Clanging of Symbols and Tinkling of Brass

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass

2012-02-14

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I wrote:

Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11. As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is. And consequently, the means with which they duped us in this hoax will be re-deployed again and again, to our demise.

You ask:

In what is there “prejudgment”?

"Duh? My name is Rogue Agent Hybrid. My circuits get rusted when I as much as entertain the notion of sending my Q-bots into Simon Shack's rabbit holes or into the open crack of Dr. Wood's textbook. Nope. Ain't going there, and will continue to plug along from my strong position of ignorance on both subjects."

You, like me, have obviously been around the 9/11 block several times here in cyberspace. [And we've probably been allies in most things 9/11.] You've been on the disinformation merry-go-round in various cyber-forums, and like me, are dizzy. The truth movement has been spun worse than damp wrinkled clothes in an efficient German washing machine at RPM's higher than a race car.

Those of us still seeking truth in the hopes of applying it to better our present situation [America, the world], well,... "question authority" was the mantra of the generation before me. The mantra of 9/11 truth seekers has become "distrust but verify" and necessitates revisiting lots of data points in what we were told from official sources, told from within the 9/11 truth movement, and told even from its fringes. We're force to triangulate God's honest truth from there.

Let it be admitted ... that long before [Dr. Wood] published her mighty tome ..., central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed.

Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass have admittedly been deployed in such scientific critiques, I discover when I research this objectively, on my own, and going deeper than second-hand regurgitated cud. Cud does have nutritional value, which is why the sacred cow chews it some more in the manufacture of milk. Alas, cud ain't Spring grass either, and I've found many instances of the such scientific critiques running pre-maturely out of steam or simply off the road into the weeds.

** We now interrupt this posting-in-progress to bring you highlights from the latest Mr. HybridRogue1 posting and my commentary. **

I gave a history of Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion that totally dispenses with these spurious allegations.

Not really. It just frames it in a different light. When I objectively reviewed some time ago those allegations and the 1989 video of Dr. Jones, I got the same impression as the allegations. My hazy recollection is: Dr. Jones on behalf of the US govt was debunking cold fusion.

To learn of "Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion" is information that I didn't have and adds some motive to the allegations: let the academic competition think cold-fusion is a dead-end, so "Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion" can do an end-around quarter-back sneak and become the hero. But don't hold me to these impressions.

As far as “space beam” taunts’…for kryst sake blenderman, the very title of the paper Wood wrote is “Star Wars -Beam Weapons”…WTF does that infer to you?

Touche, Mr. HybridRogue1.

In fact, my earlier impressions were that Dr. Wood's space-beams was how she was purposely shooting her disinformation legacy in the foot, as all disinformation agents are required to do at some point in their lifecycle in order to take out that premise and more importantly lots of supporting evidence and truth nuggets from further serious consideration by a thinking public.

And it was indeed laughable: space-beams on the towers?! What croc! Any fool can see from Mr. Chandler's high school physics videos that dustification began within the towers towards the top, but not at the tippy-top in a top-down application as space-beams would require.

The two clever flies she put into that ointment are:

(1) that destructive space beams haven't been ruled out for, say, WTC-5 or WTC-6; and
(2) that the phrase "space beams" apply when contemplating getting energy from a hurricane to the destructive knife's edge in the form of a DEW device(s) within the towers. Such energy space beams travel through structure and must be snagged, transformed, and output at some other destructive frequency and form.

Still, to flippantly lump all of her legacy work into a bin called "space beams" doesn't do it justice. Justice is a relative of Truth.

Explosives Design: [...] Now, I find it remarkable that you are willing to ‘wrap your head around’ the possibilities of advances in ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘beam weapons’, but have not taken the time to look into the work being done at JPL and Alamogordo on these nano-milled metals and chemical additives.

Nothing I removed from the [...] section on explosive designs supports the premise that these advances in "nano-milled metals and chemical additives" would yield a useful product in the form of an explosive pulverizing material that can also burn under-rubble, without Oxygen, at high temperature, for many weeks [whether or not used in conjunction with slower-burning material] ... and applied in quantities that aren't obscenely, unrealistically, massive beyond comprehension as you are verbosely trying to lead us to believe.

You wouldn't be demonstrating a Q-groupie's tell of never admitting you're wrong, are you?

Shall we take a guess at the grade you received in "boojie woojie high school chemistry", because evidentally the concept of an explosive/indendiary burn-rate and working backward from a known burn duration to roughly calculate a starting quantity still escapes you? (And I bet you are totally annoyed that you can't snag Mr. Goldstein's disinformation flake from Dr. Wood's about there being no hot-spots, because that would put the nail in this coffin.)

Dr. Wood's legacy and Mr. Shack's legacy have parallels.

Speaking of Mr. Shack, here is a relevant snippet from a recent off-list exchange. Mr. Shack asked:

What would someone proving exactly HOW the towers were brought down contribute to exposing the 9/11 hoax? Would the effort of proving precisely WHAT SORT OF explosives/destruction methods were used, actually help making any progress towards exposing this psyop? Nano-Thermite? DEW? Conventional demo-charges? What difference would it make in the great scheme of things?

I replied:

In general, you are correct that the distinction between most of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant, with one exception that you didn't list.

Nukes have the worst PR, because the public believes that radiation from anything nuclear (e.g., milli-nuke, or a nuclear generator) will be cancerous ground for decades, if not centuries. Public gets a whiff of anything nuclear, they aren't going to rebuild the WTC. They probably would make them re-route the subway elsewhere. Hell, it might even cause an exodus of Manhattan. If banking elite had any hand in 9/11 (as would be indicated by Silverstein), then this is something they had to avoid at all costs.

Nuclear mechanisms not only gives little wiggle-room for who some of the conspirators were, but a whole string of enabling agencies from the military to CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc., not to mention the mass media conspirators. Certainly, terrorists could nuke us, but as we're seeing, terrorists wouldn't be so organized and efficient both in what they destroyed, but what they didn't,... or in how they controlled the message coming out of the media.

Everything that the conspirators hoped to gain from the hoax would be shot down with any form of nuclear revelation, because for them and govt, there would be status quo no longer. The house cleaning would be deep, possibly even to the restructuring of America into smaller regions. From within, the great empire crumbles.

I'm not married to milli-nukes or DEW or nano-thermite. But in my objective review of various sources, nuclear clues get the most song and dance to get them off of the table in dubious means. It was why Dr. Jones was called in: "Dr. Jones, we need you to put anything nuclear to rest from within the movement. We know there are unanswered energy questions. Here, take nano-thermite to fill the vacuum, even though it still a defense secret. Just as long as nuclear suspicions are squashed."

Most science-challenged thinkers didn't question the 9/11 Truther Dr. Jones. His papers were hard to work through, and even I had glazed over eyes. Still, tricks and deceit were discovered. [Refer to February 14, 2012 at 9:03 am posting above.]

I am not going to fall into the trap of saying they used method A or method B. The destruction at the WTC, being overkill and redundant, probably used something of every form of destruction conceivable: DEW mounted to the internal structure that later became "the spire"; DEW from space to bore holes in WTC-5; milli-nukes to create a crater in WTC-6 (or maybe that was space-based DEW as well); etc.

So the difference that knowledge of the exact mechanisms of destruction would make is in how deep we must cut to get out the rot, how deep we must re-structure, and what controls must be put into place to prevent it from happening again.

Whew! Sorry about its length, but the search for truth and its ramifications on a better world propel me. "Feed my sheep."

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Call me Señor El Once. And remember to roll the "R".

2012-02-14

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Please. Call me Señor El Once. And remember to roll the "R" to be put into the proper mindset.

Okay, I'm sorry about the length "AND the complete scramble of mumbo jumbo that literally said nothing." Ought to be just about right for the silver hammer...

Parting is such sweet sorrow, as we see from you below:

[1] I will follow your jumping jack flash only so far.

[2] Point blank; my patience has gone from thin to nonexistent. adios mr eleven.

[3] I am not going to try to get you to [grasp my point] again.

[4] Fuggit dude.

[5] No, the going isn’t so tough, I am tired of dealing with your BS jive. ... Like I said there, fuggit dude.

All right, all right, already. Follow your own advice. Resist the urge to comment. Ignore me. Fuggit, dude.

---

Señor El Once : apology for the "hyper jitterbug scatterprattle"

2012-02-15

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I cannot tell you how much your taking the effort to type in your high praise of my postings means to me:

More hyper jitterbug scatterprattle is simply not going to do it for me. Perhaps when you get your head on even keel we will have something to talk about.

I apologize that my "hyper jitterbug scatterprattle" has you so rattled.

You know what it is like trying to read one of your posts? It’s like you took the pieces of three different jigsaw puzzles and mixed them together in one box top, grabbed a handful and tossed them down on the table and ask, “what is this a picture of?”

Well the answer is simple man, it’s not a picture of anything, it is scattered fragments, and nothing else.

Right you mostly are, Mr. HybridRogue1, except for the "one step b-e-y-o-n-d" with assessment of "nothing else."

Quite the opposite and quite possibly nuggets of truth, too, eh?

Don't bother to respond to this and demonstrate further how your nerves are hit. You become rather unbecoming.