Further Postings of Señor El Once

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Impossibly risky that amateur video would capture the sudden no-planes explosion?

2011-07-05

Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

Mr. Shack, regardless of your belief that some of the videos may be compromised, the fact remains that the danger was so great that amateur video would capture the sudden no-planes explosion of WTC2 that such an op would be impossibly risky. I’m not interested in conspiracies of thousands.

Impossibly risky that amateur video would capture the sudden no-planes explosion?

Nonsense. Quite the opposite. It would be impossibly risky to have something real (e.g., missile, military plane, commercial plane but not of the make & model we were told) flown into the towers. This would have all sorts of audio and visual clues to trigger amateurs to turn on their cameras and focus them in a specific direction. It would be very difficult shut down all of these versions, particularly if they deviated from the official story.

Get rid of a real flying object, then what trigger or clue would amateurs have that they should focus their cameras on the towers to catch the explosion at the right time? How would they know which tower, which tower face, etc. would be impacted?

I know from my own video taping experience, most amateurs would get bored inside of the first couple of minutes of training their cameras on the burning tower.

As a side note, professional video from a news helicopter did capture the sudden no-planes explosion of WTC-2. This particular footage has three versions. One shows nothing. One shows an "orb" with background reflecting around it; probably an attempt to fake a plane but was too difficult given the background. The third masked out the background (harbor), replaced it with sky, inserted a plane flying a different path.

Simon Shack had a reasonable request to read the following page thoroughly.

http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_2.htm

A great point is brought up that various sporting events have hundreds of cameras trained on the action, yet few ever capture the "money shot", like the car crashing. How many amateurs capture the winning touchdown pass, or more importantly, how many capture the antics of players and coaches on the sidelines or on a part of the field where the ball isn't?

P.S. Do you even monitor your gmail email account? If so, why haven't you responded to attempts at off-list correspondence? If you don't monitor it, I have a couple of brief unrelated questions for you. If you've lost my email, I can be reached through Mr. McKee.

Further Postings of Herr der Elf

Hide All / Expand All

---

Herr der Elf : Read "Where Did The Towers Go"

2011-08-11

Jim Archer wrote August 10, 2011 - 3:34 pm

Want to know what happened to the WTC. Read Dr. Judy Wood, “Where Did The Towers Go”

You will not regret reading this book.

I concur. I originally purchased it knowing that it might contain disinformation, but my plan was to mine the nuggets of truth from it to bolster my belief (at the time) that milli-nukes decimated the towers into fine powder. I wasn’t even 1/2 way finished before I could endorse the book stemming from the awesome array of images correlated to map positions to give perspective and scope to those of us not in NY, with the caveat that if the 2nd 1/2 turned out to be disinformation, we’d still want Dr. Wood’s book in our possession to show our grandkids how our generation was played.

Silly me. I finished the book. Dr. Wood does a great job of presenting evidence and allowing for (high-energy) concepts to be presented without explicitly stating what happened. In any event, she convinced me of directed energy weapons. “Space-based DEW”? That is a misrepresentation of what she presents on the towers, when clearly the destruction (DEW) was inside. However, such space-based DEW shouldn’t be taken off the table too quickly (which was the disinfo intent) for the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the flattening of WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its intact North wing.

Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind

Hide All / Expand All

This page is not an example of one person using multiple aliases trying to juke the supporting numbers on a debate position on a given forum. The "Maxwell C. Bridges = DupedUsefulI = Señor El Once = Herr der Elf" equation should clear up the alias-equating. Pay close attention to the link on the date to the source material, because this defines where the discussion happened and who particpated in certain discussions. If the link circles back to this same URL, it represents an email exchange.

This page is a mash-up of postings from different forums but with a "spy-versus-spy" theme through its "the other guy is disinfo" pot-shots. I get that. But what nuggets of truth can be mined from the truthful infra-structure supporting the disinformation point?

The postings are repeated from elsewhere to give better context to personalities and opinions of one another.

---

Maxwell C. Bridges : Seeking Insights into No Planes

2011-04-26

Dear Mr. Ace Baker,

I am on the fringes of the 9/11 movement, because evidence and logic leads me to conclude "no-(commercial)-planes" and milli-nukes on the towers. I would be happy to be proven wrong on one or both of these, because no one likes being considered the kook. Alas, the counter arguments to these views have been less than convincing.

I'm presently active as Señor El Once on Truth & Shadows, where I'm defending September Clues.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/could-lawsuit-against-cheney-rumsfeld-and-myers-blow-911-case-wide-open/

You were championing no-planes and participated in a biased video challenge. (I forget where I got the link or where it went to.) When traipsing after other leads, your name came up again in another forum. Going to your blog, you made only three postings since 2009.

I am writing to gain insight.

Have you changed your position on "no planes"? Were you burned out with the "focused" attention? Do you have any advice for me in this endeavor to discover truth?

NPR started a 9/11 Discussion

Hide All / Expand All

NPR started a Disqus discussion.

---

Señor El Once : Stacked Deck

2011-08-26

on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks

The deck was stack from the get-go given the interviewee list: one 9/11 Truther against two 9/11 coincidence theorists, one biased moderator, and a heavily biased producer/editor who gave the final spin on the interview with regards to the minutes broadcast from each side (and how many minutes from each landed on the cutting room floor).

---

Señor El Once : Newtonian physics taught in high school

2011-08-26

on Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks

On the surface of it, Ms. Dibble, you don't understand the Newtonian physics taught in high school to be able to talk knowledgeably about 9/11.

The acceleration of the towers demolition (near free-fall), the pulverization of content, and the ejection of mass laterally at great speeds are energy sinks that cannot be accounted for by a Newtonian gravitational collapse, as the govt misleads us into thinking. In fact, as soon as you have destruction of content or ejection of content (let alone both), then energy has been consumed that can no longer be used to keep the upper mass accelerating at near free-fall to the ground.

According to NIST's own Shyan Sunder, free-fall means that no structural resistance is present below a falling mass to slow a mass from gravitational acceleration, 9 m/(s^2). This is precisely what WTC-7 blatantly exhibits over 100 feet. The acceleration of towers' collapse through the path of greatest resistance to the ground was measured in times pretty damn close to free-fall.

So how did these three structures collapse at near free-fall through their paths of greatest resistance while also pulverizing content and ejecting content (in the case of the towers)?

The answer is easy. Energy was added to the demolition so that gravity didn't have to account for it all.

Energy added means 19 hijackers in planes (whose whereabouts prior to 9/11 was known and didn't include extensive stays in NYC in order to configure demolition) didn't do it. They had help. INSIDER HELP, not just to the secure buildings but also to appropriate mechanisms of destruction.

This is the can of worms 9/11 opens, and that everyone from govt officials through complicit corporate media (and even this NPR report) are trying desperately these last 10 years to distract us from. Some were involved; most became involved in the cover-up after the fact, because they know that public revelation to these facts could, would, and should radically overthrow the status quo on so many levels -- certainly a purging of govt and its agencies, if not a re-drawing of region/nation lines within the USA.

Of course, a "radical overthrow of the status quo" doesn't have to mean violent. It could be very peaceful: "Hey, federal govt! You are no longer representing us and doing things for us in manners we find acceptable. You are no longer needed. Our region has its own laws. Federal govt get out, and expect no more money from us to fight your wars or pay the central bank."

Chandler Started but Didn't Finish

The following are one-side of three online exchanges with David Chandler. The links on the date stamp go to the source.

Expand All /
Hide All

Señor El Once : the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge

2011-09-19

Dear Mr. Chandler,


I studied the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge.


The core piece of information — the flight data recorder from the Pentagon plane — has authentication issues and chain-of-custody issues right and left. The kicker for me was the original FDR information was missing the final four seconds. Along comes a mysterious “John Farmer” who found a way to re-build/extract the flight path of those final four seconds. Lo and behold, the path went smoothly into the Pentagon, despite being in disagreement with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low.


Why were those final four seconds missing from the FDR?

Why weren't they originally decoded, because they represent the money-shot time period?

Seems to me if the FDR really did have such a smooth flight-path into the Pentagon, it would have been made public sooner.


Back to the disagreement of the final four seconds with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low. Those readings are explained away in your paper as being in error, owing to the aircraft speed, without analysis of why they would be in error and the direction that error would take. In other words, does a pressure-based altimeter give off measurements that are higher or lower than actual altitude when speed is increased?

The pressure based altimeter at high speed and high altitude is known to introduce errors. My meager research on the subject does not show indications of errors at low altitude at high speed or how the error would be manifested.


Thus, Mr. Chandler, in case you didn't recognize it, the above is a lynch-pin in your whole paper's premise, and it is one that you haven't proven.

Vatic 9/11 Special [2011]

The Vatic 9/11/2011 Special  is intended to serve as a 9/11 Reference.

Things have changed since last year. Dr. Judy Wood came out with her new book, "Where did the Towers Go?", an excellent addition to any serious 9/11 researcher's library. By golly if that book didn't get me into the directed energy weapon camp.

In 2010, the Vatic Project said:

The 9/11 Special does not shirk from saying that 9/11 was a nuclear event, that corporate media fooled the world with computer generated images (CGI), and that US Government/Military Insiders, Mossad/Israel, and zionists within the banks and media are the culprits.

In 2011, the Vatic Project amends that with "9/11 used cold-fusion or nuclear reactors to generate the power for DEW that supplied the accuracy and umpth to pulverize the internals of the towers".

As before, these rabbit holes of 9/11 DEW (powered by nukes or cold-fusion), CGI, and "whodunnit" are very deep and twisted. But if you only have time for limited 9/11 review, put these on your must explore list:

» September Clues 2008 Complete,
» Directed Energy Weapons,
» Nuclear destruction of the WTC (even though we now champion DEW), and
» Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!!

For your own peace of mind, satisfy for yourself whether or not they have merit. At risk is our entire system of justice.

Why should you care about this ten year old event today? Aside from the lingering effects of radiation in NYC affecting first responders and residents, you should care that the true 9/11 perpetrators are brought to justice, because left unchecked gives them and their successors free reign (again and again) to manipulate us and the world into other wrongful wars and crimes against humanity. Nations fall if justice is not pursued. Only we can save it.

Among the most basic of your take-away action items from this Vatic 9/11 Special, is that you need to be part of the voice to demand an independent investigation of 9/11. After that, you need to be questioning and denouncing all foreign & domestic policy and the right-left political games that are based on the lies of 9/11 ("... because we were attacked on 9/11(?)...") and that seem to scapegoat another [country, ethnicity, religion].

Here are some quick links to help you navigate the 9/11 Special.Do a right-click from your browser and open them in new tabs.

• 9/11 How
• 9/11 Why
• 9/11 Who
• 9/11 What

Informed Speculation

The following is an exchange with a 9/11 Truther who supports nuking of the towers.

Expand All /
Hide All

---

Bruecke : Informed Speculation

July 27, 2011

Dear Dr. Ward, I know nothing about 9/11 definitely, so take this more as "informed speculation." I read Dr. Wood's textbook and discovered that her case for directed energy weapons is better than the case I had been championing for milli-nukes. However, even DEW needs an energy source: cold-fusion, fusion-triggered fission, Tesla-hurricanes...? The remnants from the DEW energy source could give off the same clues as milli-nukes, while avoiding some issues like seismic signatures, uncontrollable blast wave, heat wave, etc. The copious amounts of unburnt paper is a clue to me that milli-nukes might not have been used on the towers. I wouldn't go so far as to say WTC-7 was demolished using conventional techniques. On this matter we can probably rely on Dr. Shyam Sunder who confidently debunked conventional explosives because it lacked the appropriate audio/decibel signature. Weak? For sure, but Dr. Sunder would not have used it if he didn't know that the true cause was something else. As for WTC-6 and its big bad-ass crater? Could have been a milli-nuke, which might explain the anomalous side-effects that affected vehicles on that street perpendicular to it and next to the WTC-7. But I'm also leaving the door open for space-based DEW to have made the crater as well as the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5 and cut the WTC-4 main edifice down at a line with the WTC-4 North wing. A few devices within the towers probably brought them down. Remember the "spire" that stood for a few seconds after the tower around it was pulverized or peeled off? Would have been ideal to plant a DEW device pointing up and other pointing down and timed appropriately. DEW microwaved the water molecules trapped in content, turned it into steam, which then expanded its volume to tear apart the content (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). Explains the copious amounts of pulverized dust exhibited in the destruction from the earliest phases; why paper wasn't affected; why the interior side of the exterior walls were so "clean" of drywall and paint; ... The evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook needs to be addressed by whatever is the theory of the day. According to her, seismic evidence debunks nukes. My understanding morphs and waffles.

Duped? Useful? Aye!

Okay, okay. I am partially to blame for the next sequence of events. I repeat often in my work that "all disinformation needs to have a solid foundation of truth in order to be successful." Being banned from LRF cut off my subscriptions and made it very tedious to check up on any solid foundation of truth within the gatekeeping at their forum.

At the conclusion of my first banishment and in a fit of annoyance, I wrote in an email to Mr. Jayhan:

Have no fears that I will sockpuppet back into existence on LRF under a new alias. Our exchanges here are rapidly diminishing whatever value I once attributed to LRF as well as any perceived gained from registering just so I could subscribe to threads as a lurker reader.

I was wrong. Registering just so I could subscribe to threads as a lurker reader does make it easier to monitor its ongoing foundation of truth. I apologize to Mr. Jayhan for going back on my word. I came back as DupedUsefulI to be assured I wasn't discounting any truths that might be seeping out. [These seemingly unworthy actions would not have been needed had Mr. Jayhan not exhibited equally unworthy actions of going back on his word by banishing Herr der Elf without any subsequent infringements against said warnings or decrees.]

Over time I managed to get subscribed to 60 threads on a weekly basis, so that items wouldn't pass me by, nor would updates overwhelm and distract me. A couple of images were posted that merited another look from the perspective of DEW.

But then Mr. Jayhan re-posted a chat with Simon Shack of September Clues (that really was unflattering to Mr. Jayhan, but he couldn't see it from his ad hominem.) In addition, Dr. FUBAR provided a link to a Jayhan debate with a principle from CIT in 2008, where Mr. Jayhan deliberately recycled an insult from half a year earlier that had been smoothed over and resolved in order to take fresh offense therein. Two data points that combine with Mr. Jayhan's public childish flame wars with William Rodriquez and then my banishment. The trend line tracks a gatekeeping agenda.

Simon Shack said it best:

You are losing ground, mate - and you know it. Too many good guys have joined your forum - and you don't know how to get rid of them. ... You are all-too-transparently linked to the Great 9/11 Gatekeeping Community. Your childish attitude is a clear give-away of this fact. ... Why don't you just get another job?

And this is why DupedUsefulI could not be permitted however infrequently to keep poking away at directed energy weapons (DEW). I couldn't be lured by:

If you feel like making a smart ass comment and getting the last word in on this, your membership here will be terminated.

Too bad Mr. Jayhan could not see fit to keep the management of subscriptions alive while banning future posts from me. So little does he value the truth contained within the webside he administers.

Non-Sequitor

Bruecke Note: Yes, this is a humorous newspaper comic. What sort of predictive elements, however, are buried within for ridicule? It starts around July 4, 2011. It is worth reading to the end.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2011/07/04

By: Wiley Miller
Date: 2011-07-04

Swiss Bank Note Shows Elenin/Nibiru?

On purpose, speculation on Elenin/Nibiru runs from one extreme to another. Because Earth will pass through the tail of Elenin that is composed of matter, some venture that the "ELE" in "Elenin" stands for "Extinction Level Event" like what took out the dinosaurs. Earth could face massive meteor showers.

On a more benign level, most spokespeople for the govt downplay this celestial event as a non-event. What is kind of unbelievable in a competence sort of a way is the story that NASA and other govt agencies were surprised by the discovery of this comet [by a Russian (?) amateur astronomer supposedly named "Elenin" to diffuse "nine-eleven backwards" comparisons and ELE]. What? They didn't know? They weren't monitoring it?

An internet friend of mine is writing a book about "predictive programming" and how much of modern events, such as the destruction of the WTC towers on 9/11, was foreshadowed, predicted, and even to a degree planned by Hollywood (and entertainment) productions, possibly as a way to seed our beliefs and our reactions.

With this in mind, take a look at these predictions printed on the face of Swiss bank notes. Has our solar system mapped out as well as the path of another element.

From an internet posting on this subject: The symbols are fairly common in astrology, with the exception of the Earth symbol, although I've been told that this symbol is used for Earth in Switzerland, which is fair enough I guess.

Yep, count the rings of our solar system. Note the orange elliptical orbit and what is almost a fat exclamation point (!), which is really a depiction of the comets tail.

 

It isn't for me to predict what that event will be. I've read where it will not be ELE, but it could certainly be life-changing and revealing, the true nature of humans on this planet and in the universe, both physical and spiritual. And if bad things come, it'll be of the Karl Rove/Rahm Emanuel nature taking advantage of the opportunity of a good crisis, which we need to be wary of being a false flag.

Predictive Programming: Children's Program and the Alien Agenda

I know of people who are researching predictive programming. Basically, many real-world events were foreshadowed by Hollywood. In particular, many aspects of 9/11. And if the events themselves weren't scripted first in Hollywood, then publishing and repetition in advance had the effect of conditioning us.

A great example is that overboard patriotic action adventure yarn, Pearl Harbor. It came out in May 2001, with ample time for us to get all our patriotic priorities in order, and what we (or young people) should do when we are told that we are attacked by external enemies.

Be that as it may, I've noticed a trend in children's programming to help young kids get over their fear of dragons and dinosaurs, who in many ways have characteristics of the reputed "reptile aliens" supposedly living in deep underground bases/cities on our planet.

Dragon Tales (PBS)
Dinosaur Train (PBS)
Barney (PBS)
How to train your dragon (Pixar Disney?)
Land Before Time (not sure who put this up originally, but whole seasons can be purchased on DVD)
Monsters versus Aliens (Pixar Disney?)
Monster, Inc. (Pixar Disney?)

Scooby-Doo And The Alien Invaders is a good case study. The Wikipedia link explains the plot well, like at the end: "At the end of the film, Crystal and Amber prove to be aliens from 20 light years away, and are dressed like they are because their interpretations of the way humans are dressed were derived from 1960s television broadcasts, to which Shaggy says, "Hey, why mess with a classic look." The UFO that ran Shaggy off the road was actually Crystal's."

Crystal and Amber were shape-shifting aliens, almost dragon or sphinx-like who break Shaggy's and Scooby's hearts.

There's more, but the point is that children's programming has ample fodder for consideration, and an agenda to get children (who grow into adults) to be not scared of intelligent and speaking reptiles, some of whom can fly.

On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole

By Maxwell C. Bridges
Published on Truth & Shadows

The recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:

“We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence.”

Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?

In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.

Case in point – nano-thermite reaches extremely high temperatures quickly, but:

Stars align in 2011 for your 9/11 activism

{With tongue somewhat in cheek.}

If individuals were in need of an occult or astrological sign for finally doing some of their own 9/11 activism this year (2011), consider this.

Not only does this year have the date 9/11/11 (10-year) anniversary, but it is filled with other significant dates like: 1/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/1/11, and 11/11/11. Lots of strings of 1's in those dates. Plus dates like 2/11/11, 3/11/11, 4/11/11, 5/11/11, 6/11/11, 7/11/11, 8/11/11, 10/11/11, and 12/11/11 also have more groupings of 1's to get you thinking about the significance of eleven's and one's in this particular year.

More importantly and why it matters to you personally like stars aligning, do the simple math. Take the two-digit year of your birth and add the age you will be this year. You will get either 111 or 11, whereby both are more strings of coincidental 1's but with the latter being shorted by a 100, because they were the unfortunate who were born in this century and will be paying for 9/11/01 still, one way or another, when they reach adulthood.


Elenin Data From NASA

Sep 11, 2011 Elenin 0.482 AU from Sun (closest point)
Sep 27, 2011 Elenin 0.396 AU from Earth, 0.607 AU from Sun; Elenin between Sun & Earth
Oct 17 2011 Elenin 0.232 AU from Earth (closest point)
Nov 5, 2011 Elenin 0.348 AU from Earth but Earth crosses Elenin tail
Nov 11, 1011 Elenin 0.42 AU from Earth and Earth finishing crossing tail

1 Earth radius is about 7,920 miles.
1 AU is 93 million miles.
0.15 AU is close to 14 million miles.
14 million miles is almost 1,768 Earth radii.
15 Earth radii is 118,800 miles. That's about half way to the Moon.

If the comet gets 14 million miles from Earth, that would be almost 59 times the distance to the moon.

On Sep 27 Elenin will transit between the Sun and the Earth and its ion tail will be pointed straight at us. It will also be new Moon, meaning the Sun, Elenin, Moon, and Earth will be aligned (with Uranus behind Earth and Mercury and Venus out of the way on the other side of the Sun. If any of you believe in cosmic thunderbolts, this might be an interesting time. Strong electromagnetic disturbance is possible, as is damage to electronics and power grids.

The light of the Sun might be scattered by the coma and the dust tail of the comet, making the Sun look diffused and the sky darker. It is possible in these conditions that the new Moon could be visible, as a black Moon.

Then around closest approach Oct 17, Earth should begin to go through the dust tail, creating significant meteor showers (and remember, all the lights might have fried on Sep 27). The meteor shower would peak around Nov 3, when Earth crosses the path of Elenin. 

Proof That Comet Elenin Is Affecting Earth

{Excerpts from Dr. Mark Sircus.}

The conclusion: a planetary event was in store for us in 2012.

Looking at a NASA mathematical model of comet Elenin, I found out that a large celestial body has already penetrated the solar system and is on course for a near and possibly horrific encounter with the earth in the fall of 2011. What we do not know is the size and mass of comet Elenin though I have no doubt that it is known by the authorities.

Elenin is presently being tracked as it goes through the asteroid belt on its way into the inner solar system. ... We have an incoming mass (what might possibly be a neutron star) coming in and it will do a hard turn around the sun like any comet would, crossing and coming in between Mercury and Venus before starting its journey back out. On its way out it will cross our bow, meaning it will pass very close to the earth and the earth will pass behind it, plowing into its tail.

In the video below you will see this explained graphically. What you will see with mathematical precision is that every time this celestial body comes into alignment with the earth and sun we have a huge earthquake. The last three alignments produced the Japanese 9.0 quake, the one in New Zealand and before that the one in Chile. On March 11th Elenin was much farther out. When the next alignment happens it will be devastatingly close. The main point to understand is that if Elenin was just a normal comet it would not have the mass to generate a gravity pull that would affect the earth when the earth swings around into alignment.

Directed Energy Weapons

{Bridges: I did some minor cyber-sleuthing in an attempt to reach these leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I posted this as a technical question in the Contact Us section of AE911 Truth website [for Mr. Gage.] I posted this as a Contact Us message to 911SpeakOut.org [for Mr. Cole.] I put this into an email to an old email address that uses the domain of a well-know 9/11 website [for Mr. Roberts.]}

Dear Mr. Jonathan Cole, Mr. Richard Gage, and Mr. Gregg Roberts,

Maybe I am the ultimate "duped useful idiot", because evidence at various points has convinced me of pods on planes, nano-thermite, DEW, milli-nukes, no-planes, CIT flyover, simVictims, hollow towers, etc. Of course, convincing debunking has had me cycle away from many of these, after which yet more evidence and analysis brings some of them back to the forefront as my current position.

Your recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" does not do justice to the topic or Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. I encourage you to make another thorough reading of her book and mine it for nuggets of truth.

I'm not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.

This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood's efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth Movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.

Let us assume that nano-thermite was found in the dust and was one of the mechanisms deployed in the towers' destruction. Still, nano-thermite does not address all of the features of the destruction, and you do the 9/11 Truth Movement a major disservice when you allow this mechanism to be extracted and applied as an explanation for all that was observed.

There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidencemuslims.pdf

By: Elias Davidsson 2008

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that there is no credible evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded as a lie.

The Albury-Bot

{The following is but one comment on one posting on Truth & Shadows that tackles the subtle deceit of what became increasingly clear was a paid-to-post govt shill. Every website should experience such a bot, but in small measure.}

Dear Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

El Once can think whatever he wants about me, but he's spending way too much time obsessing over banning me to explain why he thinks I'm being disingenuous about anything, and hasn't supported his claim with any examples.

Just saying it is does not make it so. I regularly tear apart your postings line-by-line to prove why I think you're being disingenuous about damn near everything. ... Don't get me started... Ooops. Too late. Here we go. Your last three postings jumbled together and shredded.

Mr. Albury-bot wrote:

Calling me "Albury-bot" and a "liar," and my comments "bullshit" hardly contributes anything worthwhile to the discussion, whether it qualifies on here as a personal attack or not.

Unless of course the levels of bullshit were dissected, not just by me, but by Brian Good. Unless examples of your lies were exposed [more below]. Unless your antics resemble that of a bot: repetitive demeanor, stringing together of illogical assertions, and never deviating from database talking points.

I'd also suggest looking more closely at El Once's posts if you're tired of people engaging in personal attacks, since I've personally attacked no one who's commenting here, and this "Albury-bot" is also tired of it.

And I, too, tire of calling you it. The old expression of umpires -- "I call it like I see it" -- has applicability here. If you'd stop acting like a bot and a Q-Groupie in the subtle deceit that you peddle, not only would I stop with those jabs, I would also most humbly and respectfully apologize.

Dr. Judy Wood and The Mister Honorific Banishment

{My "Herr der Elf" avatar was banned from Let's Roll Forum in the middle of a thread on Dr. Judy Wood's new textbook. Yes, I was recommending her book and was defending it, but not to the point where I was agreeing with everything within it. I was data mining it for nuggets of truth to support my contention that 9/11 was a nuclear event. Lots of things are funny about that thread, like how Dr. Wood's detractors did so without the benefit of owning or opening her textbook to give an objective analysis and point out its errors. It is particularly silly that the reason for my banishment stems from addressing the LRF admin as "Mr. Jayhan", which ought to be a perfectly acceptable honorific based on his avatar name. Even more hysterical is that he warned me and then promptly banned me without any subsequent instances of my transgression into addressing him as "Mr. Jayhan." I can only suppose that he could see where I was heading with mining useful information from Dr. Wood and applying it to milli-nukes, and that this would logically prove hollow his "hollow towers" premise. Below is my off-list email to Mr. Jayhan to reconsider his silly actions.}

Here is a brief summary of the sequence leading up to my LRF banishment:

Milli-Nukes, Let's Roll!

{The following is from early in  a discussion on Milli-Nukes on Let's Roll Forums just prior to my banishment in another thread for addressing the admin with a mister honorific.}

To fill every one in who might be joining this discussion late, nuclear devices have four adjustable design factors: yield of blast wave, yield of heat wave, electrical magnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation.

An EMP is emitted line-of-sight from the detonation point and induces high currents in certain metals. Those high currents can lead to high temperatures that then burn off things like paint and plastic door handles, if it doesn't start to soften the metal itself. Electronic devices are susceptible to its effects, whereby integrated circuit chips and whatnot can get zapped quickly.

Distance and shielding/shading are factors in mitigating EMP. An open-air detonation would have more EMP side-effects than an underground one, whereby the latter have almost no EMP effects outside the kill zone. In the case of the 9/11, the towers presented structure and content that would have limited any EMP, except for window slits or parts of the structure that were removed by other means. Other buildings and things also would have reduced wide-spread EMP side-effects.

Russian Agent's Nuclear Hypothesis

{The following is a snippet from a Let's Roll Forum where others were promoting Dimitri Khalezov and his contention that deep underground nukes brought down the twin towers.}

When links to interview with Dimitri Khalezov were posted before, I wrote:

[QUOTE] "All disinformation has one redeeming quality. In order for it to be believable, it has to be built on a sound foundation of truth. Our purpose as rational and intelligent beings is to sift through information in search of the nuggets of the truth, or the data points that make up trend lines. Recognizing the subtle bullshit will be hard. We have to learn to keep our human prejudices in check; and know that we're being played as well ourselves.

"I'll be passing Mr. Khalezov's data through the magnifying glass of disinformation, so that the truths aren't too quickly dismissed when an occasional patch of bullshit is laid. I'll be making up my own mind, and recommend others do the same." [/QUOTE]

...

[QUOTE] DK: Yes. Because it occurred deep underground. If it were on the surface level or above it, the 150 kiloton bomb would almost destroy New York City in its entirety, as well as making the rest of it uninhabitable. Just imagine that 150 kiloton is 8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, since the 150 kiloton bombs detonated deep under each of the WTC Twin Towers and under the WTC-7 they did not cause much damage - just only the damage you can see in the immediate aftermath of the actual WTC demolition on 9/11. [/QUOTE]

I take major issue with two points.

[1] "Deep underground"?!! There is absolutely no evidence of this, or Mr. Khalezov will have to be much more specific about what deep means. The "bathtub" on which the WTC complex was built went below grade only 75 feet or so. A notable anomaly of the event was that their demolition experts made sure that the bathtub was not damaged or only minimally so.

Moreover, the demolition of the towers themselves can be observed happening top-down, as if there were two (to six ) milli-nukes placed through out the structures to get the extreme pulverization of content. This isn't to say that milli-nukes weren't also in a basement level (as testified by Mr. W. Rodriquez). But Mr. Khalezov seems to imply that "deep underground" nukes accomplished the observed top-down destruction. The rational side of me does not agree with this.

[2] 150 kiloton bombs?!! Now maybe if Mr. Khalezov would remove the "kilo" and/or replace it with "milli" and recognize that it could be multiple per tower, he would be approaching the right magnitude both needed and observed.

He shoots his theories in the foot by repeatedly talking about 150kT nukes (here and in other interviews) particularly when he says that it is "8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima." This is obviously not what was observed.

Left Right

{The following is a snippet from a discussion on AlterNet with John regarding milli-nukes. This is John Wright (aka LeftWright) of 9/11 Blogger. That on-list discussion led to some off-list email exchanges. Those very cordial exchanges ended with the ball in John's court to see if some knowledgeable scientific co-workers would agree with my assessment. At the clip of about once I month, I pinged John to remind him respectfully that the ball was still in his court regarding getting the views of his scientific co-workers and convincing me/him that milli-nukes weren't used on 9/11. It should be pointed out that they won't let me into 9/11 Blogger because I champion both milli-nukes and elements of the "no-(commercial)-planes" theories.}

Let me start with your conclusion:

"I have shown that nothing you cite is exclusively explained by the use of nukes. Therefore, absent some other positive evidence, it is illogical and unreasonable to postulate that they were used on 9/11/01."

Not true. Whereas there is overlap between (a) nukes and (b) thermite/nanothermite & explosives/incendiaries and these mechanisms may have been used together for fail-safe redundancy (because they really really really wanted the WTC complex destroyed), the three main areas where your mechanisms cannot logically and reasonably explain what was observed are:

- the under-rubble fire duration

- the energy required for the totality of the destruction

- EMP

Beyond High School Physics

{The following is an off-list email. It did lead to a cordial brief exchange with Physics Teacher Mr. Chandler. Mr. Chandler has done great works for 9/11 truth. My milli-nukes contention stands on his shoulders. Alas, Mr. Chandler was not in an academic position to comment on milli-nukes, with it being well outside his area of interest and expertise. He wished me well in making my case, though.}

Dear Mr. Chandler & Mr. Cole,

I highly respect the work you two have provided to the 9/11 Truth Movement. I agree with your conclusions. I understand and agree with your goals:

We need a real forensic investigation, the real perpetrators of 9/11 need to be held accountable, and the world needs Truth.

Until I am convinced otherwise, my present beliefs about 9/11 have me championing two fringe theories that have been supposedly dismissed and debunked by the 9/11 Truth Movement. (For this reason, I am not permitted to post on 9/11 Blogger.) I am not married to either one, and will not be hurt if they are proven wrong. After all, your work represents my "fall back position" regarding the physics of the official govt conspiracy theory (OGCT) not adding up and thereby proving an insider conspiracy. However, to date, neither have been proven wrong in my books. And I'm writing, I suppose, to be set right about at least one of those fringe theories: that 9/11 was a nuclear event.

I've noticed that A&E for 9/11 Truth (of which I am a member) dances around the potential of milli-nukes in explaining the WTC destruction observed. Specifically, they make the case that a gravitational collapse cannot explain the speed, the pulverization of content, the ejection of content, the thoroughness of the destruction, or the foundry-hot fires burning under the rubble for months. It hints that these are huge energy sinks. Because nano-thermite was found in various dust samples, this is practically touted as the likely cause but isn't called out explicitly as the cause.

Not that thermitic compounds (together with a host of back-up and redundant demolition techniques) weren't employed in some fashion, it is the physics of nano-thermite that also rules it out as explaining all of the observable features. In order to melt steel (e.g., cutter charge), thermitic compounds have a fast burn rate. Doing the math on the quantities of such thermitic compounds that would be necessary to sustain under-rubble, foundry-hot fires for weeks/months results in massive quantities that would have been unlikely to have been present. Plus, thermitic compounds would melt/cut steel, but would not necessarily pulverize content/concrete and eject debris.

To the above, we have to add the damage to vehicles outside the radius of falling debris and testimonies from EMTs regarding car doors getting blown off, etc.

Eating Tin-Foil Hat

{The following is an extract from an exchange on the Mopar politics forum.}

It wasn't about going after Osama bin Laden or the Taliban. It was about building a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan that the Taliban rejected. Moreover, after 9/11, the Taliban offered to hand over OBL, providing the US offered proof that he did it. The US didn't, and the FBI still hasn't listed OBL on its most-wanted list for 9/11, because of a "lack of evidence", their words, not mine.

On the Iraq front, invasion was on the table before the neo-cons even took office. They were looking for any excuse and tried to make them complicit for 9/11. The prize was their oil fields. Another prize was also establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East, because the Saudi's (and OBL himself) did not want US military forces in the holy lands any more. (Whatever OBL wants, OBL gets. He's one of our assets, all the way up to 9/11... and beyond his likely death probably more than a few years ago.)

All that nonsense you write about UN resolutions and Saddam being in violation? He wasn't. And in fact, he complied! He did let weapons inspectors back in before the deadline, gave them access, etc. The UN weapons inspectors themselves begged for more time. But No-oooo! Bush was going to invade Iraq for its oil fields to divy up and give to his oil crony backers no matter what.

BTW, where are those weapons of mass destruction?

Bush needed 9/11, because without it, America never would have supported invasion of Afghanistan, period. And Iraq was highly questionable as well, because Saddam was very much contained in the no-fly-zone.

Bush needed 9/11, because he needed to pave over for good-and-gone the evidence of the misdeeds of his father's administration coming due, as well as the Pentagon's unaccounted for $2.3 trillion in transactions and many other corporate criminal cases against his loyal supporters (Enron anyone?)

Bush needed 9/11, because there was insurance money to scoop up, insider trading to take advantage of, and the US economy to take down several pegs. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are bad for real people, but not for those with means who are happy to buy up for pennies on the dollar real brick-and-mortar establishments (and not silly paper stocks). Yes, I'm saying the pile-driving of our economy was planned and desired by those elite who pull Bush & Cheney's strings, because they are globalist, not patriotic nationalist (and certainly not simplistic loyal football fanatics.)