Señor El Once : Dr. Wood has not made a sufficient case for missing steel
It is easy to get confused, particularly when different arguments are made to debunk different aspects of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory (OCT) that itself morphed over time. Moreover, this thread is a bunch of 9/11 truthers arguing amongst ourselves using the same evidence to support their claims.
Here's the way I sum it up. The OCT suggests that a 20-30 story pile driver demolished the lower 70-80 stories.
Dr. Wood is one of many who debunks this. She uses seismic evidence to support her debunking. Namely, if such a pile driver existed and were at work, it would have had a more noticable seismic spike, particularly when it hit the ground. In fact, traveling down and impacting floors would have released energy into the still intact lower structure that would transmit to the foundation and then to the seismic measuring station such signature events. Moreover, she takes it a step further, by saying (paraphrased) that if the towers were to have collapsed in a natural fashion, much larger cohesive chunks would have been expected to fall outside of the foot print, would have fallen from great heights, would have acquired large amounts of kinetic energy, and would have had both larger seismic spikes as well as crippling damage to bath tub.
So far, everything I have written undermines the OCT and could support the hypotheses of any form of controlled demolition including DEW.
The dustification of content and the disassembly of steel sections she argues weren't flukes of an overly redundant, exceptionally thorough overkill demolition. No, this was planned so that damage to the bath tub could be minimized.
Now is when we get into the hair splitting part for the 9/11 truthers to bash each other about.
Dr. Wood questions the amount of steel in the pile, particularly from the inner core box columns and trusses supporting floor pans. She points to the 3 out of 7 unobstructed subway lines as well as images from those "spelunking" into the debris pile looking for gold... *cough*, ... I mean survivors to say that the debris of the upper 110 stories was not contained in the sub-basement levels. This comes about in part from the debris not falling into the towers footprint but in spreading out. However, when looking at the overall scope of the debris at the WTC complex and in particular at the debris on top of of other buildings (WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6) that the OCT credits for their demise, she correctly points out that WTC-1 and WTC-2 debris is represented in insufficient quantities to account for the thoroughness of their destruction.
I particularly like all of the evidence she presents about WTC-4 that had its 9 story main edifice leveled to almost the street at the boundary line with its north wing, despite the fact that both the main edifice and north wing were within the radius of falling tower debris. Not only did the north wing not have significant amounts of debris on its roof, but the debris directly attributable to the towers sitting on top of the main edifice, while certainly damaging, was insufficient to account for the neat leveling of that 9 story structure. In similar fashion, she points to the insufficient amounts of debris directly attributable to the towers as the top layer of crap at the bottom of the WTC-6 crater and how it would have been incapable of creating such vertical punch-outs of every floor in the WTC-6.
So far, so good. Dr. Wood is debunking the OCT with arguments that could support different hypotheses.
The problem with the WTC destruction is that you have to use a zoom-out to understand the scope and in doing so, you loose sight & perspective of the size of individual pieces. And when you zoom-in (as if you were a clean-up worker), you might be able to appreciate the size of individual pieces, but you loose the ability to connect together mentally such individual pieces (large or small) into any wholistic view for magnitude of the destruction. "Can't see the forests from the trees."
On this theme, the doubts cast by Dr. Wood on there being sufficient amounts of steel represented in the pile were based on I believe these mental zoom-in/zoom-out disconnections to scope magnitude. And then she craftily interjects the spire's demise from only one persective to present the lingering innuendo that steel is under-represented and thus must have been vaporized.
From the time this appeared on her website to the time of the last draft prior to publication of her book, one would think that Dr. Wood would have run across or been pointed to videos of the spire from other perspectives that suggest the steel fell and that at best the residual "glue" joints of concrete and drywall were zapped to dust to cause it to fall so suddently and breaking neatly apart.
Lest there be any doubt, IMHO the spire's demise appears to be key to Dr. Wood's steel vaporization theme.
Yet the spire wasn't vaporized; it fell. Yet the steel wasn't under-represented in the pile; it was chunked into pieces and distributed to confuse its original purposes. Yet Dr. Jenkins is grossly erroring in his energy calculations that try to dustify 200,000 tons of steel (or some huge, unreasonable amount); still, energy calculations to vaporize even one bar of steel is valid and doesn't come from nowhere.
Just above, I wrote:
In fact, traveling down and impacting floors would have released energy into the still intact lower structure that would transmit to the foundation and then to the seismic measuring station such signature events.
Dr. Wood also seemingly argues that the explosive charges of a conventional demolition (using whatever mix of incendiaries and explosives) would have had their explosive signatures transmitted down the still intact lower structure and into the foundation to be picked up by seismic equipment. She argues from the seismic data that this did not happen either. (Ergo, DEW.)
Dr. Sunder from NIST argues that expected decibel signatures from incendiaries and explosives combinations weren't measured at expected levels in audio recordings, thus those weren't the (primary) mechanisms of destruction. [And he might be right. He probably would not have made such a forceful but lame argument against incendiaries and explosives combinations unless he had an ace up his sleeve in the form of knowing the towers were destroyed by other means.]
All of the above is essentially the basis on which DEW considerations get started.
Now that I've had a year to contemplate Dr. Wood's textbook (and I'm on the cusp of reading it cover-to-cover for the second time with Mr. Rogue), I can more readily see aspects of "lingering innuendo" that need to be either solidified with evidence or blown away as dust.
I do not believe Dr. Wood has made a sufficient case for missing steel, gone missing via dustification or vaporization. The energy requirements for such would have been massive. Dustification of concrete is another matter and also requires lots of energy, but not as much as zapping steel would.
It is gosh darn suprising that she leaps to Tesla-energy-from-space instead of to mini-nuclear reactors that has anomalous radiation measurements that could potentially support it. It is gosh darn surprising that Dr. Wood does not address the radiation measurements, despite having "lingering innuendo" via pictures of hazmat procedures resembling nuclear clean up: carting in and spreading of fresh dirt, letting sit for a few days, removal of fresh dirt.
My hobby horse today stands on Dr. Wood's shoulders and walks a different direction towards mini-nuclear-reactor powered DEW devices that dustified via high-energy microwaves concrete, drywall, and content in a focused manner (but not steel). Unspent but fizzling remnants of the nuclear power source (ala Fukushima) was the source of weeks-long under-rubble hot spots. The power source and DEW explain the meteor and other anomalous fusion of separate items (e.g., coins).
Señor El Once : Dr. Wood obviously got it wrong, 'cause the spire fell.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
My disagreement with Dr. Jenkins is his framing whereby his scientific paper attempts to make Dr. Wood look ridiculous by doing calculations on vaporizing 100,000 tons of solid steel into a gas. The pictorial evidence proves the extent of steel that wasn't "vaporized." So why bother? More useful calculations would scale the vaporization down to smaller quantities.
Your second quotation from Dr. Jenkins frames it further into the ridiculous.
After chiding Dr. Jenkins, I write:
Still, energy calculations to vaporize even one bar of steel is valid and [the energy] doesn’t come from nowhere.
Guess I was a bit too cryptic.
I'm saying that going in the direction of Dr. Jenkins calculations into the energy to vaporize even one beam of steel is valid. It requires large amounts of energy that has to come from somewhere, if it happened.
Dr. Wood speculates that vaporization of steel happened, and used as her chief example the disappearing spire. Well if this is the case, Dr. Wood obviously got it wrong, 'cause the spire fell.
And the energy calculations on a single beam vaporization (and what could happen to the Oxygen close by) also proves it wrong.
Dr. Wood got dustification right, but not of steel.
Señor El Once : DEW assertions are NOT demolished
The fact that these papers were written in 2007 prior to the publication of the the Wood book is irrelevant, as these critiques demolish the central core of the DEW assertions that were all carried forward in the printed book.
When you get passed the framing into the ridiculous of those 2007 papers and scale the physics appropriately, what happens is that errors in Dr. Wood's hyperbole and innuendo regarding "vaporization of steel" by DEW gets demolished. Disinfo agents always seem to have one or more self-destruct mechanisms whereby they can shoot themselves in the foot or otherwise discredit themselves at an appropriate time so that sheople won't take them seriously and all other seemingly valid points made by the agent gets cleared off the table in a guilt-by-association clean sweep. This is my humble opinion of Dr. Wood.
However, when DEW is limited to dustifying concrete and content (and not steel), the central core of DEW assertions are NOT demolished by the critiques of the 2007 paper.
Señor El Once : why we don't outright reject DEW
Of course if we limit it to concrete and concrete, then we are no longer speaking to Dr. Wood’s assertions. Are we? And if that is so, why “limit DEW” rather than outright rejection?
Honestly, I no longer know exactly what Dr. Wood's assertions are, anymore. The three parts to my confusion are:
(1) Hyperbole of Dr. Wood that detractors have pumped up into strawmen.
(2) The crafty way in which Dr. Wood's LATEST publication (her textbook) tries not to make assertions and instead relies on lingering innuendo.
(3) My own picking & choosing and mining of nuggets of truth and molding into my theories.
When you get your copy of Dr. Wood's book, you can call my attention to what her assertions are. However, her assertions may be different from what we should be holding up for consideration and preservation.
If we limit DEW to pulverizing concrete and contents (and not steel), you ask why we don't outright reject DEW?
Because it seemingly addresses more pieces of evidence and fits together more pieces of the puzzle than other hypotheses (particularly when my perversion into "nuclear-powered spire-based DEW" is considered in conjunction with a host of other destructive mechanisms.)
The evidence that I am seeking explanations for include:
- Under-rubble hot-spots burning without oxygen for many weeks.
- Radiation measurements [which may have been juked down from the get-go but were definitely further juked down by Dr. Jones, making such actions a further piece of evidence. If there was nothing to the effort, why risk reputation and career?]
- Anomalous damage to vehicles as documented by EMT seeing cars "popping off", by the vehicles along West Broadway, and by the vehicles in the catticorner parking lot some distance away. [Burning hot materials in a pyroclastic flow would not have been so selective -- e.g., sheet metal but not flags, leaves, trees -- and due to the distance and cooling would have been hard to reach the cars in the parking lot.]
- Concrete and content pulverization.
Señor El Once : One step back to go two forward.
Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,
I am in agreement that something odd was happening with the spire just prior to its demise. I'm still on board that DEW was aimed at it which generated the dust from concrete and whatnot still affixed to the spire causing it to go "poof" and break the "glue" keeping the spire together.
I just don't agree that the steel was dustified. It fell. Dr. Wood appeared to have limited her analysis to one perspective view from one video. (By golly, from just that one video, it does look like vaporization!)
When other videos are included, I'm seeing it fall. I bet she would, too. Why she has never run across the other videos, why she didn't incorporate them, and why they didn't cause her to change her position before book publication are questions ripe for speculation. Doesn't really matter and we can give her the benefit of the doubt. The real question is: if someone (like Andrew Johnson) were to bring these different perspectives of the spire falling to Dr. Wood's attention, would she change her conclusions? [IMHO, she could do so and not lose any face. The only snag is how this could potentially unravel DEW and other concepts.]
If you value Dr. Wood's efforts, then you owe it to yourself (& truth) to cherish the true and to sift out faulty speculation. Her lingering innuendo that the steel in the spire was dustified is one such premise. Doesn't mean DEW wasn't involved. It does mean that the energy output of DEW is scaled back into a reasonable range from the obscene levels represented by steel turning into vapor.
I want you to know that this is a good thing. One step back to go two forward.
You see, if energy levels were sufficient to vaporize steel, then errant DEW beams escaping from window slits and whatnot would have done far more damage to vehicles along West Broadway and in the parking lot. The vehicles wouldn't have been torched; they would be melted blobs in melted craters in the street.
P.S. I noticed no spire in WTC-2's destruction. However, I have seen a sequence of still pictures from across the Hudson that showed at one point a solid block (~1/4 or so of tower height) that remained standing inside the chaos of the dust with no pile driver on top for millisecond before it then oddly fell down. Only WTC-1 seemed to have a spire that was at least 2/3 of the tower's height.
Señor El Once : DEW is exists and is operational
DEW is one thing. It exists. It is operational. We've seen videos of its energy output at the low end with "active denial systems." We've seen videos of its energy output at a higher end in zapping missiles from the sky.
I'm pretty sure Dr. Wood is still asserting DEW.
DEW energy output on the massive scale necessary to vaporize steel is the "Hyperbole of Dr. Wood that detractors have pumped up into strawmen." Dr. Wood doesn't prove the case in my estimation for vaporization of the spire or for the extent of missing steel in the pile.
Why are you purposely missing this distinction?
As far as I'm concerned, I could really give a flying %&$# whether or not you find a passage in her book (and website) where you think she is asserting that DEW vaporizes steel. In fact, let's say that she does? So what?
I'll turn around and say: "she got that one wrong." Chalk that one up to a disinformation seed.
Does that then take DEW off the table? No. Why should it?
If it can be proved that all of the steel was accounted for, that the spire fell, and that the energy requirements to vaporize even one steel beam is ridiculously large, all it does it turn the magnitude knob of the DEW device counter-clockwise to a softer setting.
Stop being so eager to sway the readers into dismissing DEW. You are falling into old habits. [I'm surprised you haven't STFU the last week or so as you wait for Dr. Wood's book.]
Regarding your other comments, I'm in such a mood that I could stand on the mountain tops shouting: "DR. WOOD AND HER TEXTBOOK ARE DISINFORMATION!!!" So what?
But that doesn't mean I am going to give an inch in protecting and preserving from that exact same source the nuggets of truth I find valid. The broad attempts to sweep these off the table [without exploration to date] is what really bugs me and puts you on my bad side in this snippy mood I'm in today.
Remember, there is still a lot of evidence (presented by Dr. Wood) that is unaddressed. I've already listed that evidence that I want explanations for (and that you don't have):
- Under-rubble hot-spots burning without oxygen for many weeks.
- Radiation measurements
- Anomalous damage to vehicles
- Concrete and content pulverization.
Señor El Once : assertions do not account for the radiation measurements
Señor El Once claims that I haven’t – we haven’t, addressed these issues before.
How tiresome your mis-framing.
Señor El Once - "Under-rubble hot-spots burning without oxygen for many weeks."
Señor Rogue - We have been through this countless times. I disagree with your assertions and you disagree with mine. That there is an impasse cannot be construed as if we haven’t visited these questions.
Such weasel-words and sand-kicking distractions. At the risk of cranking up the carousel, your assertions for the demise of the towers (healthy mix of conventional explosives and incendiaries and super duper nano-thermite) has a tiny problem with its high school math. The left-over and unspent mixture of materials can NOT account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without its quantities being super duper massive [remember, this is left-over and not even what was spent in the observed pulverization]. Ergo, such quantities are unrealistic in an Occam Razor sense for logistics on the several days when the bomb-sniffing dogs took a pre-9/11 holiday as well as for the very deep pockets of the entities that could pull this off. Like boys with summer cash at a fireworks stand, they would have been a tad more than tempted to use other things, exotic things, from their arsenals.
Plus, your assertions do not account for the radiation measurements.
Señor El Once - "Radiation measurements"
Señor Rogue - You have yet to prove to my satisfaction that there was any substantial amount of radiation that could not be accounted for by landfill leakage into the watertable shared by the WTC complex.
You are correct in your weasel-words.
But what I do have is a deeply flawed govt report on the radiation readings. Let us distinguish between measurements collected and measurements reported. What they reported was far from being scientific or systematic. For example, did they take measurements on a grid pattern and on a regular basis? No to both. If memory serves me, they measured it at just a few locations and on just two days. One would think, like the topographical thermal images, they would have had similar images from lots of radiation data points showing the radiation hot spots.
But what I do have is Dr. Jones swallowing this govt report unchallenged. And then the good Dr. Jones makes some unscientific logic errors to conclude "no nukes were involved," re-defines trace levels of radiation to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11, and offers no explanation for what might have been the source for even the (juked?) amounts of the deeply flawed govt report.
But what I do have is Kevin Ryan documenting how long hot-spots burned, albeit with four notable spikes above the average level of heat.
But what I do have is Dr. Wood not even addressing radiation and trying to explain away hot-spots as if they didn't exist.
Señor El Once - "Anomalous damage to vehicles"
Señor Rogue - This issue is addressed here on this very thread, and has to do with the corrosive properties of the toxic pyroclastic clouds that these vehicles were subjected to.
Weak assertions that you dig hard for and that do not address the speed and coordination of vehicle damage described by one survivor as "popping off." The pyroclastic clouds weren't toxic in the sense of "instant death" as you make it out to be. Moreover, volcanos emit pyroclastic clounds whose corrosive effects do not lead to shorting of electrical systems of the nature that would suddenly "pop the car off."
Señor El Once - "Concrete and content pulverization."
Señor Rogue - To deny that there are high pressure plastiques capable of such pulverization through explosives, is to my mind inexcusable. And we have been through this discussion time after time as well.
I deny nothing of the sort. I'm saying that high pressure plastiques cannot account for pulverization AND duration of under-rubble hot-spots, much less radiation.
Señor El Once : fix them in revision 2
Señor Tamborine wrote:
Have you ever asked [Dr. Wood] if what you’re implying here is true? [Namely, videos with additional views of the spire show it falling and that if she would have been privy to such videos prior to the publication of her book, it would have motivated her to change her opinions about the spire being vaporized.]
I tried to engage Dr. Wood in a dialog in general. My email didn't bounce, but wasn't answered either. It mentioned that her work was being discussed on Truth & Shadows, albeit that was before even this thread was available. I've also encouraged Andrew Johnson (who we now know is probably monitoring this thread) to pass on to Dr. Wood the failings that we find.
I would be tickled pink if she were to take the criticisms (and mistakes) to heart and fix them in revision 2 of her book.
It appears as if you’re just idly “speculating”, but to make it sound as if it should really be taken as fact!
Let me set the record straight: yes! Complete and entire idle speculation. Guilty as charged.
You wrote the following misstatement (highlighted):
In Andrew’s video, June 3, at 4:25 am, you’ll see from 0:20 to 0:30 the ‘spire’ belonging to WCT1, and from 1:50 the ‘spire’ belonging to WCT2.
Everything in that video is from WTC-1, the North Tower, the second tower to get demolished. Nothing in that video is from WTC-2.
You go on to write yet another misstatement (highlighted):
There are many other distinctions between the two ‘spire’ structures which sets them apart, but i’ll leave that up to you to work out, all by yourself!
I repeat, only the north tower WTC-1 had any spire left-over for milli-seconds in the falling debris. WTC-2 had no spire. If you go and watch these on YouTube (as opposed to embedded in this thread), the descriptions tell you clearly "WTC North Tower."
Aren’t you being a bit naughty, Señor Tamborine Man!!
Señor El Once : confuse people and manage their perceptions
Dear Señor Naus,
What a wonderful posting! I couldn't help but savor the following words of wisdom from you:
We have a few individuals on this discussion that want to fill your head with all kinds of nonsense replies regarding what they call physics, nuggets of truth and validity of photographs. They are here to get you confused and manage your perception of Dr Judy Wood’s research.
Ooooo. That sounds bad.
Aren't you also here to confuse people and manage their perceptions of Dr. Judy Wood's research? According to you, she makes no mistakes and has no disinformation sown into her high-quality textbook.
Sometimes you have to go one step backwards in order to go two steps forward. If you cannot acknowledge the errors in Dr. Wood's research, then you are in no position to separate out and champion the truths, either.
I believe some of them are doing it purposely and they have an agenda to decieve.
I agree! The worst offenders are the brain-dead, religious zealots who worship the very ground that Dr. Wood trods upon.
The simple fact is that much of the steel never hit the ground until it was changed into dust. Don’t let them confuse you about dust examples taken that don’t show enough steel dust particles in them.
LUUUuuuuuuvvvv IT!!! Keep up the good work.
Too bad the images of destruction neatly tabulated to map positions to give readers a true sense of the breadth of WTC destruction disproves your contention about steel.
Hombre, we can champion DEW for its ability to dustify concrete, but we don't have to champion DEW into the realm of the ridiculous with the vaporization of steel.
I said way back on June 3rd about the time this discussion was started that this “appears” to be an attempt to distort Dr Judy Wood’s research and after over 10 days here I can now say with certainty that this discussion was exactly that.
Pointing out blatant errors and lingering innuendo isn't distortion.
Distortion would be not seeing or acknowledging such inherent errors. Distortion would be believing and championing Dr. Wood's efforts as if it were the Holy Gospel, as you do.
Beyond that, distortion is indeed what I do. Standing on Dr. Wood's shoulders and taking the evidence she presented into a new directions is what Dr. Wood desired from her crafty effort. Don't believe me? Take another gander at the sticker she posted on the inside cover with a quote from her. She never expected the extent of her theories to remain valid; her purpose (in God's eyes) was to get the evidence published and in people's eyes.
I don’t regret being here to take a stand for Dr Wood’s research and I hope others that read this discussion will take an independent look at her research, with no interference, by quiety reading her book. I’m out of here,
You coward! Come back here, you yellow-belly varmit!
I'll have you know that Señor Rogue now has a copy of Dr. Wood's book, compliments of me. His first impressions are:
The book is quite solid, and a handsome publication indeed, very nice.
Thanks for urging it on me. Whether I agree with her interpretations of evidence - some of it is very nicely presented therein, as far as I have seen so far.
Aren't you going to stick around and weigh in when we take the discussion chapter-by-chapter into Dr. Wood's book crack. Or are you chicken? When the going get's tough, the weak get wimpy.
Although we could use more people in the discussion who have read Dr. Wood's book and can reference in the book what we're talking about, your brain-dead defense of Dr. Wood indicates to me that you don't have her book, that you haven't read her book, and that
[You] want to fill heads with all kinds of nonsense and to confuse and manage perceptions of Dr Judy Wood’s research. [You are] doing it purposely and have an agenda to deceive.
Señor El Once : propped up Dr. Wood's textbook
Señor Rogue,
Great observations from Dr. Wood's textbook. With the early chapters, please bear in mind when they were originally written as articles what was afoot. It may seem silly to attack bottom-up demolition when the videos we know obviously don't show that, but at the time they had not reached the levels of saturation of today and all sorts of lame 9/11TM debunking was in progress ala: "Duh, how can you be so ignorant? Everyone knows controlled demolitions happen all the time from the bottom-up. This was obviously top-down. Logically by this fact alone, you're stupid to think it was controlled demolition, man, and I feel sorry for you, dude."
As to the seismic argument, it is well that she questions the reliability of the data in the reports. [Having studied Fast-Fourier Tansforms and digital filters myself, it is most certainly possible to filter data and even target "spectrum" areas for attentuation. Easy to do and tweak over and over and over before making public.] So Dr. Wood questions this (essentially) govt report, yet accepts the govt report with thermal satellite images unquestioned [leading to her questioning duration of hot-spots], and completely ignores the govt reports on radiation readings that necessitated Dr. Jones jumping through hoops and risking his reputation. This is a nugget of truth that bothers me.
The reason I've propped up Dr. Wood's textbook for being representative of her work is that it has final say. When she edits out things in her re-purposed textbook from previously published articles, I view that as legitimate changing her mind based on new evidence and coming to different conclusions. Let's not make an issue of this except to hold the textbook to a higher standard. [My lament is in spotting other things she should have corrected given the elapsed time between article and book and the way in which she stretched her reputation. Examples including different perspectives of the demise of the spire, the fire engine with the wilted front end, the fire engine accused of being missing one engine, and police car 2723 being towed to the bridge.]
Somewhere above you make the charge, Señor Rogue, about Morgan Reynolds being the handler for Dr. Wood. I can only suspect and speculate and not be surprised. To this end, it might be helpful to separate the opinions of Reynolds from those of Dr. Wood, whereby the textbook sort of accomplishes one-sidedly this particularly for dual-authored web articles.
Thank you for mustering the strength and objectivity to wade into Dr. Wood's textbook.
Señor El Once : get to seismic signals in due time
Dear Dr. Zarembka,
I promise to get to seismic signals from Dr. Wood's book in due time.
Or rather, I'm enjoying the calm before the storm. Mr. Rogue now has Dr. Wood's textbook. If all goes well, we'll do a Siskel & Ebert (Mutt & Jeff, Abbott & Castello) style chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly review of Dr. Wood's textbook.
I have every bit of confidence that Mr. Rogue and I will be able to talk knowledgeably about this subject in due time.
We're not ignoring you. Me? I'm just postponing you until Mr. Rogue can catch up.
Señor El Once : We are both wrong about WTC-2 spire
Dear Mr. Tamberine Man,
We are both wrong.
You are wrong because none of the videos presented in this thread with a spire are from WTC-2, the South Tower. They are all from the WTC-1, the North Tower.
OSS's video is titled "9/11: North Twoer Spire Collapse" if you would be bothered to go out to YouTube to watch it there. Its description goes on: "Compiled views of the WTC North Tower's core column remnants."
I am wrong because evidently WTC-2 did have a short-lived spire as seen from this short clip starting at about 0:14.
WTC South Tower Collapse.
However, most views of WTC-2 did not catch this spire, as it was so short lived and buried in the dust cloud. Most people remember WTC-2 because the top-portion seemingly was about to tumble over the side before its angular momentum.
The WTC-2 spire is so short-lived, you are more wrong than I am.
Señor El Once : no radioactivity at Ground Zero
Dear Mr. Bursill writes:
There was no radioactivity at Ground Zero period...
Is that so?
Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center [PDF]
Why was Dr. Jones called in to write his "no-nukes" paper that accepted these findings unchallenged and then added his own scientific slight of hand with a blatant logic errors and re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously?
If there was no radiation, then there would have been need for the govt & Dr. Jones to sully their reputations with these juking efforts.
Señor El Once : Hyperbole that Dr. Jones was called in, you no likey?
Señor Rogue,
You are cranking up the carousel, not me. You start it with a hair-split.
Hyperbole from me that Dr. Jones was called in, you no likey? Okay-dokey. Dr. Jones, nuclear physicist that he is, took it upon himself to step in to the 9/11 limelight (when damn few other nuclear physicists or college professor types stepped in, because they know which side their research funded bread is buttered on) and to accept the govt's report on radiation unchallenged so that he could juke it some more.
What makes this noteworthy are the fact that he laments the veracity and reliability and slow-walking of many other govt reports within videos and articles that he has written, but he doesn't do it prior to his acceptances of their tritium report.
Señor Rogue, I am getting tired of your unfounded accusations that seem to center around your faulty memory. The basis for my accusations can be found by going to various Truth & Shadows articles and searching for "Dr. Jones" within postings from me. [If you give me any backtalk on this along the lines that I am too lazy to provide links, Señor Rogue, I am going to rub your nose in it ruthlessly, because I know & remember that you & I have discussed it several times and you & I know that I can cough up the links easily and it won't be pretty for you.]
You write:
You question Jones intent, simply for his reliance on the "government produced" paper - while in fact all of his work debunking NIST, relied on their report to debunk it.
At least with the other NIST reports, he pointed out where they were being disengenuous. He didn't take it all at face value.
This is not the case where he wrote his "no nukes" paper.
A reminder for your faulty memory. The logic error from Dr. Jones is saying (paraphrased according to an Odell's Double Pilsner on Father's Day): Three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures respectively A, B, and C. Becaused we measured D, not only were these exact three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z not used, but no friggin' nuclear weapons were used of any sort or manner. As long as you are swallowing this bunk, I won't entertain any speculation into what could cause radiation levels D. And you will believe me, because I am a friggin' Bee Why You nuclear physicist who was involved with cold fusion in a nefarious way in 1989.
You write:
In what is there "blatant logic errors and re-definition of trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously?" Where is your proof of "trace levels to be 55 times greater than previously"?
Señor Rogue, you are indeed playing games. I am NOT going to answer this straightforward owing partly to the Double Pilsner but mostly to the fact I have done that many times. All you have to do is go to threads where we had previous debates and search for "55".
Hint: the original finding belongs to Dr. Ward. It comes from the high school math and from Dr. Jones waving off measured tritium as being at trace levels (his words) so are therefore of no concern for human health. The issue is when you look at what trace levels were pre-9/11 as opposed to what the measurements (supposedly) say and there being 55 times the difference post-9/11.
And if you can challenge the “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”; then let us have that argument as well.
Yep. I haven't found the errors; haven't even look for them closely. However, given the source and their agenda, I'm sure we'll find them at this later period. And even if we don't, is the onus really on us to rely on the veracity of govt reports in the light of those great baseline-settings-into-scientific-honest that the NIST reports are?
Señor El Once : play horse hockey
Dear Señor Rogue,
Perhaps that is because there was nothing [Dr. Jones] saw that was disingenuous in the tritium report.
Maybe. If memory serves me [and it might not in this matter], however, Dr. Jones was already active in the 9/11TM hot on the trail of that red molten stuff dripping from the corner of one of the towers when this tritium report hit the streets. Dr. Jones was already giving presentations regarding the implausibility of 9/11 being what the OCT said. And he was lamenting about the
As you haven’t read [the tritium report] yourself – you don’t know [if it had anything disingenuous] do you?
You like to play horse hockey, Señor Rogue. If anything, you haven't read it. My exact quote was:
I haven’t found the errors; haven’t even look for them closely. However, given the source and their agenda, I’m sure we’ll find them at this later period. And even if we don’t, is the onus really on us to rely on the veracity of govt reports in the light of those great baseline-settings-into-scientific-honest that the NIST reports are?
Señor Rogue writes:
You have NEVER cited anything on the Tritium levels being 55 X the normal in the debris, except for the assertions of Dr. Ward. Where are his proofs? Cite his proof or drop it.
Get ready to have your nose rubbed into your horse's hocky puck and the high school chemistry class you skipped in favor of art. Under something I've titled "agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should", I wrote the following passage to you on 2012-03-05 a couple of threads over. You'll note that this starts with a direct quotation from the Tritium report and specifies what the levels were on 2001-09-13. The 2001 normal background levels for tritium were around 20 TUs. It goes through some unit calculations and conversions to give the 55 times figure, and then quotes Dr. Jones with the phrase that pays ["these trace levels"] in his waving the 9/11TM away from mini-nukes.
On the other theme: Dr. Ward's writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.
From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.=> 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]
Thus we have:
=> 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
=> 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
=> 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]
In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60's, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
- http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html
=> 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level
Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:
=> (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63
Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.
Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):
Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, "Traces". Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% - after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing - of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdfSpecifically, right below the quotation on measurements from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers":
Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter.Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization "these trace levels" to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.
However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.
I have issues with some of Dr. Ward's other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.
Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward's factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,... as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.
Therefore, when you write things like this, Señor Rogue:
All I am getting is a circle – the suggestion that I revisit all the chatter Señor has laid on me about this, all of it empty assertions and digs at Jones, who he claims was put on this case in some way, and then Señor waffles back as there is no proof to this assertion and says that Jones took it upon himself…Why? To cover up the big deal nuke thing that no one has proven. WTF?
I’m sick of this rhetoric from Señor, I want simple citations to some real science here
I have to respond that -- as proven above -- you are the one purposely going in a circle. The simple citations to some real science that you crave were given to you before and again now. Yet you failed to acknoweldge it then.
It is I who am sick of your rhetoric compounded by your bad memory, Señor Rogue. The discussion didn't happen that long ago. My complaints against Dr. Jones' "science" are 300% substantiated (because your horse hockey game has had me repeat myself again and again). I suggest you go to the "When did they know..." thread and search on Dr. Jones particularly within postings from me in response to you.
Señor El Once : framing into "all nuclear weapons"
Dr. Jones wrote:
Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials.
Note the framing into "all nuclear weapons."
Has he addressed where the high levels of HTO came from? No, he doesn't address this. He also doesn't discuss the haphazard way in which such HTO was measured with respect to lots of data points.
Nuclear reactor, maybe?
What the good doctor measured with one or more Geiger counters is dependent upon the reliability of the Geiger Counters themselves, the reliability of the samples, and the reliability of Dr. Jones to faithfully and truthfully record his observations and analysis. Let's assume this is a given.
I'm not arguing for nuclear weapons being deployed on 9/11.
I'm arguing that much evidence seems to have a nuclear origin: HTO radiation readings, under-rubble hot-spots, hazmat procedures in the clean-up, ill-health of 1st responders, etc.
If you had small nuclear reactors (like from the Navy) at your disposal, what would you power from your arsenal if you were going to destroy something in a "plausible deniable" [sneaky] manner?
Dr. Jones wrote:
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Misframe. The Kingdome was "cracked" by controlled demolition and then pulverized by gravity and the ground acting together. The towers, on the other hand, were pulverized from the earliest moments of their demise before gravity and "another hard object" were able to do their wonders.
Dr. Jones wrote:
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.
True, but to suppose that "controlled demolitions with chemical explosives" did this opens three can of worms. The first one is that in order to achieve pulverization in the early moments of their demise, quantities of said materials would need to be excessive and overkill and thereby risk exposure of the operation. The second & third can of worms is that "controlled demolitions with chemical explosives" explains neither the radiation readings nor the hot-spot duration.
The following quote does not come from Dr. Jones but your posting attributes it to him:
A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.
Not necessarily. Depends on where they were used and their design. Designed for limited yield and detonation within the towers changes how debris can be used to shield things.
Señor El Once : tad too much reliance on the radiation readings being truthful
You know as well as I hazmat procedures are used for chemical – biological – as well as nuclear hazard response.
Carting in fresh dirt, spreading out, then a few days later scooping up and carting off. This is what they were doing at the WTC and of which Dr. Wood provides evidence.
To absorb radiation, yes. For chemical and biological hazard response? I don't know and even doubt.
The radiation readings are not high enough for a weapon…as far as the reactor thing, we are getting into speculation too far for my tastes.
First of all, you put a tad too much reliance on the radiation readings being truthful. I suspect they were juked down from the get-go (didn't have the measurements recorded from any systematic grid of the WTC) so that they could sneak in the doozy about it being at trace levels.
Secondly, even if we assume the radiation readings were accurate (and not high enough for Dr. Jones narrow comparison against three known nuclear weapons types), they have to be explained. They were not. They were explained away as no impacting health and being at trace levels (re-defined). Their cause? Their source?
The hot spots as not being accountable from explosives is not thoroughly explored, and the hose calculations, again are simply based on false assumption of containment, rather than dispersal in a chaotic field.
Complete and utter nonsense. How were the energetic materials "salted" throughout the pile that kept the hot-spots fairly localized and hot for many weeks? How much material are we talking about? Do the math, scholar.
Oh wait! I already did the math and you couldn't fault it. Even a salting representative of 1/1000 the calculations I made for a 3,000 fps slow burn rate (=> 884k miles) is still 800 miles of imaginary hose with unspent and overkill material. When you plug in burn rates for faster explosives (up to 29,000 fps), the hose grows again. Whether you figure a hose 1/8" inside diameter or 1", the amount of extra overkill unspent incendiary material is massive.
And unlikely.
We need to be looking at other sources for the hot-spots, and they might be related to the radiation.
Now, this is too much to argue again here. I would rather not. If you insist…well…?? Then there is that, and what can I do, but answer. I prefer to attend to other issues here.
Señor Rogue, upon deeper reflection of your participation in Truth & Shadows, it dawns on me that you have NEVER made a good argument for your destructive materials. You want readers here to believe that you have tiredlessly run through Señor El Once's carousel, but the whole time you never put your foot down to stop it spinning and said: "Here's my numbers, here's my math and physics, here's how all features are accounted for." Nope, you haven't and can't do this (Dr. Jones and company haven't done it), because that dog don't hunt!
The best you have been able to do is caste dispersion and claim what a carousel it is.
The fact is, your math for your destructive materials doesn't add up, and your spinning carousel has you implying it does, when clearly it doesn't, hasn't, and will never.
Señor El Once : Something else is causing the hot-spots
Dear Señor Rogue,
[For the sake of brevity, when I write "material", I am really referring to "incendiaries, explosives, sprayed on sol-gels, thermobaric aerosols, and any combination of these that you might be tempted to use to explain the demise of the towers."]
I'll respond to you multi-cast in reverse order. I have edited out the ad hominem directed at you for this very stupid trick you play in assigning "faulty assumptions" to me. The assumptions below are all yours, so any fault therein are also yours. You write:
I do not dispute your math, ... it is the faulty assumptions that you apply your maths to. Again, you apply these calculations to the material in a container wherein it is ignited and all goes off at once.
Container?! Ignited and all goes off at once?! WTF!
Back up.
Your premise is that a bunch of materials (as defined above) destroyed the towers and the WTC complex. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that this is so. Are unspent but overkill quantities of these materials also responsible for the hot-spots burning under the rubble at high temperatures for weeks?
This is what you imply, and this is what I say: "No friggin' way! Something else is causing the hot-spots, and if so, something else was probably responsible for the WTC destruction."
To back up my assertion, I simply ran the numbers on your materials using the simple metaphore of an imaginary garden hose. Why did I choose a hose instead of a box or tank? Because had the materials been deposited in any form of a pile or grouping and then ignited, the materials' inherent fast burn-rate would have consumed them entirely in minutes (if not split-seconds.) Instead, we need to be thinking more in terms of a fuse so that a many week burn-duration would even be possible. Immediately, astute thinkers about 9/11 should be saying: "there was no fuse of material; there was no imaginary garden hose packed or salted with material and ignited at one end; thus, it is already improbable that the materials were the source of the hot-spots."
To further solidify the improbability of these materials accounting for hot-spots, I calculated how long the imaginary garden hose "fuse" would have to be using gross simplifications (e.g., only 1 hot-spot, duration of only 4 weeks, and a burn rate on the slow end): 884,000 miles long. Astute thinkers about 9/11 should saying that this is unreasonable even before contemplating the inside diameter of such a hose. The volume of material in a 1" diamter hose 884k miles long is obscene, right? Well so is even a salted 1/8" diameter hose. Maybe we should "salt" it further by saying the material was spaced 1/10, 1/100, or 1/1000 of a packed density. Doesn't really matter. What is the volume of an 884 mile long 1/8" diameter imaginary fire hose? Using the stated materials, how much does this volume weigh? Remember, this represents an overkill amount of material that was unspent in the initial pulverization and remained salted in the rubble (ignoring the fact that hot-spots did not migrate significantly, and certainly not 884 miles worth.)
To dispell the first part of your malframing, an imaginary garden hose contains nothing except imagination and thought. Its purpose was not to be ignited all at once as you misframe, but to conceptualize volumes and quantities of material that would be required (not an option) to account for hot-spot duration.
Your materials do not. [Let us ignore that your thermobaric aerosols require air, and thus could not burn under the rubble.]
Your materials do not explain the anomalous radiation, either.
In the following quotes, it is hard to know exactly what are exactly your words versus those of Mike Philbin's. [What is your defect that your genius can't figure out the HTML syntax for <blockquote> or how to efficiently copy & paste it from Notepad?]
As per the nuke hypothesis; there are obvious signatures, as pointed out above.
I'm not saying that nukes as most people understand them did it. I am saying that something nuclear was involved. The fact that something was measured, reported, and skewed (at the risk of Dr. Jones' reputation) is a clue, although I don't think we can rely on what was actually measured.
One option -- that is surprising that Dr. Wood didn't even consider for powering DEW -- is a nuclear reactor.
Another option is to remember that nuclear devices can be tweaked in many different ways with regards to yield and side-effects. An SDI concept from the mid-1980's involved detonating a nuke and channeling certain wavelengths (like X-rays to destroy missiles) before the blast & heat waves destroyed the portions of the device doing the channeling. Thus, nuclear concepts needing to be explored could involve a very low yield nuke in terms of blast & heat wave in exchange for electromagnetic energy at certain wavelengths that can be channeled (and in exchange for publicly unknown nuke radiation signatures).
Nuclear devices don't have to be all about flash, bang, torch, and blast.
I believe that a newly developed thermobaric explosive developed by the DoD prior to 9/11 (and put into official use in a weapon on 21 Dec 2001) was used by having insensitive polymer bonded explosives planted in the core section of each floor. They would have been very small packages of the explosive and easily placed during the work on the towers over the months previous to 9/11. Since this material is “insensitive” it was very safe to use and would not explode by shock, normal fire, or other normal influences.
I believed they used thermobaric weapons that were loaded into the elevators and were exploded inside of the elevator shafts, to blow the building apart from the inside – out.
Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer). Thus, on a weight-for-weight basis they are significantly more energetic than normal condensed explosives. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude or in adverse weather. However, they have significant advantages when deployed inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll bite. Maybe channeled electromagnetic rays from a nuke (ala DEW) ignited the thermobaric explosives. However, unspent thermobaric explosives can't burn without oxygen from the surrounding air, so can't account for under-rubble fires... or their duration... or the measured radiation...
Señor Rogue writes:
I have attempted to explain that the materials were not blown at the same time, but were sequenced – as such, assuming varied charges, cutters, sprayed on sol-gels, and the thermobaric aerosols; we have a scenario where the redundancy likely sent a great deal of the materials unreacted into the pulverized dust clouds to accumulate within the debris pile, where there were active fires and smoldering…again a chaotic landscape stories deep, much of it oxygen starved, where these oxygen self-sufficient incendiary/explosives would be activated in a creeping manner throughout the pile.
Some creep to the fires? I can give you that. [Hyperbole] But 884 miles of creep within the WTC complex (as calculated for just 1 hot-spot burning 4 week at a slow burn-rate and salted by 1/1000 and again 1/8" hose diameter)?!! No way.
I don’t know what is clogging your cognizance.
... that you can't see the massively ginormous weaknesses in your destruction mechanisms. Involvement? Sure. But the unexplained evidence suggests that other sources of energy or destruction were involved. You make light of it. You ignore it. You argue the hardest of anyone else against this obvious fact (using as proven above "faulty" crap). Repeatedly.
I [truly] don’t know what is clogging your cognizance.
... But I can speculate.
Like Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and many others, you toe the "no nuclear (anything)" line, because this is the shock & awe revelation that just might turn the corner on 9/11 truth consciousness of the world, and as a result change the status quo and change the world.
Señor El Once : grasp new concepts and incorporate into subsequent actions
Dear Señor Rogue,
The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to grasp new concepts and then to incorporate those concepts into subsequent actions. You write in an old school fashion:
One more thing Señor El Once, I am not scrolling up here to the upper middle of the thread anymore to read your responses. Anything further you wish to bring to my attention, make your comment at the current spot of the thread if you will.
Does not email trigger you that something is new within a thread that you might want to comment on? If so, study that email more closely. Whereas the line breaks in the email version of the comment might be all whacked to hell, what is not are the hyperlinks. In particular, right next to the user name is a hyperlink on the word "commented" followed by a hyperlink on the title to the associated article. (At the bottom of the email are two additional links, one for "Reply" and the other for "Comments". I personally never use these, because they are too early in my authoring process.) I use the "commented" link next to the author all the time, because it takes me directly to their posting in context.
Follow this advice, and you won't be "scrolling up here to the upper middle of the thread anymore to read my responses" anymore. You'll be taken right there from your email program.
So, consider this concept number 2 for you to incorporate into your actions. Concept number 1 would be effective use <blockquote> in your postings. When I code or write things, sometimes I'll use a Notepad file with a whole series of code snippets for me to quickly highlight, copy, & then paste into the document in my editing tool. For my postings here, I do all my writing in a free HTML editor (called HTML-Kit).
Concept number 3 relates to your statements:
As far as 'radiation' - the amount of tritium is simply not sufficient in itself to postulate it's cause is a nuclear device.
Horse apples, Señor Rogue. If we assume the validity of the tritium amounts, they clearly indicate a NUCLEAR DEVICE. The nuclear device does not have to be a "conventional" (or known) NUCLEAR WEAPON. Please note the distinction.
However, we have no reason to believe such an assumption is valid. You put probably too much faith and confidence in the govt report that documents the tritium levels. I don't think we can trust the tritium levels to be what they stated.
In my opinion, either they were were shoddy, unsystematic, and unscientific when they took the measurements not doing any systematic grid pattern and regular period in measuring, or measurements taken were not published in the report. Given the security imposed upon the WTC, we can suspect the former as being a true impact to their efforts; and notes in the report should have detailed when exactly they attempted and were denied access for this measurement task. Given the NIST reports and their slight of hands as well as the re-definition of "trace levels" within this very same tritium report, we can suspect that measurement data was withheld as well.
I also find the narrow focus on tritium to be noteworthy, because I have seen no companion reports with narrow focus on alpha, gamma, etc. radiation, implying "ain't nothing there." This tritium report could very well be the magician waving his left hand for the audience to admire while something else gets "disappeared" from view.
So when thinking about how you are going to apply concept 3 into your subsequent actions, it might behoove you to keep this radiation anomaly at the ready. As is seemingly your agenda, you are too quick to sweep postulation into nuclear devices off of the table when too many data points ARE SCREAMING that we look there -- even Dr. Wood's book in not so many words. (Radiation, hot-spot duration, hazmat procedures designed to absorb and dilute radiation at WTC, destruction of evidence including steel being shipped to china, security in even the transportation of scrap materials, failure by agency-after-agency to investigate the "crime scene", 1st responder ailments, ...)
Your attempt at waving off the nuclear evidence? FAILURE.
You say I am at fault for the roundabout, I say you are the cause. Which ever it is doesn’t matter. I am sick of this jackass trip with you.
I guess in keeping with being old-school, green, and energy efficiency, every carousel needs a jackass to turn it. Due to your unfounded accusations and faulty memory that kicked off this detour on June 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm, due to the malframing and energetic wave-off's of your postings, and due to your frequency in posting (regularly 2 posts from you to 1 from me), we come to concept number 4.
You are under no obligation to respond to me.
The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to grasp new concepts and then to incorporate those concepts into subsequent actions.
Señor El Once : dismissal in its entirety
2012-06-20
{This was not posted to the forum.}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You write:
However, in my analysis of the Shack group, I have found them simply not credible due to lack of technical expertise. In their case, dismissing them point by point came to a final point of dismissal in its entirety.
Despite the validity of your discovery of their talent levels and even point-by-point shredding, dismissal in its entirety [of September Clues and the imagery manipulation genre] is a dangerous game to play with respect to truth.
One could even argue that getting dismissal in its entirety out of the likes of you was exactly the Shack group's ploy when they argued in stilted & tilted fashion "False in one, false in all". What better way to get uncomfortable nuggets of truth regarding media active & persistent complicity in the 9/11 hoax dismissed thrown out than to wrap such truths into "faking of fakes" circus rings. FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Señor El Once : Mr. Rogue's posting does not belong here
Dear Mr. McKee,
After approving this very posting, could you please then delete it and Mr. Rogue's June 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm posting in, oh, maybe an hour.
Mr. Rogue's posting does not belong here. If he wants to have it published, he can very well post it in the proper thread and the proper location (which would be under my June 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm posting).
Mr. Rogue writes in his misplaced rant:
Signature effects to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.
Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.
That may be.
Further, it is your agency agenda and pure, unadulterated disinfo that has you purposely and oh so frequently ignoring and vocally dismissing major pieces of the evidence (e.g., specific signature characteristics of something nuclear in the form of radiation, unquenchable hot-spots, and 1st responder ailments), because it doesn't fit in with the pretense and conjecture of super duper nano-thermite and thermabutic (sp?) mechanisms that you are paid to peddle to supplement your SS retirement. I do not chalk it up to stupidity but to your assignment that the boojie woojie high school science you avoided in favor of art disqualifies your pretense and conjecture as explaining anything beyond the initial pulverization [and even that is a stretch maybe too far], a fact that you don't even acknowledge or use to modify your conclusions. If you don't address all of the evidence in your pretense and conjecture, then the likelihood is greater that your pretense and conjecture is wrong.
Shall I bore you with the blind men faced with the task of describing what was in the room (an elephant) while each had a hand on a different body part (e.g., trunk, ears, tail, legs, belly) and came to different conclusions as to the animal?
Señor El Once : pretense and conjecture do not address all of the evidence
Mr. Rogue is being too lazy to put his posting:
(a) where it belongs under the proper article [June 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm]
~OR~
(b) where it belongs under this article and any mention of your summary of Dwain Deets’s presentation on the weekend.
It for sure does not belong under my posting that talked about doing away with embedded video on this forum.
If Mr. Rogue has a relevant point to make other than a side-swipe of me and spinning how his pretense and conjecture do not address all of the evidence, then he should make that point even more relevant by posting it where it belongs.
Otherwise, I view this as a variation of his tactic of munging up the comment section.
Having due and timely notice, let Mr. Rogue re-post his pretense and conjecture in an appropriate spot. Then as far as I'm concerned, what appears below my June 20, 2012 at 5:40 pm (and maybe inclusive) can be removed.
Señor El Once : still left with evidence in the aftermath for which we must continue looking for a source
Let us be clear. A nuclear hypothesis includes publicly known nuclear weapons [whose radiation signatures don't match the "published findings"], nuclear energy sources [to power other weapons], as well as exotic nuclear weapons [whose primary output isn't "heat wave and blast wave" but electromagnetic energy at "useful frequencies" to be channeled & directed in "useful" ways, and therefore by design would produced vastly different radiation signatures.]
Señor Rogue wrotes:
You simply do not have the radiation signatures for your hypothesis [of the involvement of nuclear devices] to stand up. The tritium levels are inconsequential, and alone with no further proofs of nucleosynthesis; the detection of daughter elements signature to nuclear fission nor fusion. The nuclear hypothesis has no firm standing.
Such a wonderful red herring you return to.
Facts number 1 & 2. What radiation signatures were "measured" and "published" were not explained by your mechanisms of destruction nor were they explained adequately period.
Fact number 3. The trend line was established by data points from the actions of other govt entities (EPA, NIST, FEMA, FAA, Military) regarding 9/11 that suggests their reports & statements cannot be trusted at face value. We do not know what was actually "measured", if it was measured in a representative fashion, or that what was "published" was an honest analysis thereof.
Fact number 4. Unlike other reports [from NIST] that clearly had purposeful skewing of their scope and easily spotted misleading statements by those versed in high school physics, the reports of nuclear findings were accepted without scrutiny even by those versed in nuclear physics (to whom the entire 9/11TM deferred judgement).
Fact number 5. That same nuclear physicist is guilty of blatant omission and of allowing his discovery [super duper nano-thermite] to be extrapolated to explain aftermath features that it cannot.
Fact number 5. Dog & pony shows are put on to cover over and distract, not to highlight.
Compare this stack of maybes to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled [chemical] explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.
Such nice skew and nonsense, Señor Rogue. But the facts remain that the "chemical causes" you promote cannot account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots [the math adds up to ginormous quantities of unspent materials leftover from the original decimation] nor for the radiation signatures. So even if "chemical causes" could produce the decimated towers and adjacent WTC buildings, we are still left with these two pieces of evidence in the aftermath for which we must continue looking for a source.
Let me circle back to the pyroclastic flow that you claim contained hot nanothermitic particles that resulted in the torching of cars. I've already pointed out how selective this pyroclastic flow was that it would attack metal in vehicles and not leaves on trees, trees, paper, flags, humans, and vehicles around corners or not line-of-sight with the towers. But another major piece of evidence is that many windows on adjacent office buildings were broken that allowed this "pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles" to enter where they would have encountered lots more highly flamable items (compared to sheet metal in vehicles) in the form of upholstry, office paper, carpeting, etc.
Draw a line from the car park at Vesey St. and West St. where cars were toasted to the closest tower. (Or draw another one from the intersection of West Broadway and the cross street where the last car thereon was toasted to the closest tower.) This line represents a radius, and it just so happens that WFC-1, WFC-2, WFC-3, Bankers Trust, Millennium Hotel, etc. were all within the radius of a "pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles", had broken windows through which the "pyroclastic flow with hot nanothermitic particles" would (and did) enter, yet had no how office fires as far as I know. We don't even know if they triggered sprinklers. WTC-7 had its sprinkler system taken out of commission.
This [forensic profile of chemical explosives] must be kept in mind as we move on to analysis of the effects indicated in the aftermath, and rubble pile hot spots and proofs of molten metal in the basement levels. There remains the same problem of lack of radiation. The same applies to the corrosion of metals including cars post event. These have the signature of chemical causes as well.
You can't say there was a lack of radiation, because there was a lack of reporting on the radiation and the EPA already proved itself capable of downplaying the toxicity of the dust. Moreover, 1st responder ailments mirroring that of Hiroshima survivors suggests otherwise.
The corrosion of metals in the cars was due to having their paint and other protective coatings burned off followed by rain. Rust is the natural byproduct.
You probably wrote imprecisely, but some readers could misconstrue that the cars had a problem of lack of radiation. Of course they would, even if a nuke were used, because the cause of their damage would have been electromagnetic energy, not radiation.
Every anomaly I have confronted has proven a dead end to my satisfaction
Except for the anomaly that radiation was measured at all, and they produced a dog & pony show to downplay it and minimize it (and that you continue to produce).
To the satisifaction of a former boy genius in the field of art?
I studied engineering, and to my satisfaction too many anomalies haven't been addressed or have been addressed poorly as you continue to do.
I will end with the point that I have yet to find anything compelling in your counter argument to date, for DEW, or nuclear, or combinations thereof.
What page are you on in Dr. Wood's book?
Its purpose isn't to provide definitive statements on what caused the destruction, but to present evidence and to open thinking into other destructive mechanisms.
Here's some additional information that should be considered a seed:
- Project Excalibur
- X-Ray Laser
I'm not saying that X-Ray lasers did 9/11. I'm saying that we have to look at where the research and thinking were (e.g., 1977 before Star Wars and SDI) and contemplate where research was heading and where it might have gotten to in 20 years by 2001. We have to think out of the box. What is important about this X-Ray laser box is that the nuclear device was not intended to destroy missiles with a nuclear blast or nuclear heat wave or nuclear EMP; it would destroy missiles by channeling & targeting electromagnetic energy (X-rays) from the nuclear detonation.
If you adjust the requirement of a nuclear component from being a destructive source to being an energy source for some other destructive mechanism, it changes the dynamics; hell, it changes the radiation signature.
We both are open to a larger conspiracy with very deep pockets and a vast arsenal of destructive devices, many of which are not public knowledge except that Star Wars -> Strategic Defense Initiative -> National Missile Defense was not a job creation program for the overly educated with no expectation to produce useful weapons for the DoD.
Why are you artificially limiting yourself to "chemical explosives"?
From the deep pockets and deep arsenal perspective, it does not make logistics sense to go primarily with those chemical mechanisms of destruction. The quantities would be massive just to decimate the towers, but the hot-spots duration would indicate massively ginorous unspent quantities were present. They weren't present in such quantities, and this is what the high school math sheds light on.
And the radiation signatures -- whether we put full faith into the actual numbers of the published reports or zero faith -- is a major frigging clue that something else from the arsensal was at play.
Combine this with everything else -- security at the WTC, the line-of-sight vehicle damage, 1st responder ailments, etc. -- and quite frankly, you give up too early. You too easily find "concensus" in lesser theories that blatantly ignore major swaths of evidence or inadequately explain them.
In fact, your entire tenure on Truth & Shadows spanning half a year has been a jihad to take such "thinking outside the box" off of the table where it had found ground in my postings.
I'll spare you further "foaming at the mouth hot sauce from my bleeding frustrations and the bleating ululations of my hot boiling imagination" into your agenthood.
Señor El Once : foaming at the mouth hot sauce
Dearest Señor Rogue,
Your two postings to my one separated by less than twenty-five minutes might be representative of your "foaming at the mouth hot sauce from your bleeding frustrations and the bleating ululations of your hot boiling imagination". At the very least, it gives me the opportunity to respond.
You write:
I point to the forensic analysis of the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions and it is overwhelming that they indicate such a sequenced explosive event. So you have a forensic profile that fits beyond reasonable doubt.
Only if you ignore the evidence of radiation, the under rubble hot-spots, the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki, etc.
Or maybe "ignore" is too strong a verb.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that lots of different mechanisms of destruction were used. As such, a case could be made as you do for the signature characteristics of controlled explosive demolitions.
Fine. But you can't stop there.
Now account for the the evidence of radiation, the under rubble hot-spots, the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki, line-of-sight damage to vehicles, etc.
Why is there a nuclear signature at all (assuming we trust what was reported)?
What could have been its source?
What purpose would it have served and what did it accomplish?
If we have reason to doubt the validity of the nuclear signature (and we do), then which direction does it most likely error? How thorough and deep was the nuclear cover-up?
You challenge me with:
Again, it is FIRST up to you to explain how any other mechanism can mimic the EXACT characteristics of sequential controlled explosive demolition.
Except that "the EXACT characteristics of sequential controlled explosive demolition" does not leave a nuclear signature of any kind. It can also not burn under the rubble for many weeks. It doesn't require nuclear hazmat procedures.
Maybe when you have finished Dr. Wood's textbook, you will have your own theories in the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment