: email #2 from SEO to Mr. Rogue.
[5] 2013-09-06 at 1:15 am {7:15 pm MST}: hybridrogue1 acknowledges having received the email.
[6] 2013-09-06 2:48 pm: email #3 from SEO to Mr. Rogue.
[7] 2013-09-06 at 9:31 pm {2:31 pm MST}: hybridrogue1 acknowledges having received the email.

A simple inspection of the normalized time stamps shows that Mr. Rogue's acknowledgement of my last correspondence was 2013-09-06 at 2:31 pm (MST), and his complaint of "[SEO] not giving it a break for even a day" comes at 2013-09-08 8 pm (MST). When the clock hit 2:31 pm (MST) on 2013-09-07, one day had elapsed; when the clock hit 2:31 pm (MST) on 2013-09-08, two days had elapsed.

Thus, simple math demonstrates that at the time Mr. Rogue wrote his 2013-09-09 at 2:02 am complaint, SEO had already given it a break for two days. [SEO has had many periods greater than a day with no comments on Mr. Rogue's actions.] Thus, these exceptions prove wrong Mr. Rogue's complaint and shows him knowingly promoting a lie, a small one, but a lie nonetheless.

Mr. Rogue complains:

Now the entity is back to throwing up his chunks of 2000 word posts on Prologue at C1.

Not true.

[And if a previous posting of mine was found worthy and resurrected over the weekend so that Mr. Rogue had to delete it again, it wasn't me who resurrected it. Such powers I do not have. At a previous juncture, it was Puddy Dunne (I believe) who caused Mr. Rogue ire by resurrecting posts of mine that Mr. Rogue had deleted. If it is happening now, then maybe it is Ms. JerseyG whom Mr. Rogue has been offending. She may have resurrect a posting of mine (I'm guessing 2013-08-12) as well as a 2013-08-13 posting of hers with "Touche' Mr El Once… well done!", because otherwise the comments seem a bit disjointed. While on the topic of the 2013-08-12 posting, it came in response to a 2013-08-07 posting of Mr. Rogue's, which have at least four full days' separation and demonstrate the falsity of "[SEO] not giving it a break for even a day".]

Mr. Rogue wrote on 2013-09-09 at 9:54 am

It was just last night [2013-09-08, Sunday] that he spewed more of his filth on my thread that I made clear he was not welcome at.

Not true. Whether or not my works are classified as "filth", I had no hand in posting or "spewing" anything [anywhere on the "Internets"] Saturday or Sunday.

And for all I know, it could have been you as administer of your thread who UNDELETED my trashed comments just so you could delete them again and make hay with it. [However, I think it was Ms. JerseyG.]

His copying of my sign-off of: \\][//, with his, //

Mr. Rogue does not understand copy. Were I to copy his sign-off "\\][//" (the front end of a steam locomotive engine), that's what it'd be, exactly. Instead, because my alias is Señor El Once [Mister The Eleven] and because two slashes "//" look like a slanted version of eleven ["11"], it seemed only appropriate to deviate (and not copy) my own signature.

In summary, Mr. Rogue's latest efforts give me no cause to deviate from my assessment of his character that uses "lying" and "cheating" as descriptive words.

++++ end to be deleted from T&S

// <> \\][// and this is only ~3,600 words on T&S and ~4,800 words on 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW.

No comments: