Hide All / Expand All
Señor El Once : You're the ying to my yang
2012-06-29
Mr. Hybrid Rogue makes some valid points. For instance, on June 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm he writes:
It is obvious he cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board.
I have been using you as a slamming board. I have been bouncing ideas off of you. Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction. You're the ying to my yang. You're the Laurel to my Hardy. You're the Mutt to my Jeff. "You complete me, baby..."
I only comment on Bridges as he keeps jabbing his shank at me. So here is the tip of my shank;
Such harsh and violent language, Mr. Rogue. Not very becoming. You're not being fair, because when you go off-road and into ad hominem ville -- which you have (tried) on numerous occassions against me --, your attacks are more creative and much worse than the tiny, iddy-biddy agency logo I painted on the face of your slamming board.
Mr. Rogue winds up for his round-house joust:
Bridges has no viable argument. This is why he has nothing but counterpunches. If he could describe a clear and viable scenario he would have done so by now.
Before I respond to this, allow me to remind readers that Mr. Rogue previously wrote on June 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm:
It is true, I no longer read [Señor El Once's] book length postings but for a glance.
The skew was when Mr. Rogue gave up reading my book length postings. It must have started a lot earlier, because that would explain his unfounded assertion.
Because my clear and viable scenarios are posted and the failing is by Mr. Rogues own admission his own for only glancing at them, the onus is on Mr. Rogue to go back and re-read my postings for the scenarios that I say he missed.
My earlier scenarios suggested mini-nuclear reactors that powered multiple DEW devices placed at various levels within the towers. They broadcast microwave energy that turned residual water molecules in content (like concrete or drywall) into steam whose expanding volume pressure blew the containers apart, while explosive nano-thermite milli-seconds later chunked out the sections of the outer wall. The pulsed DEW could also be used to ignite thermiberic (sp) bombs to assist with the pulverization. I called this "nuclear-powered DEW"
My newer thinking borrows from Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that really specially milli-nuclear devices were used that were designed -- not for blast wave energy or heat wave energy which are the typical desired side-effects but -- for electromagnetic energy that it would channel (ala DEW) in a controlled fashion as above. I call this speculation "nuking DEW" because the nuclear reaction eventually consumes the rods used for directing the energy.
The PR from the car commercial, "This isn't your Dad's [Catalac]!" gets paraphrase for both: "These aren't the public's concepts of how a mini-nuke or nuclear weapon should behave!"
In both scenarios, its radiation signature would not match conventional nukes. And even if it did, the magician's PR trick unfolds.
The more I got into the Tritium reports and its handling, the more I saw that as a magician's left-hand waving about so companion reports on alpha, beta, and gamma radiation wouldn't even have to be brought to light as if they never existed, were never important, don't even ask for them, "nothing to see here, folks. Move along now."
Ryan & Jones' (valid) focus on the six excessive spikes in the release to the atmosphere of chemicals was the magician's left-foot to distract from the fact that the average hot-spot temperature and duration between the spikes wasn't even mentioned or analyzed as if [average hot-spot temperature] didn't exist so had no source! Dr. Wood used unchallenged thermal reports from the govt to cast further doubt on even the existance of hot-spots. To which Mr. Rogue promotes "salting."
Mr. Rogue, unable to sleep, consumes four hours of thinking to come back with his June 29, 2012 at 1:03 am second rejoiner. It begins with his earlier words:
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 that a DEW would duplicate these very specific signature characteristics.
I replied:
Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!
Mr. Rogue tries to come back with:
Yes “mutually exclusive,” is precisely the point of forensic analysis of signature characteristics. It is what defines the signature. Like your mutually exclusive signature in your handwriting under the magnifying glass of an expert analyst, like your mutually exclusive fingerprints.
I reply in a similar fashion:
Such mutually exclusive pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense!
Having spent much of your professional career in animation, ever hear of overlays or layers? You use one transparency layer to define the motion of character X, and use another transparency layer to host the background. They get overlayed to produced one image with character X on the desired background.
Music does the same thing: drums on track 1, guitar on track 2, vocals on track 3, etc. They get overlayed together onto one track and produced into the music heard in the commercial product.
It is entirely possible for me to touch an object with my thumb, for someone to put tape over that, and for you to touch the object on the tape at the same spot and for both of our thumb prints to be overlaid but with each print being distinguishable (by computers).
It is entirely possible for me to sign my name on a piece of paper and for someone else to sign their name right over the top, and both would be super-imposed and legible.
9/11 didn't have one signature, one fingerprint, one track, one overlay, one source for the destruction. It had many. You point out one, so that the other one that is overlaid, underlaid, always present isn't discussed: nuclear evidence.
To prove my point, you conluded with this wonderful gem of an ad hominem overlaid on your case to
really put that final nail in the coffin of your case:
The only “pitter-patter mumbo-jumbo nonsense,” is the high pitch anal hurlant squall attempting to drown out the validity of such standard forensic science.
Hide All / Expand All
Señor El Once : Y-a-w-n, it was in a book-length posting
2012-06-29
Mr. Rogue tries to quote Dr. Jones, but gets it wrong, because this paragraph comes directly from Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center, and even Dr. Jones writing makes this clear:
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±0.074nCi/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.
Y-a-w-n. I guess here is another book-length posting of mine that Mr. Rogue only glanced at: June 18, 2012 at 10:23 am. I use most of the same quote from Dr. Jones and show how they did the magician trick of redefining trace level to be 55 times greater than it was.
That same report also says:
These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.
Assuming Mr. Rogue quoted Dr. Jones correctly, Dr. Jones puts his own spin on it:
The quantities reported are extremely small, and, as the same report states, their likely source was tritium radioluminescent devices in the World Trade Center.
Mr. Rogue's gambit continues:
The following information on tritium is useful. But of course will have no bearing on Mr. Bridges hypothesis, as he is not speaking to “nuclear explosions” – but this hybrid “nuke reactor driven DEW” { if I have that right}. In which case any and all data can be dismissed as we are now speaking to pure mystery and supposition.
Quite right, my old man! Dr. Jones accepted unchallenged the tritium report. He then tilts the table using signatures for three types of nukes, finds their signatures don't match the reports, so rules out all nukes AND offers wimpy supposition of his own for the tritium that you do us the favor of highlighting.
Quite right again in saying that my "nuking DEW" and "nuclear-powered DEW" are both "pure mystery and supposition" when brought up by me. It keeps good company with the "pure mystery and supposition" that you peddle.
Where you are wrong is explaining why "any and all data can be dismissed". The reason is that it was never verified as being accurate or trustworthy in the first place.
Because it was in a book-length posting on June 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm, you probably missed this excellent quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:
They would tackle you and take your camera away. … When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn’t go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. … The rescue people – when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don’t wear anything on the site you’re not prepared to leave there because it’s contaminated. … My teeth are falling out. … If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn’t say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they’d say, “Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second.” And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [AJ: AJ: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn’t take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn’t control. … Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people’s teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I’ve lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, “I’ve never seen anything like this in someone who’s healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can’t stop it either.” … The doctor said to me, I have – 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It’s this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems.
It isn't even as if an astute individual with independent measuring equipment would be admitted to even the outer perimeter of the WTC security line.
I offer up further "pure mystery and supposition" by saying that we have no reason to trust any of the govt radiation reports.
Oh, and here is something else to add to my "pure mystery and supposition." Dr. Jones said that a trigger for a super-duper nano-thermitic device could be a laser. I'm sure the same is true for Mike Philbin's thermobaric explosive. "Directed" and "energy" are two keywords from DEW.
In conclusion, B-I-G Y-A-W-N.
You become more like Q-bot everyday, Mr. Rogue.
Señor El Once : wave-off that DEW might be just a supposition: Nope
2012-06-29
Dear Mr. Rogue,
My June 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm was one minute after your June 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm posting, but due to moderation delays, neither of us would have known that.
However, the question is: why did you write the 3:59 pm posting at all? You already had the last word with your 1:59 pm posting. If you had something more to say, why didn't you delay your 1:59 pm posting, expand it to book-length, and include information from the 3:59 pm posting? You put two in a row, Mr. Rogue.
As for your wave-off that DEW might be just a supposition: Nope. DEW is operational. Active Denial System proves it; videos of lasers destroying missiles proves it; published speculation from 1977 (Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser) before Star Wars kicked into gear does a bit more than hint the direction some of the research would go.
Regarding Excalibur, Wiki has this to say:
Conceived by nuclear scientist Edward Teller, the concept involved packing large numbers of expendable x-ray lasers into a nuclear bomb. When it detonated, the bomb would fire laser beams in many directions. ... Ten known tests of nuclear-pumped x-ray lasers were conducted between 1978 and 1988. The project was determined to be out of reach of current technology and was formally abandoned in 1992. ... Research was redirected to laser satellites and kinetic weapons under the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Yep, I'll bet directing fire at multiple targets was out of reach of the technology (1992), but what elements of the concept were still feasible [and permitted the 10 known tests of nuclear-pumped x-ray lasers]? I'd be willing to speculate in a wild-ass & crazy fashion that they could hit at least ONE target... like whatever was placed in the path of the laser... like on 9/11 a whole series of tower floors.
Alas, speculation it remains, but speculation that at least tries to address the evidence. Your super-duper nano-thermite in a sol-get thermobutic bomb? Not so much. Yeah, it was in the dust, but it wasn't radioactive nor could it account for hot-spot duration (just hot-spot spikes). It doesn't merit shutting down all lines of inquiry into other sources that can explain these bothersome piece of evidence.
Your concerted effort -- postings in a row -- to have the readers of this forum not consider such bothersome pieces of evidence and to settle for what a genius artist "finds a more compelling line of reasoning" should be duly noted by all.
[Yeah, yeah, yeah, they've already noted how bat-shit crazy & waffling I am to even go there. I wouldn't be such a duped useful idiot on this front if your scientific analysis was better. It ain't. You're just repetitive in a Q-bot-ish way.]
Señor El Once : using each other as slamming boards.
2012-07-02
Dear Dr. Fetzer and Mr. Rogue,
Looks like you are using each other as slamming boards. Dr. Fetzer wrote on June 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm:
Nanothermite is non-explosive. It is an incendiary. It's fastest know detonation velocity is only 895 m/s [2908 ft/s].
True.
But to be fair, when one studies Mr. Rogue's references on nano-thermite, they are adding explosives to this wonderful incendiary to get energy out of it quickly. They are changing its nature. The two gotcha's to this are:
(1) When you crank up the speed of energy release, you massively crank up the quantities that would be required to support a long duration under-rubble hot-spot, assuming you are trying to use this source material to explain that particular after-effect anomaly.
(2) Thermoburic (sp) devices that Mr. Philbin via Mr. Rogue are promoting and are one such mixture of nano-thermite & something else {if I understood correctly} and require oxygen to burn. Between being under-rubble and doused with lots of water, they are an unlikely source for the duration of the hot-spot. Spikes? Maybe. Duration? No.
Dr. Fetzer wrote the following confusing sentence:
What is necessary to pulverize concrete is 3,200 m/s [10,400 ft/s] and concrete 6,100 m/s [19,825 ft/s].
Why the two numbers? What words did you leave out or misplace? I assume they are valid for something and are large numbers.
Wait a minute. In a June 22, 2012 at 1:26 pm posting, you write:
(1) it is a principle (law) of materials science that, for an explosive to destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material;
(2) the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s [10,400 ft/s];
the speed of sound in steel, 6,100 m/s [19,825 ft/s].
I guess maybe the correction to your sentence is:
What is necessary to pulverize concrete is 3,200 m/s [10,400 ft/s] and to pulverize steel 6,100 m/s [19,825 ft/s].
When I did my calculations to estimate the quantities of an incendiary/explosive to account for just one under-rubble hot-spot burning for just four weeks, I used a burn-rate of 3,000 fps, which is at the low-end but a little faster than pure nano-thermite. To account for the duration, this material can't be put into a pile and torched all at once; you configure it somehow to get maximum duration burn like a fuse that you light at one end. I needed a convenient way of estimating volume. So I used the concept of an imaginary hose whose diameter can be tweaked to account for "salting" etc. The hose was 884k miles long. When you plug in your numbers [10,400 ft/s] to account for concrete pulverization, that damn persnickety imaginary hose grows to 3M miles (3,064k miles) before "salting" is applied.
{Pulverization of steel [19,825 ft/s] -- if it occured [and I doubt] -- would grow that damn imaginary garden hose to 5.8M miles (5,841k miles).}
I don't care whether the inside diameter is 1/32" or 1", the volume quantity of those imaginary hoses is ginormously massive and for this reason alone would UNLIKELY account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spot. Moreover, Ryan & Jones speculate that such material only accounted for six or so notable spikes in the release of gases.
Ergo, some other source must be sought to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
Dr. Fetzer, we're in agreement that the aircraft at the towers were not commercial planes primarily due to the speeds and elevations recorded on video and radar. The point you are missing from the Sandia crash (as well as the MythBuster rocket sleds) is what veleocity-squared does to the amount of energy applied to "common" materials in vehicles (cars or aircraft) when the velocity is huge (e.g., 500 mph).
The WTC aircraft had the two fold operation of that massive energy being applied to the tower steel as well as reflected back off of the tower onto the light aircraft components. Because the exterior box column were 60 cm wide on 100 cm centers, the WTC aircraft didn't hit a completely solid surface like Sandia. There was window slit space for the scredding to go.
Assuming the planes were real (albeit suped up), I have no more difficulties believing how the steel was severed while aircraft seemingly was decimated & shredded into nothingness in a time frame that lower-speed cameras would not necessarily catch. This is one point I think you should drop, because I do not think you are appreciating veleocity-squared at high velociy from both Sandia and MythBusters.
The other point is holograms. It wasn't just videos that caught the 2nd plane from multiple angles, but radar. Holograms would not have radar returns. Moreover, nothing you have provided so far substantiates the ability to project a holographic image that could be captured from multiple angles on video.
June 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm
And that is the give-away. Rogue fixates on anything that might possibly support the official account and ignores the evidence that falsifies it. He is willing to accept the occurrence of miracles on 9/11 in the form of the suspension of Newton’s laws, when the plane should have crumpled, iwings and tail broken off, bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground.
To repeat, MythBuster tests and Sandia tests at extremely large velocities demonstrate how veleocity-squared in the energy acting on the materials produces non-intuitive, decimating results. Crumpled fuselage, broken off wings and tails, etc. would not necessarily have been observed. At lower velocities and landing velocities, then what you bemoan would have been more evident.
As for the bodies, seats, and luggage. The only way the aircraft could have achieved its reported velocity at sea level would have been for the aircraft not to have been a commercial one. Switch the plane and all bets are off regarding what seats, passengers, and luggage would be involved in the crash: probably zero. [Or viewed another way, zero bodies, seats, and luggage is another clue that the planes weren't commercial planes.]
Señor El Once : the Anonymous Physicist has a really really deep rabbit-hole
2012-07-02
Dear Mr. Howard and Mr. Rogue,
Mr. Rogue writes:
Do tell us David, just what proofs are offered that this “anonymous physicist” is actually a physicist?
Wimpy. Attacking the messenger instead of the message.
I have studied his ealier blogs (like http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/). They make a more comprehensive case for nuclear means. Like Dr. Wood's textbook, A/P's "The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath" will get you thinking out of the box. It is worth the price.
I've promoted Dr. Wood's work, but am deviating myself from her conclusions. When the Anonymous Physicist critiques Dr. Wood, I think he hits the nail on the head when he says that her disinformation purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear event(s) and wrapping it under "The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11."
Mr. Rogue, seeing how you like rabbit holes, the Anonymous Physicist has a really really deep one with his "Quarantine: Mankind Held Hostage." They say that all disinformation has some sort of a self-destruct mechanism. This might very well be what will shoot the Anonymous Physicist is the foot. It is certainly fascinating, and dovetails nicely with themes that Mr. Rogue has touched on.
Mr. Howard, you make many postings that indicate you have studied all of the work of the Anonymous Physicist. I encourage you to not put all your eggs in one basket. Mine the Anonymous Physicist -- like any other disinfo source -- for nuggets of truth. Preserve those. Don't consume everything as gospel. Like Dr. Jones, like Dr. Wood, like Dimitri K., like Simon Shack (and September Clues), I have reason to suspect the Anonymous Physicist as being a disinfo source himself.
Don't get me wrong. I have found a wealth of information from his older blog. A slightly different path his newer blog travels since being launched in started May 2012, but is in line with all his books. I'm not even sure "John" is the Anonymous Physicist. I purchased his books a few years ago. In August 2010, I communicated to him through "Darci Katz", who said: "This is the agent for the A/P responding. The A/P is beset with serous health challenges and also is under very real threats to personal safety and so cannot respond directly." [I never did get an answer to my physics questions or critique on what I was writing to debunk Dr. Jones.] The A/P himself mentions mercury poisoning.
Yet he now seems healthy enough to make regular postings to his blog.
However, his split with "Spooked" is rather curious, or even lame. UNMASKING A SPOOK WITH 100% CERTAINTY. Evidently, a picture of the limo at the time of JFK's assassination shows a "man" in the street after the lead car and before the limo. Spook (and I) say it isn't a "man", but a flag on the limo. A/P possibly shows the effects of mercury on his reasoning.
Another article [In the Matters of ZP Bazant and Spooked/Flagman.] on his split with "Spooked" has an awesome nugget of truth from that article that Mr. Rogue should mull over:
All came back to a Govt study that listed the smallest dust particle size officially found as 4 times smaller than the one [ZP Bazant] claimed. 2.5 microns and smaller vs. his claim of 10 microns. This proved much greater energy was needed to create it.
Another nugget of truth from the newer blog is
Patricia Ondrovic, EMT and the Truth of the Nuclear Destruction of the WTC. A Witness to Electromagnetic Pulses along with EMT, Robert Ruiz
Robert, Ruiz, EMT:
His utter incredulity at watching a car completely catch on fire for no discernible reason is clear…. Ruiz just barely escaped WTC 2 being destroyed. First he describes the ground near him shaking before the “collapse” starts. This could be evidence of an underground nuclear bomb going off before the top was brought down. He says, the ground shakes, then WTC 2 starts to come down, and he runs and survives under a nearby doorway. Ruiz then states, “I was trapped there. Like things weren’t bad enough already, the car that’s parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don’t mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don’t ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire.”….
Again both Ondrovic would have been vaporized or melted if neutron fluxes did that to the cars right near them. They were not directly affected by the cars catching fire, except for Ondrovic being injured when the door flung off the car and hit her. This was not neutrons; nothing but EMPs can account for this.
The Massive Evidence of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) During WTC Destruction on 9/11, & Combating the Fetzer-Prager-Jones Op-Plan of Denying It
I do not actively follow A/P's blog. The whole spooked thing spooked me along with other detours his new blog makes.
Señor El Once : "did gyre and gimble in the wabe"
2012-07-03
Dearest Señor Rogue like "the slothy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" when he wrote on July 2, 2012 at 6:04 pm:
My only comment on the once and future sashadik is: It is all rather like, “Twas brillig…” and all that.
Your only comment?
If that was all it was going to be, you should have heeded the advice repeatedly given that you are under no obligation to respond to my postings. This would have been a prime opportunity to act on such freedom of duty by not acting, not even a lowly lonely "ACK" in computer-speak for "acknowledge." Your "only comment" aspired to be "no comment" at all.
What-hoe? With no further traffic on the blog, Señor Rogue like "the mome raths outgrabe" something to add to his only comment [-- proving him a liar maybe? --] via his July 3, 2012 at 12:39 am posting. Before I get into Señor Rogue's specific wording, one should note:
(1) His posting represents two-in-a-row, despite being separated. Is he therefore talking to himself?
(2) His 2nd posting is made where it doesn't belong, either to hide the two-in-a-row time stamp, or to screw with the readability of the comments section.
(3) Both postings were examples of ridicule.
(4) Neither posting had substance.
Thus we see how Señor Rogue maintains his 38% posting frequency (129 postings out of 338 so far in this thread). I am restraining myself, Señor Rogue, from making my guesses to your affiliations known.
Señor Rogue brings up EMP via the belittling conjecture:
Alternate Manhattan suddenly went black because of a massive EMP attack, which is also the reason there is no video or pictorial evidence of this alternate 9/11 because the circuit boards in all the camera’s and recorders and feeds were fused during this alternate event on an alternate world in an alternate universe far far away
Here is where my
alternate universe has more validity than Señor Rogue's super-duper nano-thermite and thermaburic bombs that leave out explaining duration of hot-spots, nuclear radiation, damage to vehicles, and Hiroshima-esque 1st responder ailments.
If explosive nano-thermite was used to dismantel the outer steel walls of the towers milli-seconds after a "nuking DEW" performed its wonders on the inner concrete and structure -- wonders that created 2.5 micron particle size and is a HUGE energy sink --, why by golly! Those same steel walls [together with many other buildings in Manhattan] would pretty much reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy [from a "nuking DEW" or a milli-nuke's EMP], thus sparing the alternate Manhattan the very effects Señor Rogue hypes in his ridiculing wave-off dismissal.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION. That exception is any directed energy that might have slipped out through a window slits to suddenly "pop off" and "torch" vehicles as per testimony from
Patricia Ondrovic and Robert Ruiz and the string of torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park.
Señor El Once : assignment: keep all consideration of the evidence of electromagnetic energy on 9/11 off of the table
2012-07-04
Dear Readers of this forum,
What you are about to read is an example of Señor Rogue's carousel with this being yet another spin. He evidently has the assignment of keeping all consideration of the evidence of electromagnetic energy on 9/11 off of the table.
I wrote July 3, 2012:
If explosive nano-thermite was used to dismantel the outer steel walls of the towers milli-seconds after a “nuking DEW” performed its wonders on the inner concrete and structure — wonders that created 2.5 micron particle size and is a HUGE energy sink –, why by golly! Those same steel walls [together with many other buildings in Manhattan] would pretty much reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy [from a "nuking DEW" or a milli-nuke's EMP], thus sparing the alternate Manhattan the very effects Señor Rogue hypes in his ridiculing wave-off dismissal.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION. That exception is any directed energy that might have slipped out through a window slits to suddenly “pop off” and “torch” vehicles as per testimony from Patricia Ondrovic and Robert Ruiz and the string of torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park.
Señor Rogue replied:
So these “window slits” are impervious to this “directed energy” beam that can “pop off” and “torch” vehicles.” Hmmm?
Yep, Señor Rogue. My contention is the directed energy from the devices was aimed in a particular way primarily up and down. But on occassion during the chaotic destruction of the building around them, they may have been misaligned. Given the nature of the electromagnetic energy and steel, the steel outer walls provided a barrier for any such errant mistargeting... except for the window slits that did not contain steel.
So he is now contending that these “steel walls” are also impervious and would some how “reign in most all errant electromagnetic energy…” and not “pop off” and be “torch{ed}” as were the vehicles.
The above is a prime example of the artistic genius's blind spot, which is put further on display with Señor Rogue's condescending comments to Mr. SherifShaalan that are really words for Señor Rogue himself to heed:
I can suggest is that you learn more about Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).
I suggest Señor Rogue study Eddy Currents and how they can be created by electromagnetic fields, because this explains why sheet metal in cars would be affected and not flags, leaves, people, etc.
I was about |<-- this far -->| from writing from scratch how electromagnetic energy works (whether as an EMP from a nuclear device or emitted from DEW devices). But my short-term memory has been proven to be superior to that of Señor Rogue's. Here is a selection of relevant snippets from postings that I made to Señor Rogue over the last half of year.
My Hybrid View 2012-01-31. Note: I no longer champion Hutchison effects and am more inclined towards Excalibur nuclear DEW. However, effects of electromagnetic energy remains valid. Or rather, the evidence is there for those with eyes to see. Those with agendas, like Señor Rogue, will always try to shove that round evidence into square holes.
The scattered damage to cars and surrounding areas -- in my speculation -- I attribute to the separate energy source. The nuclear (or cold-fusion) generator may have emitted electromagnetic fields (or other anomalous fields ala the Hutchinson effect) as a side-effect, that slipped through, say, the window slits. Its polarizing form flipped cars in cases like a powerful magnet, and more importantly induced massive Eddy currents in the (sheet) metal of car parts intersecting such fields. Large Eddy currents caused heat that ignited paint and touching-plastic components (like door handles, gas caps, door & window seals). Anomalous burn patterns resulted from what was line of sight from the source to an area of the car.
Pictures of cars outside the towers burning before either had fallen suggest to me they were radiated in EM fields early during the powering-up of such an energy generator.
Mixing up Principles 2012-03-05
To your discussion of an EMP, it has errors. A nuke exploding an elevation would have an EMP that affects electronics. One exploding underground or within a building would have far less. EMP is line-of-sight, more or less. Its magnitude is dependent on distance. EMP is another one of those design factors along with radiation, blast wave, and heat wave that can be tweaked. Assuming a much smaller nuclear device and explosion from within the steel towers, the EMP effects could have been reduced dramaticly. ... Errant EM fields from the reactor slipping out through window slits may have caused the anomalous fire damage to vehicles.
Science-Challenge Understanding 2012-03-06
Why is an EMP destructive? The EM fields passing through metal generate Eddy currents. The larger the magnitude of the EM fields, the larger the Eddy currents. Large currents in the metal mean more heat that has to be dissipated. If the metal is a copper circuit board, such heat will melt the solder which can flow and short other things. Semi-conductors themselves have many layers, some metal. Large EM fields in semiconductors destroys the doping of semiconductor layers, while the induced currents in the metal layers literally burn it up.
Protection for electronic devices is to put them in a conductive metal case. Of course, this isn't guaranteed to save the electronic device, where close proximity to a large EM source might still heat up via Eddy currents the protective case that then "bakes" the internal circuitry.
++++
Señor Rogue tries some some more skew on July 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm with:
So what could be the distinctive feature between steel buildings and steel cars?
Personally the first thing that comes to mind as to the cars; is they have gas tanks with petrol in them, and gas lines leading to engines with petrol in them, which to me would indicate conflagration caused by ignition from other burning material; say hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers.
Unfortuntely for Señor Rogue's hypothesis is that the "hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers" had a considerable distance -- a cooling one at that -- to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. One would think that they'd torch flags, leaves, trees, paper, and people along the way. They didn't. Also, the aforementioned "gas tanks with petrol in them and gas lines leading to engines with petrol in them" were shielded by -- oh, I don't know -- sheet metal hoods, sheet metal body parts, and other components of the vehicle. How much cooling would those "hot and spicy thermitic particulates" undergo while they wound their way through the grill, passed the radiator, and over other parts before they found gas vapors on gas lines to ignite?
Were Señor Rogue open his thinking to how electromagnetic energy really works, he'd understand better how induced Eddy currents in sheet metal by the electromagnetic energy -- depending on magnitude & duration -- would heat up the metal, cause its paint to burn, and torch rubber & plastic thinks affixed, touching, or adjacent to such metal pieces. Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched.
No comments:
Post a Comment