call it "electromagnetic energy"

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : call it "electromagnetic energy"

2012-07-05

I owe Señor Rogue a debt of gratitude for being my smashing board. By responding to me, he gives me another opportunity to further my argument. His ridicule minus some thinking from July 5, 2012 at 12:14 am:

Eddy scratches, and he scratches well. But that is not currently where the itch is. The question remains: How are all the other metal items impervious to the EMP? Regardless of technical data of the effect of eddy currents. Even the metal walls bearing our famous ‘slits’ would be in direct line.

First, let us not call it an EMP. Let us call it "electromagnetic energy," because this can cover more scenarios. Whether or not it was a single pulse or multiple pulses or a steady stream of such microwaving energy we don't have to determine at this point in time.

Second, the adverb "directed" applied to the word "energy" used as an adjective to modify the noun "weapon" of the acronymn DEW should tell you 50% of what you need to know with regards to your question above. It was aimed away from what they didn't want it hitting, which may include the "spire" [to which I speculate one of the DEW devices was mounted.]

As for the other 50% of what you need to know, the metal items within the targeting beams of electromagnetic energy would also experience Eddy Currents. Very large ones, resulting in lots of heat radiating from the steel. Think of a kitchen stove burner: coat it with something, let it dry, and then turn on the stove: what was on it gets burned off in a stinky haze likely to trigger smoke alarms. The energy absorbed by inner-steel within aim of the DEW would burn off what was coated on it.

Why do so many pieces of the exterior wall chunks on the ground have their interior sides -- where they were most likely painted and conditioned -- with nothing but exposed steel that quickly became rusty?

Worse, as you'll see in images below (compliments of Dr. Wood's collection), the steel could get heated to a point where it loses its rigidness.

Video of construction worker talking about 8 ton steel I-beam bent like a horseshoe.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/horseshoe_r1_c2_s_s.jpg
The above image shows the 8 ton steel I-beam bent like a horseshoe.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg
The above image shows more bending of beams.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hanger17/core4.jpg
The above image is of a core column; look at the nice smooth bend.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/WTC-003_hires_s.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/WTC-007_hires_s.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/steel11_hires_s.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/apics/steel11_hires_c.jpg
In the above image, pay attention to the "rolled up dobbie" of an externior section. Note that this is bending around the vertical axis, which suggests a really strange direction for the force lines that caused this.

Here's more from a Let's Roll Discussion:

http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
Just to get your bearings in the above image [that you should open in a new window], look to where the fireman is climbing up a beam. Now just to the left of that is a section of the wall lying flat that would have been three vertical beams connected by two broad pieces of flat metal. Note for reference purposes the square hole in one of the beams about at the level where the firemen are. Any problems with my description so far?

If you go down to the bottom of this picture, you'll see another similar section to the wall lying flat, including that square hole in one of the beams, which I believe the construction workers used to insert heavy bolts to connect sections one on top of the other. Any problems with my description so far? Plain as day, those are two sections of the outer walls of the tower.

Here is where it gets strange, because in that very photograph between those two very representative examples of the outer wall IS A THIRD SECTION. The difference? It is rolled up like a used piece of carpet. You can see the three beams and the requisite square hole at one end of one of those beams. Yet those two pieces of broad flat metal are rolled around those beams like a rubberband holding asparagus in the produce section of your super market.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/meteorite_s.jpg
The above image shows a fused block of WTC debris referred to as "the Meeorite."

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image292.jpg
The above image is supposedly the only filing cabinet found and was in the basement.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image187fema.gif
In the above image from Bankers Trust Building on Liberty Street across from WTC-2, why does the yellowish beam in the middle have a shriveled up portion? Like the cars in the car park and along West Broadway, this appears to be evidence of an errant DEW beam.

Let's take this further with a discussion of what imagery shows during the tower's decimation. Here is something discussed on Let's Roll Forums

http://imageshack.us/f/816/richarddrewwtc2collapse.jpg/
[Open the above image in a new browser window.] Turn our attention to the large chuck [A] of building fascade that appears on the left-hand side and the first chunk we see as our eyes scan from top-to-bottom.

Now turn your attention to the bottom edge of that chunk and scan to the right to locate [B] the "five pieces of smoking meteor" (or so it appears.) I'll address this in a moment.

Secondly turn your attention to the wall chunk just above the "meteors" [C] as well as the ones below them [D]. [If those chunks are from the interior side -- my thoughts --,] where is the "finishing" material that would be glued or painted onto the interior beams? [If those chunks are from the exterior side, how did the external aluminum cladding get cleaned so completely from them?]

Go back to the original chunk [A] and note that we see the exterior side [due to the aluminum cladding pieces.] Directly under it is another large chunk [E] with the exterior side also facing us. This one seems to be "billowing smoke" but not as badly as the 5 meteors [B].

Look at the nature of the smoke.

My hypothesis is that this isn't really smoke. It is a combination of steam and fine particles. The directed energy weapon turned the residual trapped water molecules in office content (e.g., dry wall, concrete, porceline) instantly into steam. Volumic pressure of the expanding steam from everywhere within the content "containers" caused those containers to blow themselves apart leaving dust and steam.

Lots of factors determine the rate at which such "watery" content will dissolve and have the the molecules stream off or rather steam off, as we see with the 5 falling "steaming meteors", which aren't on fire, don't have flames, and don't have traditional smoke.

Those wall sections that give us views of the interior red? The hollow tower's crowd says they were never finished. On the other hand, I say that there is enough residual "white" on these interior faces to suppose they were finished to a degree, but that those "watery" elements had "steamed" themselves nearly clean. The wall [D] and those meteors appear to be still steaming apart the "watery" drywall and paint that were affixed to them.

At any rate, the "steaming 5 meteors" are a smoking gun to get us to look at other steaming elements in the collapse.

And as an aside, we know about WTC-1's spire. WTC-2 had a short-lived spired. However even more critical than that in WTC-2 is this point in its decimation (Link to Image) where it should have halted [if we go with the OCT of a "pile driver".] Something neatly took out this lower portion, which was taller than WTC-7 at 47 stories.


Anonymous Physicist writes:

"She [Patricia Ondrovic] tried to enter WTC 6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC 6, she “saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern."
This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to "pop."

Señor Rogue on July 5, 2012 at 12:37 pm does two-in-a-row when he calls attention to this statement from the Anonymous Physicist (whose name Señor Rogue purposely failed to spell correctly with his "Pinhead" slur:)

An EMP hitting the area would first of all, use all the wiring in the buildings and vehicles as antenna, causing an immediate blackout of anything electrical, and would fuse all electronics. Lights would not go off in a series of flashes, the whole area would go dark at once — at the speed of light.

I agree that this is an instance where the Anonymous Physicist's analysis isn't as clear as it could be, but that doesn't mean that Señor Rogue is correct [at all] in his specific criticism [because Señor Rogue doesn't understand these things.]

Assuming an EMP (or electromagnetic energy), it would not have to pass into WTC-6, which was constructed of sufficient steel that it could shield most of the inside from those few errant DEW beams that slipped out through window slits of the towers. Thus, Señor Rogue vastly overstates his case as to what would be destroyed, how, and how fast.

Assuming an EMP (or electromagnetic energy), it would only have to pass through a transformer (or wiring) that feed into WTC-6. It would be registered as a spike on the internal building wiring. Not all lighting is on the same electrical circuit; not all electrical circuits have the same load. Standard light bulbs plugged into wiring that had an overvoltage or overcurrent condition would certainly "flash" as they died; they might even explode. Things "plugged" in are really in parallel. If one leg gets taken out (open-circuit], its current can be combined with current in parallel legs, bringing them sooner to overvoltage/overcurrent failure.

The point is, WTC-6 would not necessarily go dark all at once, and could very well have a X-max lighting effect.

Señor Rogue proves further his lack of understanding:

EMP is not a weapon that blows things up, EMP is created by an explosion.

How an EMP or electromagnetic energy is created should be separated from what it does and how it can be used (as a weapon or a side-effect). Whether or not something gets blown up sometimes depends on what that thing is. For example, a gas or propane tank made out of metal and hit with sufficient electromagnetic energy could heat to the point of explosion.

Anonymous Pinhead is no more a physicist than Max Beancounter, or I am.

Señor Rogue definitely got the part right that he himself is not a physicist. He is a genius artist, and because of that self-imposed adjective "genius," he fancies himself online to be the same everywhere else.

As for the ad hominem directed towards the Anonymous Physicist [and I assume myself], that pretty much stands on its own in discrediting the words and position of Señor Rogue.


Understand The Use of the Ridicule Technique by Anonymous Physicist:

The ridicule technique is used by the PTB and their MSM and intel agencies to stop people from even considering something important. This technique is used at the outset, as any considered reflection might well lead the person to see that not only is the matter not ridiculous, it may well be the only possible reality.

Many Govts use the technique to ridicule anyone who dares to say that the Govt is doing nefarious things or is in cahoots with its alleged, proclaimed enemies—past, present, or future. This is needed to prevent people from realizing how a central, evil authority controls everything, and all the wars and conflicts are bogus in the sense that “both sides” are working for the same master.

...

In many cases, what people have been led to believe instead of what the ridicule technique is used against, is actually devoid of truth or reality and has been foisted on humanity. But our species has great difficulty with change once we have been brainwashed. How do we know if we are brainwashed? Usually the person will refuse to consider this is a possibility and will say, “no, you are attempting to brainwash me.”

So it is important to explain this to people and to be aware when the ridicule technique is being employed. It is actually a desperate measure that seeks to cut off all thought because the realization of the ultimate truth of the matter presents grave danger of overturning the monstrous rule of the ultimate PTB here.

...

Be aware always of the ridicule technique—and what it is trying to steer you away from. Likewise always think of the ultimate level of matters, and not the superficial.

In another posting, Señor Rogue brags:

My own blog? I have had them, but never one to get involved with the science of promotion, or having the perhaps luck or timing, I found they never took off. I do have a joint blog with COTO, and I write there almost daily as well. And I keep up with an email stream as well.

Links, Señor Rogue? What the hell is COTO?

Do you think it is about time that you crank up again your blogs and take more credit for your work?

Regarding your finding: I found they [your blogs] never took off. I've found with Brian Good, Albury Smith, GuitarBill, ScrewLooseChange, Limey, and others that when their words are consolidated into one place, the tiny inconguities (from spin, skew, and lies) become like compounded margin of errors in physics experiments that grow so large together, it becomes a massive joke. Was this what was happening to your blogs?

You participate here is as if you consider it your duty to respond to everyone, on any and all topics. [It is not.]

You accused me with some validity of using you as a slamming board, particularly when I stuck an iddy-biddy alphabet-agency decal onto your forehead like a Dole banana.

But the reality is that you do a lot of slamming from that strong position of ignorance while trying not to slip on that very same Dole banana peel.

---

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Team Dr. Jenkyl & Mr. Hyde

2012-07-05

Dearest Señor Rogue,

My name in this forum is Señor El Once. Please make a note of it and strive to use it, otherwise you'll just confuse the readers including me. Copy & Paste can be your friend.

You write on July 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm

I have made my case for explosive destruction of WTC further up in a very long thread now. I stand by that assessment firmly, and I have found zero in Beancounter’s counter arguments to persuade me.

Fine. Your case was made, so now shut up. "Run along, now. Nothing to see here."

I will never persuade you because you have (paid) ticks in your online persona that prevent you from seeing the weaknesses in your case.

Whereas my duped useful idiot status can convince me of many, many, many things with regards to 9/11 including aspects of your case, the case you've made does not convince me to stop looking for other sources of energy and destruction in the WTC complex decimation.

And this is the red-flag in your case: you stop, park, & affix a Denver-Boot to your vehicle of destruction before your thought can proceed and address in a rationally and scientifically adequate fashion a bunch of important anomalous evidence. [Tritium, the tiny particle size, the duration of hot-spots, the line-of-sight vehicle damage, 1st responder ailments mirroring Hiroshima survivors...] Lame, lame, lame.

You try desperately to brush-off the major weaknesses of your case, like the inability of your mechanisms: to create such tiny particle sizes [without massive overkill amounts]; to account for the hot-spot duration [without ginormous overkill amounts]; to torch so selectively only line-of-sight vehicles but not leaves, trees, paper, vehicles-around-corners closer to the dust, etc.

The American mentality is to "super-size those skinny fries, super-size that diet-drink, super-size that fat-free Whopper, super-size those clothes, super-size the television, super-size the family vehicle, ...", but that doesn't mean an efficient covert operation would interpret "super-size the WTC destruction" as being super-size amounts of explosives that their fat-asses would need to haul into the towers and plant. No, they'd say "super-size the WTC destruction" is equivalent to "super-size the energy."

Assuming you made your case and needed to repeat that you made your case, why did you lead off another two-in-a-row set of postings with your hole-in-foot-shooting ad hominem July 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm?

You know what it has the appearance of? Not Dr. Jenkyl & Mr. Hyde in the same individual. Nope. Team Dr. Jenkyl & Mr. Hyde. One knows some shit; the other knows how to delay with crafty ad hominem. Neither can remember what the other posted in past discussions, which is why you get so easily dinged by them. But I speculate.

Took me awhile to figure out why you called me "Max Beancounter", until I tallied that you have about 37% (~139) of the 376 postings to this thread alone. I am at only ~24 postings (6%) here. The remarkable thing is that your habit of posting twice (or more) to a single posting of mine. Makes me feel real special.

---

Señor El Once : avoid a concept game relating to electromagnetic energy

2012-07-06

Bingo! Woo-Hoo! We've hit the mother load! Four-in-a-row from Señor Rogue! [... Until I posted this and broke his streak.]

July 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm
July 6, 2012 at 4:26 am
July 5, 2012 at 8:55 pm
July 6, 2012 at 9:14 am

Dr. Fetzer has his own tilt to his argumentation, but it is funny to see him best you, Señor Rogue, at your word games and positioning of nano-thermite as the ultimate high explosive. But I digress.

Only the top two above pertain to me, as we see Mr. Hyde answering first followed by Sr. Jeckyl, who wants to play a word-game with EMP so that he can avoid a concept game relating to electromagnetic energy, of which EMP is a type. Excalibur -- the SDI nuclear x-ray prototype and a type of directed energy weapon (DEW) -- would emit and focus electromagnetic energy.

Depending on how nuclear weapons (and DEW) are defined, I am either in or out of those camps. Most people don't know the range of the topic, so when imprecise wording is used that already has a public relations enforced meaning, a straw-man is easily built. EMP -- electromagnetic pulse -- is one such acronym. The reason for the pulse is similar to the reason for a heat wave and a blast wave and various types of radiation: it was designed that way in the nuclear device. EMP is mentally configured as being short, while the electromagnetic energy of next-generation Excalibur might be designed to be longer.

My contention all along has been that sufficient evidence of nuclear hijinx exists. We need to continue to search for additional sources of energy and destruction.

I am such a waffler in my duped useful idiot style, I am not prepared in thought or belief to make definitive statements as to specific nukes, specific DEW, specific side-effect electromagnetic energy (ala EMP), specific primary-effect electromagnetic energy (ala DEW), etc.

Do I really think you are two people? No, but your team has its moments.

Do I really think you are a paid agent? No, but you have even more moments in this limelight. And your reaction makes it fun to push your buttons in this regard. Unfortunately, it is not having the desired reaction, which would be for more closed-mouth and open-minded thought from you into the batshit crazy concepts I bring up both in poking holes in your explosive-du-jour and in searching for what answers the 9/11 energy/duration questions.

Don't neglect our studies, Señor Rogue. What chapter are you on in Dr. Wood's textbook? Where are the specific errors? Where are the specific nuggets of truths to be saved?

I have no idea what a "sashadik" is and am too lazy to look it up. I look forward to you addressing me as "Dearest Señor El Sashadik" for how it so eloquently rolls off of your tongue. I think it will reflect wonderfully on you the more you use it.

I count the number of postings by participant when and if I please, but others are more than welcome, too. If you want to know the number of words in each posting by a participant or in total for a participant, that'll be your assignment. Mr. McKee informs me that I had one posting not that long ago that was over 3,000 words [... of pure, manly carna de "Señor El Sashadik"]! Woo-hoo! But according to you, you were only glancing at them. [Yeah, right!] I'm sure you appreciated that my single large posting of such rigid stamina was so easy to skip over and ignore... Unlike your dribbling tiny members, such as what is linked to above.

I now leave you to working the levers on your 895 m/s carousel of high explosives for Dr. Fetzer. Don't forget to estimate how much of that material would be required as salt to the six spikes in order to account for an under-rubble hot-spot duration of many weeks.

---

Señor El Once : conservative (low-ball) estimates on thermite

2012-07-06

Dear Mr. Hightower,

Just so you don't get tripped up, Harrit uses [inconsistently] Dutch decimal comma (,) notation instead of decimal point (.); in the quotes below, I've taken the liberty of using decimal point notation and converting things to k etc.

Using those conservative (low-ball) estimates, Niels Harrit wrote:

There were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11,660 tonnes = 11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower.

Then keeping with the super-duper nano-thermite (or thermabutic bomb) scenario, he continues:

If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition), RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:

(10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143,000,000 kg = 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material was present in WTC2 prior to collapse. Of course, it is five times less [28k metric tons], if the iron oxide content is 50%. Still, it’s a lot.

Yikes, that is a lot. And this is before you add the unspent tonnage required to accout for many weeks of under-rubble hot-spots (with six spikes).

Seems rather obscene.

Rational people who are familiar with Dr. Wood might be tempted to say: "Maybe Dr. Wood was on to something when she talked about the vaporization of steel? Hmmm. What other energy sources and destructive mechanisms might also account for 11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower (and 2.5 micron size particles)?"

Great information! Thanks for posting it.

---

Señor El Once : You have to have the fookin boo-ooOOOOOK!

2012-07-06

Oooo! Another two-in-a-row from Señor Rogue! And only 12 minutes apart! Such speed!

This is where Señor Doctor Jeckyl benefits from having Mr. Hyde on his team.

I have never asserted that, “nano-thermite as the ultimate high explosive,” to the contrary I have merely stated the definitions of ‘high and low explosives’ according to the literature on these matters in the chemical explosive sciences. ... As the brisance necessary to shatter steel is considerably larger due to the speed of sound of that material – as explained in Mr. Hightower’s charts, certainly another mechanism is needed to do that work. I have postulated a thermobaric bomb created of the entire sealed towers themselves with the nano-particulate delivered through the AC, and ignited in a downward sequence , perhaps by super-RDX, perhaps electronic ignition.. [?]..I can only postulate as to the explosive chain.

Team Señor Rogue makes the admission: Certainly another mechanism is needed to do that work. Yet it is strange that the other mechanism he latches onto is so... lame. Evidence in the pile is so sparse. And the list of features it (and companion nano-thermite) cannot explain is still long. Despite all this, Señor Rogue goes round and round with Dr. Fetzer in a distracting game of: "What is the minimum speed to make the cut-off for the high explosive definition, regardless of whether or not the accumulation of other evidence requires us to look beyond that for another mechanism?"

[O]n the Judy Wood thread, where [Señor El Once] is arguing “The Book” have to have that fookin BOOK…and then about 7/8ths of the thread down, he suddenly realizes that if the steel in the buildings had been vaporized in those matter of seconds, there would no longer be a lower Manhattan…

Such a mangled frame you build as if as an artist, you've never been forced to use a square in shop class.

No, no, no.

"If the steel in the buildings had been vaporized in those matter of seconds," it would have been a massive energy sink. What could supply such energy so quickly?

The Boo-ooOOOOOK! You have to have the fookin boo-ooOOOOOK! So that your thou-uuuUUUGHT can think outside the squarish box you've prepared for this forum.

The fookin boo-ooOOOOOK [from Dr. Wood] by design as a vehicle ain't gonna get us all the way to the final destination of 9/11 truth. I've been clear about that... and about nuggets! Fookin nu-uuuUUUUGETS! Don't forget the fookin nu-uuuUUUUGETS of Tru-uuuUUUUTH!

P.S. Mr. Hightower has made some valuable contributions recently that don't align with air-conditioner delivered nano-particles to form -- drumroll, please -- the thermobaric bomb. Just when my good nature has me softening my agenthood rhetoric, you do something -- lots of things, sometimes twice-in-a-row in 12 minutes -- that throws fuel back on that spooky fire.

---

Señor El Once : the iron rich spheroids are unexploded superthermite?

2012-07-06

Dear Señor Rogue laments:

Hightower did not address a thermobaric bomb at all.

He didn't need to.

He in fact didn’t speak to much of anything, but published an email by Harrit.

Which was very revealing, I thought.

This assertion, that ALL of the iron rich spheroids are unexploded superthermite, does not address what is in the superthermite paper correctly.

WTF, genius artists? That was not the assertion at all. You're making it up.

The assertion correctly interpretted is a stated assumption relating to the iron rich spheroids all coming from reacted thermite. It works backwards to suggest quantities of unreacted, or unexploded superthermite that would be required: 143,000 metric tons. If you "salt" this down by a factor of five, that's 28k metric tons. You obviously have no concept how how massive this is. [And if unreacted superthermite is also suppose to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, add to that tonage the weight of thermite that the volume of a 664k long garden hose can hold.]

The point, Señor Rogue, is that the numbers for thermite are beyond ridiculous to account for the distruction and its aftermath.

Thermobaric is your new thang. You say it was distributed through the air conditioning system. El-Oh-El. [Joke start] So to crank up the power on these super-duper AC units to get the requisite amounts of aerosol therobaric material in the internal air of the towers to ignite, they were using nuclear reactors from the basement and fresh wiring in the elevator shafts, which then explains the nuclear evidence that I keep pointing to.[Joke end] As far as I know, the towers were cut down to emergency power, and I suspect cranked up to the max AC units is an inefficient use of emergency power.

I make this point because these issues should be parsed correctly and not leapt upon with hysterical vigor as dear Señor El Sashadik is so very apt to do. Plus I have a theory posited at the end of the page at the moment concerning the use of pure nano-scale Fe as the fuel in a thermobaric explosion.

I am leaping with hysterical vigor, for sure, but your theory looks more like you leaping and falling on your face. Too much vino in your after fouth celebrating?

---

Señor El Once : science you can't handle, but the ad hominem is another story

2012-07-07

Dearest Agent Rogue,

Thank you for the two-in-a-row separated by 23 minutes. But really, you shouldn't have. No. I mean, really, really, truly, you shouldn't have. Your state of sobriety takes away one excuse you could have used to explain you holding to a weaker and weaker premise that has you resulting to insults and ad hominem.

As for the slightly longer post, it does nothing to support your crazy speculation, and it hinges on a typo on my part, for which I humbly apologize. With the correction highlighted, it should have read:

As far as I know, the towers were cut down to emergency power, and I suspect cranked up to the max AC units is an inefficient use of emergency power.

Agent Rogue puts a fake worm on his hook as bait:

I would also note that the “brilliant” Mr Señor Sashadik hasn’t read Harrits notes and equations carefully enough and is missing something very significant indeed as per ratios of Fe in the dust.

If Dr. Harrit was truly "missing something very significant indeed as per ratios of Fe in the dust," you would have been all over it like white-on-rice.

No, I take that back. Your reliance on chemical explosives and super-duper nano-thermite depend on the assumption that the stepped-up ratios of Fe in the dust were a result of a chemical reaction. Whether 100% or 20%. The problem for you is the amounts of said explosives suggested by those Fe ratios.

You play a fine little agency game in suggesting an error in Dr. Harrit's email analysis without demonstrating scientific chops in detailing it when the night was still young for night-owls like you and the vino keg in your celler has been (allegedly) empty or untouched for years. Reeks to me of a little-birdy of a supervisor whispering to you from your undisclosed DUMB site to stall for time until someone with more science from the Q-Group A-Team can feed you the answer.

The science you can't handle, but the ad hominem is another story:

Of course it is beyond me to explain this to Señor Sashadik, as his head is spinning with visions of nukes and fairybeams.

I agree. It is beyond you to explain it. You have to wait for Q-Group re-enforcements.

Here's a great quote from Dr. Harrit:

According to the RJ Lee group, the dust was pushed through pedestrian tunnels that connected WTC2 to the adjacent Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street...

Gee, Agent Rogue. Isn't this dust the same "hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers" that you desperately want to attribute to selectively torching vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park (but sparing flags, leaves, trees, paper, and people)? Given the proximity of the pedestrian tunnel and Deutsche Bank, how come they weren't torched?

However, seeing Dr. Harrit said "Find the error!" and seeing how you challenged me as well, by golly I'm led to this statement that I suspect is wrong:

The only explanation for the presence of iron-rich spheres in these quantities is the occurrence of thermitic processes (paint, incendiaries, explosives) preceeding the collapses or during the collapses of the Twin Towers.

Nope, that ain't the only explanation. Nuclear mechanisms like some mini-Excalibur type DEW devices would have done a number on the steel at close range to produce the iron spheres.

Dr. Harrit wrote:

The iron-rich spheres contained varying trace amounts of aluminum and silicon (which in itself is an unambiguous proof of their thermitic origin).

Plenty of aluminum was available internal and external, as well as plenty of silicon in computers and various man-made office furnishings. Admittedly, to get these combined in the iron-rich spheres would be difficult. Guess one would just have to question the acquisition of the samples and the tabulation of their measurements if one wasn't convinced that this was unambiguous proof of their thermitic origin.

Be that as it may, Agent Rogue should go to town and point out what he thinks are errors in Dr. Harrit's email estimates... Just don't surprise yourself by seeing how it shoots air-conditioned delivery of thermobaric in the foot as well.

---

Señor El Once : "Dearest Señor El Sashadik"

2012-07-07

Queirdo Señor Rogue Jeckyl,

Would you be so kind as to address me more formally in your salutations in the future so that I know you are talking to me? Something like "Dearest Señor El Sashadik" would be most becoming & reflective of you. I love the way it rolls off of your tongue.

I'm working on an O'Dell's 90 Shilling, so I do have an excuse for saying: "Your ticks are ticking, Mr. Hybrid Hyde."

The alledged educated Mr. Whitten, having been associated with computers and animation since its cinemagraphic origins, displays surprisingly little of those honed skills, like "old dog learn new computer trick" with a correctly syntaxed & deployment of the HTML <blockquote> bookends or with a URL & attribution for the text he so blatantly copied from (probably) a PDF file.

Agent suspicions deepen when the copy-&-pasted text demonstrates little personal honing or understanding of significance. I don't regularly save and categorize Señor Rogue's words, but my short-term memory is good enough to recognize that he pasted those same words else where on Truth & Shadows... with again, mighty little personal honing that would be indicative of the writer understanding what he is pasting in. And without attribution?!!! For shame!

Instead of throwing up sand into our eyes, the agency throws up iron spheres and copious references to the percentage (%) and margin of error (±) symbols.

With my 90 Shilling understanding, I say: "It is all good and well. The issue remains the energy magnitude and source that can accomplish these iron spheres from various tower materisls -- without obscenely massive quantities or air-conditioned conjecture." Look out of the box, Señor Rogue. Shock & Awe, baby! We nuked ourselves and brainwashed ourselves into thinking we didn't.

[Say the following outloud.]
"Your Dearest, Sweetest, Queirdo: Señor El Sashadik"

---

Señor El Once : claim "carousel" in round n

2012-07-08

Mi queirdo Señor Rogue Jeckyl,

Was it you or teammate Mr. Hybrid Hyde who wrote the following?

Frankly, Sashadik bores me to tears with this; ‘some kinda nookidoo’…

Would have been much stronger and manly had nothing been written at all. But you are paid to post, eh? Gee, if you're going to write it, why not the full-blown eagle: My dearest, sweetest, biggest, Señor El Sashadik?

You continue with:

and regardless of his squawkaloo I have addressed his points over and again, thread after thread.

Merely saying that you did does not make it so.

Of course, on June 26, 2012 at 11:25 am, I had already pointed out this little trick from your agency handbag:

The most dubious game I’ve noticed you play when you suffered a loss in an early round is to come back and claim in round n: “Carousel! Merry-go-round! Roundabout! I have addressed this before and therefore on the weight of that dismiss this yet again!” When it fact you didn’t. Very clever.

The Q-Group trick of not posting your squawkaloo where it belongs is designed to mess with the readability of the comments section and to add distance and obscure the fact that you have not adequately addressed my points over and again, thread after thread.

El-Oh-El! Air-conditioner delivered thermaberic sol-gel super-duper nano-thermite? Wrap your head around how massively long this imaginary garden hose would be that could contain the alledged volume of chemically explosive material necessary both to account for the initial pulverization resulting in 2.5 micron sized particles & iron spheres and to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. [And still no conjecture into the decimation of WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6...]

Occam's Razor looks at the radiation evidence even in juked form, at the energy requirements of pulverization [2.5 micron], at the iron spheres in the dust, at the duration of under-rubble hot-spots [unspent but fizzling nuclear material], at the 1st Responder ailments mirroring that of Hiroshima survivors, at the logistics ease with which exotic nuclear devices could be acquired from the PTB's arsensals and deployed [compared to the logistics nightmare of thermaberic sol-gel super-duper nano-thermite], yada, yada, yada.

Occam's Razaor looks at all of that, plus the concerted disinfo campaigns to not seriously look into exotic nuclear devices, and it concludes that differently.

So, if Señor Rogue Jeckyl doesn't drink, maybe teammate Mr. Hybrid Hyde does, or maybe they both have health issues that medical "Mary Jane" assists them with [while contributing to the short-term memory loss that has them erroneously believing they have adequately addressed my points over and again, thread after thread] to give us this easily forgotten passage:

word cipher, especially assonance ciphers, spittleshield wipers, snitwad vipers…headed to the tourney in fart baffling undies?

Meanwhile, I gather that you're buried in nuggets of truth from Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, which is why your good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review is being delayed. What evidence does she unwittingly provide to support your conjecture of air-conditioner delivered thermaberic sol-gel super-duper nano-thermite? El-Oh-El!

---

Señor El Once : not so influenced by 90 Schilling

2012-07-08

My posting from July 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm was influenced by an O'Dell's 90 Schilling beer when it dismissed Señor Rogue's July 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm posting. This posting is not so influenced and provides detailed justification to the dismissal.

According to Dr. Harrit:

The RJ Lee group found a whopping 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 report). In the same table a 0.04% is reported as the expected value in normal building dust. So 5.83% of the finding must be considered abnormal.

According to Agent Rogue using some unattributed source:

The percentage of iron by weight found in WTC bulk concrete based upon a measurement performed by Dr. Steve Jones of the MacKinlay sample was found to be ~3.2%. So, the concrete in the towers can contribute up to 36% x .032 =1.2% to the total percentage of iron in the dust.

The error {anomaly?} is that this RJ Lee Group finding of 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust – conflicts significantly with these other data.

Let's go through with whom it supposedly conflicts. In all cases except Dr. Jones, without knowing the sampling test points, their findings don't say anything to dispute the TP-01 test point used by the RJ Lee group.

USGS: a govt agency. [Only 1.6±0.7% %-weight of iron is found in the dust.] Note that this number is not necessarily "average %-weight Fe" that McGee and EPA identially report.

McGee: I have no information about this company or who commissioned their work. [average %-weight Fe content 0.8±0.4%] See not under EPA.

EPA: a govt agency with a track record during the Bush Administration of lying to the public. [average %-weight Fe content 0.8±0.4%] If we assume that McGee and the EPA did separate measurements and have separate sample sizes, then it comes as a very coincidentally coincidence that the mathematical operation of "averaging" to entirely different sets of samples and sample sizes would produce identical "average %-weight Fe content 0.8±0.4%."

Moreover, if McGee & the EPA are identically stating "average %-weight Fe content was 0.8±0.4%", they are sort of an echo chamber not saying: "The average %-weight Fe content was twenty times as large as the RJ Lee group's control dust sampling of background buildings."

Dr. Steven Jones: has proven instances of scientificly oriented skew with regard to 9/11. [“A crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012g/32.1g = 0.04%.” {his samples}.] The highlight words should be enough.

Let us look into more detail as to exactly the RJ Lee Group finding said (below the +++++ line).

Here's my executive summary. A private company owning a building neighboring the WTC suffered damage from the 9/11 destruction. In filing their insurance claim, a third-party private investigative firm (RJ Lee Group) was deemed acceptable by both the private company and the private insurance company. Its report said in a nutshell: "Hey, we found this neat anomaly. We know when we're dealing with dust from the gash in 130 Liberty Street property, because it has 5.87% Fe spheres when the dust from occupied spaces of background buildings only 0.04% Fe spheres."

What is important is this was measured within the gash of 130 Liberty Street property. This is a pretty specific test point. With regards to the reports that it supposedly conflicts with, those reports are averaging. Averaging from what? The old joke goes:

When you put Bill Gates into the same room with nine homeless men and average the wealth among the ten to be hundreds of millions of dollars, there would still be only one person in that room with any money in his pockets.

To compare the measurement results of a specific test point with the measured results of the USGS, McGee=EPA [±0.4%], and crudely from Dr. Jones that employed a larger and varied sample set that get averaged together? Scientific slight of hand.



+++++++
Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property December 2003

Statistical analyses were performed to compare the distribution of particle types within TP-01 occupied spaces of the Building to those found in the Background Buildings by various statistical methods. Background Building samples were analyzed by SEM in the same manner as the samples collected within the gash of the Building. The same field technicians, sampling media, equipment, and laboratory technicians were used in all stages to minimize variability.

...

Class A particles are common WTC Dust Markers and Class C particles are common Background Building dust particles. The statistical analysis indicates that the dust in the below ceiling space in the gash is different from that observed in Background Buildings. The material collected in the gash is consistent with building materials derived from the destruction of the WTC; the carbon-rich particulate is abundant in typical office buildings. The data clearly shows statistically significant differences with the mean values in the two classes of particles, hence the WTC Dust can be distinguished from Background Building dust.

Table 3 Statistical P-values for the comparison of TP-01 dust and dust in Background Buildings.

		Mean of Composition (%)
Class	Particle Type	Background Buildings	TP-01
A	Mineral Wool	1.05	13.70
A	Glass Fragments	0.52	0.50
A	Glass Fiber	0.23	1.27
A	Perlite	0.26	0.45
A	Vermiculite	0	2.36
A	Ca/Si	0.35	5.11
A	Fe Sphere	0.04	5.87
A	Vesicular Carbonaceous	0.05	1.23
A	Hi Temp Si/Al-rich	0.08	0.54
A	Vermiculite/Gypsum	0	2.72
A	Chrysotile	0	1.84
C	C fiber	5.20	1.02
C	C flake	35.95	1.14
	Class A Combined	2.57	35.58
	Class C Combined	41.15	2.16

The probability of the statistical evaluation of the above data demonstrates that the WTC Dust and background dust have different sources.

The boring conclusion: Agent Rogue kicked up into our eyes 9/11 dust with averaging Fe spheres. The 146% (5.87 / 0.04) increase of Fe spheres at 130 Liberty over background builings indicates a significant amount of spheriphied iron from the towers was expulsed horizontally from the towers. Hmmm. It takes energy. Lots of energy alone to turn steel beams into iron spheres in the dust.

---

Señor El Once : sick of Judy Judy Judy

2012-07-08

Perhaps some relaxation – without the help of his friend Odell would sooth his angst.

That and the way you tongue rolls around "Señor" and sticks on "el dik" in "My dearest, sweetest, biggest, Señor El Sashadik" r-e-a-l-l-y sooths me to excitement, Sasha honey! In Monty Python fashion, you should write it on the T&S sphynx 100 times regarding who has the "biggest dikkest."

As there is certainly some dim wattage in some proportion of the readership and commentators of this blog, I am still satisfied with the core of my argument.

And the Truth & Shadows blog readership thanks you for such a high vote of confidence. You really are a smooth talker, aren't you?

And I still assert that Señor is far from proving anything DEW or Nuke-Dew in is mighty thousand word dissertations.

With the help of the fruit of the O'Dell employees, I agree that you are right.

My heartfelt desire is for evidence, science, and proper analysis to convince me of something else, or for the same to allow me to convince others of nuclear DEW's validity.

In fact I maintain that he still hasn’t decided which or what it is he is trying to prove.

Good point with which I have zero issues! Except for the little, iddy-biddy nuggets of truth!!! That is what I'm trying to prove, preserve, and make sure that any 9/11-theory-du-jour addresses. If the nuggets are of truth, then I won't let them be brushed away in any delphi concensus tricks or Helgian dialogue that your games resemble. Nuggets of truth are my calling, as is feeding the sheep.

Before I finish for the day, allow me to comment on:

I am sick of Judy Judy Judy for the time being, and will read THE BOOK later when the nausea wears off.

Sounds like a cop-out, like maybe it isn't proving to be as much of a easy target to debunk as you had imagined when you didn't have the book in your hands. Kind of hard to spot the errors, eh? And what about the nuggets of truth? Ain't they yummy.

Why don't you take a break from air-conditioned thermabotic thingamabogs and from flooding the forums here while you do your Wood homework? I'd kind of like that even more than your soothing whispers of "dearest, sweetest, biggest, Señor El Sashadik." Flattering, but I don't swing that way.

---

Señor El Once : your jealous tongue rolls it around your mounth

2012-07-09

Dearest Señor Rogue writes July 8, 2012 at 11:40 pm:

My dearest, sweetest, biggest, Señor El Sashadik. ... Nuffa theez sheet. Aye?

I warned you about how your terms of endearment to me would reflect on you. I'm going to miss how your jealous tongue rolls it around your mounth when you speak it.

Earlier on that same day [July 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm], Señor Rogue seemed to be trashing Dwain Deets. And what a nugget filled rabbit hole his link turned out to be!

I've taken the liberty of chronologically sequencing some of the rabbit hole links for better readability. They appear after the +++ line.

Executive Summary: Mr. Creighton tried numerous times to get the good Dr. Steven Jones to test his independently acquired WTC dust samples for standard industry explosive residues. Evidently, the decision was deferred by Dr. Jones to Gregg Roberts who gave a lopey reason that if the results turn out negative [e.g., no residue of standard industry explosives], the opposition would have a PR field day in rubbing the 9/11 Truth Movement's nose it. Allegedly the fear was that any such residue might have reached its "expire by date" in terms of tests being able to detect it reliably after so long, so a negative result could have been in the cards.

Any way you look at it, this is an instance of steering, and Dr. Jones & Mr. Roberts are in the middle of it.

+++++ begin

Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research 2009-04-07 By Scott Creighton

Thermite and thermate would not be classified as a “high explosive” but rather a low-explosive. They are incendiary materials because though they burn at a relatively low rate of speed, the release a lot of energy when doing so.

That is why you keep seeing energy comparisons being made by Jones in his new paper – but that energy he mentions translates mainly to heat output, not to the potential of creating a shock wave. It’s that shock wave that produces the “explosive” effect that could pulverize concrete floors or shoot multi-ton steel beams across 300 feet of lower New York City. And it is the detonation velocity that creates the shock wave.
...
At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me.

“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it.    Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.”  Roberts

The idea that you wouldn’t run a scientific test that is standard investigative procedure when an explosive is suspected, for any reason, let alone for “potential P.R.” consequences… was astounding to me.

...

Here we are, looking for some deep-secret governmental agency capable of producing some mystery explosive, that may or may not have even had the detonation velocity capable of destroying the concrete floors in the first place, while everyone makes a point to cover their asses in the case of a future investigation by clearly stating they never LOOKED for standard to the industry explosive residues in the WTC dust samples.

And now we can include the 911 Truth Movement in that long list of organizations who refuse to look for the most logical tell-tale evidence one would expect in an explosives investigation.

9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One 2010-05-26 By Scott Creighton

Steven Jones is a physicist who has done work for the Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy (Division of Advanced Energy Projects), and U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute. Not to mention the fact that Steven Jones was a professor at BYU.

In several email attempts to get Jones to agree to run tests for residues of high explosives (PETN, RDX, TNT) in the dust in his possession, this highly decorated and experienced educator attempted to tell me there was no way to test for such residues and then he tried to tell me he didn’t know how to test for the residues and would not have access to the equipment to do so.

For Steven Jones to make the claim that NIST is “getting away with” not testing for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard. Jones and Harrit and Roberts all make the claim in their “peer-reviewed paper” that they did NOT test for these finger prints of high explosives and that someone else should.
...
We can all understand why NIST doesn’t run the tests; because they are a branch of the Department of Commerce and they essentially worked for the people who carried out 911. But Jones. Harrit, and Roberts are SUPPOSED to be a different story. They are SUPPOSED to be an unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Why would Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run these tests? And who exactly is “getting away” with not running them? NIST is condemned for it, Jones is given a pass.

Dwain Deets Goes Full Retard: Pushes “Ray Beams from Space” and “Mini-Nukes” 2012-02-04 By Scott Creighton:

I suggested that Steven Jones and the Truth movement get behind a push to test the Ground Zero dust they already had for high explosive residue. PETN residue would be easily detected in the dust from Ground Zero. Jones and Gregg Roberts disagreed with me. As of this date, no organization, not the USGS, not FEMA, not NIST, not the 9/11 Commission, and not Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have run the one test, the first test they all should have run in a thorough investigation: the test to see if high explosive residue is present in the dust from Ground Zero. This is what Gregg Roberts told me about it:

“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it.    Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.”  Roberts

They didn’t want to do actual residue tests used to determine if high explosives were used yet they did put a lot of money and time into creating the now thoroughly discredited “nanothermite” junk science.

+++++ end

In my wild-ass speculation, I think this is several spins to bewilder. Either the dust would come back positive or negative for explosive residue.

If it came back positive, this becomes the banner behind which the 9/11TM frog-marches the nation's leaders to court. [The PTB can't have that.] Sheet! Even I'd maybe come on board; just the evidence and proper scientific analysis that this duped useful idiot needs to be duped another way.

As proposed by Mr. Roberts, if it came back negative, a weak PR campaign would try for a short time to spin it: "See? There really was no explosives. It really was a pile driver and gravity! Move along, folks! Nothing to see here." Of course, they've been trying that for a long time now; they'll just get to re-initialize the same talking points.

However, the worse situation is that thinkers within the 9/11TM can & do know it wasn't gravity, so they would begin digging deeper, as I have been doing. They would continue looking for an energy and destruction source; Dr. Wood & the Anonymous Physicist begin to appear not so crazy; and the pesky radiation evidence & cover-up would creep back into the forefront. [The PTB can't have this, because they no longer control the 9/11TM spinning its wheels for more years on super-duper nanothermite. The research reveals means & methods of national weapons secrets.]

Gotta love this quote from Scott Creighton that Señor Rogue highlighted and wants to spin:

You think [Dwain Deets] is stupid enough to buy into Judy Wood’s obvious bullshit? Of course he isn’t. But there he is.

Meanwhile, without much indication that he has read anything in his freshly printed copy of Dr. Wood's book and with more indication that he has been desparately trying to fill his super-duper nanothermite hole with thermobaric bombs [that have even more weak points], Señor Rogue brushes off his assignment for a good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review of Dr. Wood's textbook deftly with his July 8, 2012 at 2:18 pm posting:

I am sick of Judy Judy Judy for the time being, and will read THE BOOK later when the nausea wears off.

Nausea is not an excuse. Quite the contrary. If we give any credance to the ability of information in Dr. Wood's textbook to induce nausea, that simply becomes part of the good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review that you are charged with carrying out. Had you truly found such nausea inducing nuggets already, I'm am quite confident that you would have posted about them in gloating terms already of the Dr. Wood thread.

Guess the rabbit hole link is one reason why Señor Rogue jumps from super-duper nano-thermite to sol-gel thermobaric "fuel-air bombs" that the air conditioners allegedly fed. Any sheet to avoid acknowledging nugget of truths from Dr. Wood and the Anonymous Physicist, eh? Can't have Mr. Deets going there either.

Señor Rogue writes:

I see this whole “Alternative to the alternative” movement as a Fifth Column pincer movement squeezing the Truth between the official BS and Wonderland BS.

That is because both of Señor Rogue's hands are firmly & manly gripped around one arm of the pincer tongs as if it were his own highly personal reproductive tool. [Regrettably, sometimes Dr. Fetzer does come across as holding the other arm of the pincer tongs.]

---

Señor El Once : thermaburic bombs delivered by air conditioning units set to MAX

2012-07-09

On this late July 9, 2012 date and ~426 comments to this thread, Señor Rogue makes his July 8, 2012 at 2:48 pm posting to add to his ~168 (39.4%) tally so far, just to mess with the readability of the comments. Far below his level of output, this humble posting of mine only brings my total to ~38 (8.9%).

+++ SPOILER ALERT +++

As dedicated readers will read in this thread, Señor Rogue gets his buttons pushed with facts a few times, causing his Señor Rogue Jeckyl to release his Mr. Hybrid Hyde in a creative furry of ad hominem, seen above with his quaint "Señor El Sashadik" that I encourage him to use for its reflective powers.

Although he beats his chest like a jungle ape in a WWF grudge match against Dr. Fetzer and whether or not super-thermite has a detonation velocity that squeaks in on the very low-end of the fuzzy range in the definition of "conventional high explosives," victory will prove to be spun-hollow for Señor Rogue in the grand scheme of things. The iron sphere evidence in the dust, if attributed to super-thermite, would indicate massive quantities [thousands of metric tons] of super-thermite to achieve, according to Dr. Harrit. This is on top of an imaginary 664k mile long garden hose of unreacted super-thermite that would account for the duration of an under-rubble hot-spot.

Maybe foreseeing himself getting knocked from the super-thermite log, Señor Rogue digs his spikes in for a hefty spin through thermaburic bombs delivered by air conditioning units set to MAX, despite these being not normally a priority for emergency power in the crippled WTC complex.

The private RJ Lee Group came up with iron sphere numbers in the dust for the property at 130 Liberty, which was 146 times over background levels of iron in dust and was 7 times greater than coincidentally identical McGee & EPA averaging reports. Takes energy in the destruction to create those iron spheres, and to toss them out to the Deutsche Bank building.

Señor Rogue takes a swing at Dwain Deets via Scott Creighton:

"You think [Dwain Deets] is stupid enough to buy into Judy Wood’s obvious bullshit? Of course he isn’t. But there he is."

Only to be embarrassed by the black eyes Mr. Creighton gives to Dr. Jones and Mr. Roberts for purposely not testing for high explosives in the dust samples that they had [just like the govt did not test either]... for PR reasons if the results were negative (like the "expire-by-dates" for explosive residue detection were passed by.)

For many things including many instances of multiple postings in a row, Señor Rogue gets called an agent. Yes, by me. He says that the content of Dr. Wood's book was making him sick, without recognizing that -- if true -- this would be a fine nugget to put into his good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter book review. Instead uses it as an excuse to set the book down. [Did he even really pick it up?]

Dear latter-day lurker readers,

Read for yourself in the unfolding saga below whether Señor Rogue's quaint "Señor El Sashadik" applies to me (Señor El Once) and/or "agenthood A-List of the NSA Q-Group" applies to Señor Rogue. You be the judge. "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

---

Señor El Once : The "continuing misperception" is entirely yours.

2012-07-10

Dear Agent Rogue,

A continuing misperception is clearly seen in the counter commentary to what I have been saying here; and that is that is that ALL of the metallic spherules in the dust are the nanothermite.

The "continuing misperception" is entirely yours.

If you understood what Dr. Harrit (co-author with Dr. Jones) wrote in his email, it would be clear that the thermitic material reacts with the steel and produces iron spheres as a by-product.

Let's assume the conservative 10 metric tons of iron spheres was in the dust from 1 tower. If we assume that all of this was the result of the nanothermic reaction and that the steel had 10% iron-oxide content, then at the rate of 1 kg of thermetic material producing 0.07 kg of iron, the starting quantities of thermetic material would have been at 143,000,000 kg. [If the steel had 50% iron-oxide content, then the starting quantities of thermetic material would have been 28,000,000 kg.]

To your point, we cannot assume that the entire 10 metric tons of iron spheres was the by-product of the thermitic reaction. Most 9/11TMers have been saying that multiple mechanisms were at work in decimating the towers. To this end, you claim:

The vast majority [of metallic spherules] are not [the result of a thermic reaction], they are the RESULT of the explosion: vaporized steel.

Okay smarty pants, let's go with your premise, but let us start with the very conservative 28,000,000 kg of thermitic material.

For every kg of this thermitic material that you say wasn't involved in a chemical reaction producing iron spheres, kindly replace it with an amount of some destructive compound that could produce metallic spherules in its explosion equivalent to what the alleged nano-thermite produces.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume you've got some wizbang explosive that can generate as many iron spheres as 1 kg of thermite but with only x kg, where x < 1 (but does not have to be.) For every n kg you substract from the total-thermic amount, you have to add (n * x) kg to the explosive amount. The two together (T) represents the total mass of explosive/thermitic material planted in the building:

T = 28,000,000 [kg] -n [kg] + (n * x) [kg]
T = 28,000,000 + n(x-1) [kg]

The point is, this is still a lot of material. Please conceptualize it!!! [Shove it into an imaginary garden hose if you have to.]

Please tell us: what x kg of your thermaburic air conditioned bombs replaces 1 kg of super-duper nano-thermite in producing iron spheres?

And this total tonnage is even more if the iron-oxide isn't 50% as above but is only 10%.

T = 143,000,000 + n(x'-1) [kg] (x' at 10% iron-oxide may or may not relate to x at 50% iron-oxide)

This tonnage grows even more if you try to use this same material to account for the under-rubble hot-spots. It just isn't very Occam Razor when thinking logistics of installation, particularly when the arsenals have so many better weapons.

Worst of all, nowhere in this conceptualized tonnage is the radiation evidence addressed. Nowhere does it account for the line-of-sight vehicle damage.

So let me get this straight. When you read a novel, you do it Pulp Fiction style, jumping to the middle to the end to the beginning and all around. Which is why you purposely frequently post responses where they don't belong: 0 respect for discussion participant; 0 respect for readers.

You know whose words you are quoting, so you don't find it necessary to help others with more obvious visual cues as to where the words come from. Contrary to this being a little infraction in MY RULEBOOK, such obtuse behavior is just plain rude to all participants and readers, and is an afront to the owner of this blog who is trying to maintain a quality offering.

Unlike your clever and crafty ad hominem that you resort to when your arguments are being shot to pieces and to pad your posting tallies, I have substantiated my bullshit frame of “agenthood A-List of the NSA Q-Group” with specific examples from your (negative) behavior, obtuse behavior, stilted behavior, and blatant ring-around-the-rosie game playing.

My complaints about your posting frequency and multiple-postings-in-a-row are not fiction; they are fact. They demonstrate a concerted effort on your part to steer thinking in this forum.

Because you haven't tallied word counts for anyone, your complaints about mine possibly being greater than yours is just your imagination.

{You want the word count? Go to town, Genius. Copy the entire comment section and paste it into Microsoft Word. Do a word count to get a baseline (A). Remove all comment blocks that aren't from you or me. Do another word count (B). Then remove all comment blocks from me because they are vastly fewer in number. Do yet another word count (C) which is your word count alone. Subtract C from B to get my word count. Subtract B from A to get the word count of everyone else in the discussion. Let's see how your Q-tactics fair. And if you had any true computer smarts honed from computer animation, you'd write a Word macro to help you parse it that you'd be able to re-use from discussion-to-discussion to really verify with facts rather than congecture who is the blabber mouth.}

---

Señor El Once : Those trailing 000's are not trivial

2012-07-10

I wrote:

If you understood what Dr. Harrit (co-author with Dr. Jones) wrote in his email, it would be clear that the thermitic material reacts with the steel and produces iron spheres as a by-product.

The rogue agent writes on July 10, 2012 at 11:42 am :

The chemical reaction you describe is not the only mechanism involved in your neat little framing of equations. There is also the explosive shock wave and the friction {= heat} caused by the brisance {shattering power} of the blast wave.

Again and again, your election in the JFK/LBJ era to skip math and science in favor of art keeps shooting you in the foot and proving you less than the all-around genius that you think you are. So I will write different words to get the point across.

Two extremes. One extreme is 100% thermitic reaction. The other extreme is 100% brisance shock wave. The actual forces in action are allegedly (by you) in-between these two extremes.

I had us start at one extreme to calculate a crude estimate of the amount of thermitic material necessary to react chemically with steel to produce 10,000,000 kg of iron spheres [using Dr. Harrit's assumptions]. It was between 28,000,000 kg and 143,000,000 kg of thermite, depending upon the oxide content of the steel. Note how this is a massive quantity regardless of where you are in the range.

Then to get this moved in the direction of the other extreme that the rogue agent is harping about (shock wave, etc.), I said that n kilograms of thermitic material should be removed and replaced with n*x kilograms of the explosive compound of your choice which has the brisance to shatter steel into tiny particles. x refers to amount of this other substance relative to thermite to achieve the same ends: iron-spheres. It is the rogue agent's job to determine what x is for his compound; x<1 might be true, or might not.

[Let's assume that your other explosive compound includes a heat reaction such that the spheres are created, although heat alone doesn't turn a complex steel compound into just iron. Let's assume it has the brisance to create 2.5 micron particle sizes, which is a huge energy sink and might crank up x>>1. Yada, yada, yada. I'm doing what I can to give your weak argument lots of leeway into making a convincing case.]

Depending the n kg of thermite that can be replaced by some unspecified explosive compound, we're talking about a range of mass:
28,000,000 + n(x-1) [kg] <???< 143,000,000 + n(x'-1) [kg]
where x and x' might be equal, because brisance may not be dependent on oxide content in the steel.

Plug in different values for x from, say, 0.01 to 10. Make a wild-ass guess that you'd like n to reduce the millions of thermite kilograms in the extreme case by 1/2.

n=14,000,000 in 28,000,000+n(x-1)kg
x=0.01 => 14,140,000 kg
x=0.1 => 15,400,000 kg
x=1 => 28,000,000 kg
x=10 => 154,000,000 kg

n=71,500,000 in 143,000,000+n(x-1)kg
x=0.01 => 72,200,000 kg
x=0.1 => 78,700,000 kg
x=1 => 143,000,000 kg
x=10 => 786,500,000 kg

14,140,000 kg < ??? < 786,500,000 kg

Do you even see that millions of kilograms of thermite and your beloved explosive compound are still called for? Those trailing 000's are not trivial, and it don't seem so logistically Occam Razor.

The above does not argue against the involvement nano-thermite or your chemical explosive. Sure, why not? Back-up, redundant, overkill.

The above does argue against them being the primary destructive mechanism.

+++++

As part of three-in-a-row, the rogue agent wrote on July 9, 2012 at 4:19 pm:

I think it is also important to keep in mind why Jones was on the trail of this particular white rabbit; the telltale spilling of the liquid iron from the corner of the tower just before it began to twist just prior to its demolition. We may now look back and complain that he was too single-minded in this pursuit, and those who will are going to cast every aspersion possible to make their cases against him. But he is not THE ONLY ONE with access to WTC dust, as anyone studying this subject should realize by this point.

Your fawning over Dr. Jones has issues. Dr. Jones has videotaped 9/11 presentations that proves that his 9/11 interests were broad, talking about building construction, politics, money trails, etc. Plus his interest within his field of physics were also broad, talking about tritium and nano-thermite. So much for his being too single-minded in this pursuit. Gee, he was so single-minded in his pursuit of nano-thermite, that he purposely neglected to provide any calculations (like from Dr. Harrit that I've modified above) to estimate the necessary quantities of his single-minded pursuit required for decimation, much less that required to account for under-rubble hot-spot duration. Seems like a major oversight that got compounded when the yeomen of 9/11 extrapolated Dr. Jones' finding to areas that they don't apply and never corrected the record. Did his single-minded pursuit of nano-thermite distract him into making his blatant logic errors and accepting the trace-level redefinition in his tritium "no nukes" paper?

Here's another prick to your explosive balloon relating to "brisance {shattering power} of the blast wave."

NIST might withhold information, and they might misrepresent information in a fog of scientific equations, but they aren't going to outright lie.

For example, NIST withheld the details of the parameters they entered into their simulation program that modeled the collapse of WTC-7. Without those details, the animation looks cool, but has very little relevance to any real world building failure.

Another example, NIST put into its WTC-7 conclusions that the top 26 or so floors fell slower than free-fall. They used simple averaging to obscure the fact that they defined three stages of those 26 floors falling, and that stage 2 representing over 100 feet (8 stories) had its downward acceleration being identical to free-fall. Still, the conclusions had to read that these 26 stories fell in a total time slower than free-fall.

NIST has taken the liberty of debunking the "brisance {shattering power} of the blast wave" for us via decibel levels. True, NIST might have used a very select set of recordings to help juke the impression that decibel levels of explosions were significantly less than what would be emitted by the quantities of various explosives required to decimate the towers.

But the fact remains as given from the math above: if chemical explosives (including a tandem mix with thermite and thermaburic) were deployed to decimate the towers, massive quantities would have been required. As such, the "brisance {shattering power} of the blast waves" would have resulted in much larger spikes to the decibel readings.

Dr. Sunder is not a trained politician or an actor, but he got on television without any lying ticks and confidently stated for the cameras that such chemical explosives weren't used because of the inadequate decibel measurements. The ace up his sleeve was probably being told (or figuring out) the actual primary mechanisms of destruction, and it in truth wasn't such chemical explosives. As long as he stayed away from the actual mechanism of destruction, he could talk confidently how such chemical explosives weren't used, do a dog & pony show with some whiz-bang animation of a progressive collapse, and appease the ignorant masses with the govt's fairy tale of what happened.

At the end of the day, the brisance of your myriad explosive mechanisms did not result in adequate decibel levels, because they could logistically not be present in the towers in sufficient quantities to affect the observed destruction, right on down to 2.5 micron particle sizes.

And because radiation and very selective (line-of-sight) vehicle damage isn't addressed by this hypothesis, another source for the destruction and required energy must still be sought.

Your agent game playing is just a stalling distraction from that endeavor which begins in Dr. Wood's textbook and the Anonymous Physicist's website.

++++++

Jumping back to the rogue agent's July 10, 2012 at 11:42 am posting:

You have not offered any real "radiation evidence" beyond your tepid Tritium amounts.

Except for the blatant lies and errors associated with this singular report, which was probably used to distract from noticing the omission of other companion reports.

Take the First responders supposed "Hiroshima-like ailments" assertion. Why isn't it framed boldly as "radiation sickness"?

Because I'm not in charge of PR, and the PR agent who would make such assertions would be fired.

To make the complete medical argument of why the nano-scale particulates are exponentially more dangerous because they are absorbed by the pores of the skin itself, and not only inhaled. Therefore, claiming that these ailments came on too quickly as per what would be exposures to these materials on the scale they are usually encountered is without proper foundation.

Nobody is arguing that toxic nano-scale particles absorbed into the skin and inhaled didn't do a massive negative number on the 1st responder's health. Cancers are what result, yada, yada, yada. However, teeth loss? I can prove that radiation poisoning does this. I can't when purposely narrowing the focus of toxins to exclude radiation.

And this leads into the Hazmat dispute, wherein the same protective clothing and masking as well as the procedure of removing the contaminants and refilling with clean earth, just as is said is the procedure for nuclear clean-up.

Spinner.

Here is what was observed: fresh dirt brought in and spread out. Days later, same dirt was scooped up and carted out. Repeat. This is a nuclear hazmat procedure to absorb radiation. This is not the same as what you are saying.

And then the idea that any draconian clamp down on the crime scene automatically leads to the conclusion that they were "hiding radiation" is simply another circle around the Maypole. But the major reason to reject is that the alternative theory does not match the signature characteristics of the actual destruction. 'This is why *all of the apologetic presumption goes in circles, back to the original pure speculation.'

Spinner.

I never said the draconian clamp down on the crime scene was to hide radiation, although this is a side-effect. It was to hide the true causes of the destruction and to cart away secretly any incriminating evidence.

As for your fluff "does not match the signature characteristics of the actual destruction." As proven above, your alternative theory does not match the signature characteristics of the actual destruction. Where are the decibel readings? Tritium, tritium, tritium. Can you say "under-rubble hot-spot burning for weeks"? Give me estimates on quantities? What percentage of that massive quantity would have failed and been present in the dust? How come even Dr. Jones and A&E for 9/11 Truth didn't even test the dust, and then to cover their asses, they come up with a lame PR excuse? Maybe they didn't test, because they knew in advance it would be negative, which would then send objective thinkers into rejecting the "controlled" alternative theories and into more reasonable yet exotic realms.

And what is this "line-of-sight vehicle damage" bullshit? Such vehicle damage occurred in the full radius around the towers.

Full radius and line-of-sight around the towers. To vehicles only. Not flags. Not leaves. Not trees. Not people.

The distance of the car park and those vehicles along West Broadway are pretty anomalous.

I wouldn't worry so much about the psychological effect I may or may not be having on the other readers Mr Bridges, I would tend to my own house and consider how much effect I have on your own emotions and psyche.

Heed your own advice. Your posting and word count says it all.

You have put a lot of effort into repackaging me on this forum.

I'm just trying to make sure the nuggets of truth don't get brushed aside, and who do I see driving a mondo street-sweeper and swinging a broom about his head? You.

Who do I see who has been too obstinate to acquire a book (or dive into a website) before making his review? You.

Yet, who throws up as his first line of defense to stop others from going there dubious sources? You.

Who now has the book and was so eager to objectively review it, yet sets it immediately aside to present the lame theories on thermaburic bombs that have even worse "signature characteristics" to match the actual evidence than suped-up super-duper nano-thermite in a sol-gel? You.

I've been objectively and honestly reviewing all sources of (dis)information for nuggets of truth (and have the courage to change my mind and admit I was wrong). I've sincerely asked for help. I've even paid to get (dis)information into other people's hands so that I could get the help and separate the wheat from the chaff. Who signed up for this challenge and then went limp sashadik? You.

You're it, man. I don't need to re-package you as an agent.

[thousands upon thousands of words in counter-valence]

In this thread alone, over 24k words. But who's counting? Or rather, who egged me into counting? You.

One might think you are obsessed.

Your stats prove who is obsessed.

++++++

As far as the numbers of posts, or the number of words, that is your own squall - I don't give a flying bat turd about it - the only reason I mention it is your fanaticism with the issue.

What an excellent segue! Guess you made that turn-about once you determined what the results would be.

When the comments were at 436 for this thread, they were comprised of 89,389 words or 441,894 characters (no spaces).

Agent Rogue wins the booby prizes in the forum for:
Most number of comments (41%)
Most number of words (34.9%)
Most number of characters (153k)

The only prize I win is highest average number of words per comment.

HybridRogue
~179 Comments (41%)
31,177 Words (34.9%)
153,233 Characters (no spaces)
174 Average Words/post

Senor El Once
~39 Comments (8.9%)
24,345 Words (27.2%)
119,004 Characters (no spaces)
624 Average Words/post

Jim Fetzer
55 Comments (12.6%)
11,729 Words (13.1%)
59,624 Characters (no spaces)
213 Average Words/post

Craig McKee
56 Comments (12.8%)
5,047 Words (5.6%)
22,737 Characters (no spaces)
90 Average Words/post

All others
107 Comments (23.9%)
16,562 Words (18.5%)
84,186 Characters (no spaces)
154 Average Words/post

+++++++++++++

More boring details because my word count is still down compared to the rogue agent's.

Here's how I came up with it so that the rogue agent can analyze the next thread where he thinks my word count is over-running his.

TECHNIQUE:
1) Copy all comments from blog into Microsoft Word.
2) Save the file under some name so you can revert back to it if needed.
3) Select all (Ctrl+A) and change to the normal style to get rid of weird indentations and fonts.
4) Save the file as TXT so that it will strip out images.
5) Open up the TXT file in Notepad.
6) Select all from Notepad and paste into a new Word document.
7) Search in Word all paragraphs (^p) and replace with a tab (^t).
8) For a participant "X" of interest, search & replace "X says:^t" with "^pX +=+^t". [The "+=+" is arbitrary, doesn't normally appear in the text, and has the purpose getting "says:^t" out of the text for participants that have been handled.]
9) Repeat #8 for all participants of interest.
10) Search & replace " says:^t" with "^p someone =+=^t". [This introduces the minor subtle error of putting the name of a non-important participant within the word count of the previous participant.]
11) Save this file under a new name so you can revert back to it if needed.
12) Select all from the Word document and paste into Microsoft Excel. The paragraphs should give new rows; the tabs will give new columns.
13) Select the text and sort by column A, which should have the participants name.
14) Save this Excel file so you can revert back to it if needed.
[Important trick in next 3 steps to avoid Microsoft "smart" copy/paste features.]
15) In Excel, select all of the rows of a participant of interest and copy to the clipboard.
16) Paste this into a Notepad document.
17) Select everything in the Notepad document and paste it into a Word document.
18) Perform word count in Word and record the stats some place.
19) Repeat from step #15 for each participant of interest. [The same junk Notepad and Word sessions can be used if all of the old information is selected (Ctrl+A) before new information is pasted in (Ctrl+V) to overwrite it.]

Caveats: Participant names as well as date stamps are included in the word count. The error introduce by the date stamp is consistent for all participant's postings. It could be removed by additional search/replace operations to get the date stamp bookended with ^t (tab characters) that results eventually into a unique column in Excel that can be zapped in one go. The search/replace operations in step #8 could also change multi-name aliases into a single word. Due to step #10, an additional word (name) might get included into the tally of the participant preceding them.

P.S. This comment comes in at 2,896 words, but alas, damn! My total words [27,241] are still below the rogue agent's blustery total output [31,177].

---

Señor El Once : down from agent rogue 144 comments and 4,824 words

2012-07-10

If it is any consolation to the rogue agent, over a 1/3 of my opus of July 10, 2012 at 4:44 pm was written twice, because of a software glitch in the first program I was using to search/replace to get the word count. As a result, the opus was delayed and able to reel in your 11:42 am posting, albeit with the stats getting further and further out of whack with the rogue agent's true at-the-moment tallies.

July 10, 2012 at 11:42 am
July 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm
July 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm
July 10, 2012 at 4:55 pm [Crossed Wires]
July 10, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Amazing that of the five postings, only the first was worth reading.

The new benchmark to this thread is 444 total comments; 93,582 Words; 460,049 Characters (no spaces) not including this throwaway message.

HybridRogue
~184 Comments (41.4%)
32,065 Words (34.3%)
157,531 Characters (no spaces) (34.2%)

Senor El Once
~40 Comments (9%)
27,241 Words (29.1%)
133,336 Characters (no spaces) (29%)

I'm down from agent rogue 144 comments, or 4,824 words, or 24,195 characters (no spaces). This is a deficit I have no intention of drawing down.

The only real reason I'm writing this is that my 4:44 pm posting and agent rogue's 4:55 pm doesn't tell the whole story, because moderation & browser refresh delays may have our two postings cross paths. I find it ironic... or even "agent spooky"... that Señor Rogue would write in the same time frame:

Ah..I do sense another tempest brewing in Señor’s teacup. Perhaps another three thousand word tsunami is due on shore…tic tic tic…

I'm glad my "tsunami indeed with 2,896 words at one spat" did not disappoint.

---

Señor El Once : Spooks edit things in Wikipedia

2012-07-11

Dear rogue agent,

I guess I should answer the one serious posting out of the five. You write on July 11, 2012 at 12:04 am:

Gee, how funny – not a single mention [in Wikipedia] of any ailments indicating radiation had anything to do with these illnesses. Of course the spooks probably got to the docs and threatened their families or something. Hell, maybe all the docs are spooks. Now THAT’S a spooky thought.

No, Spooks do get in and edit things in Wikipedia.

The indications are there, but are overwhelmed by the other toxins.

The nuclear mechanisms were within the structures when they triggered and had their remnants buried under the rubble. This alone greatly mitigates alpha and beta radiation. Moreover, the nuclear device made trade-off's in its design with respect to blast wave, heat wave, EMP, and radiation in order to achieve its tactical goals.

These design and placement factors help determine exposure to radiation, and how long certain radiation types would be a danger.

Filipe David's account about being in the basement of the North Tower should be remembered, although his account comes from pre-demolition explosions.

"That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned."

Although severely burned on his face, arms and hands with skin hanging from his body like pieces of cloth, David picked himself up, running for help to the office were Rodriguez and others were gathered.

Others reported that this basement explosion vaporized a 50 ton steel press.

Officer Sue Keane:

I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red

UAlbany Alumna and 9/11 First Responder Dr. Terri Tobin:

Since 2001, Tobin has had surgery each year and had two-thirds of her teeth replaced.

Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:

My teeth are falling out.

Acute radiation syndrome would have been experienced by few.

Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation poisoning, radiation sickness or radiation toxicity, is a constellation of health effects which present within 24 hours of exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation, and may last for several months. ... Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly different types of cancers. ... Radiation sickness is caused by exposure to a large dose of ionizing radiation (>~0.1 Gy) over a short period of time. ... Alpha and beta radiation have low penetrating power and are unlikely to affect vital internal organs from outside the body. Any type of ionizing radiation can cause burns, but alpha and beta radiation can only do so if radioactive contamination or nuclear fallout is deposited on the individual's skin or clothing. Gamma and neutron radiation can travel much further distances and penetrate the body easily, so whole-body irradiation generally causes ARS before skin effects are evident. Local gamma irradiation can cause skin effects without any sickness.

What Is Radiation Sickness?

Ionizing radiation is radiation that produces immediate chemical effects on human tissue. X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment (neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others) give off ionizing radiation. ... Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly cancer, tumors, and genetic damage.

9/11 First Responders Plagued by Health Problems From Toxic Dust and Debris

Those who worked at the WTC site seem to be at increased risk of cancer, especially thyroid cancer, melanoma and lymphoma. According to a study released of nearly 10,000 New York firefighters (half of whom worked at the WTC site), those from the site are 32 percent more likely to have cancer.

++++++++++

The hybrid in the name might just refer to Q-bot-ish behavior, like this dandy from July 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm that I quote in its entirety:

‘Twas brillig, went epic… ww

In regards to the same post, he posts on July 10, 2012 at 11:29 pm:

[T]he only part I really caught was the end with the 2,896 word count.

A July 11, 2012 at 12:04 am posting will prove that assessment wrong.

The rest of it... well, as I said before, these long tomes make my eyes glaze over.

Okay by me, and I made it as easy as I could for you to just scroll right on by.

Another work of art, this one from July 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm that I quote in its entirety:

But really Señor Beancounter – do you think anyone else gives a crap about all your word counts? WTF?

I apologize for posting this example of your diminishing short-term memory. From July 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm:

And while you’re at the counting, count the words, not just the number of postings.

So, when the rogue agent asks "do you think anyone else gives a crap about all your word counts?" The answer is: you gave a crap.

As long I'm refreshing the rogue agent's memory, from July 9, 2012 at 7:25 pm:

And because of his spurious use of “tallies” as accusation, regardless of actual word count.

When you believed that the posting stats didn't tell the true story, you jump to actual word count being the measuring stick. Before those numbers could be published [maybe because you did some checking on your own], you change tunes to:

As far as the numbers of posts, or the number of words, ...– I don’t give a flying bat turd about it...

Statistics can tell a lot of things. Wasn't there even a baseball team that was managed by player stats (that they even made a movie about)?

---

Señor El Once : Such inconsistencies destroy your legend, agent rogue.

2012-07-12

El-Oh-El! The artistic genius, who is an expert at computer imagery and has used Google on occassion, can't even figure out how to use the simple HTML construct of <blockquote>?!! I've even explained it several times with examples.

Then we have the promises you make to ignore my postings that you can't hold to. "I don’t really care... I don’t give a chit one way or another."

Then we have the assertions that you only glance at my postings.

Then we have your consistent misframing of my actual words and insertion of words into my mouth.

Then we have the ad hominem that you spice your postings with. Although clever, they end up being far more the substance of your responses than anything else that would support your case or knock out of commission mine.

Such inconsistencies destroy your legend, agent rogue.

Upon really close inspection of the many paragraphs of his malformatted posting, only one is worthy of response.

He then lists a series of testimonies describing burns, as PROOF of “radiation poisoning.”

As all the explosives we are discussing are exceedingly hot, I will remind Mr Bridges that he is making a leap of supposition unfounded by sequential logic.

Here is the difference. In many cases, the victims did not actually see any fire; in fact, such supposition (e.g., of a "fireball") was planted by the interviewer. The victims felt the heat wave, and with many things 9/11, mentally connected effect-and-cause dots that didn't necessarily connect.

All of the explosives that you are discussing produce FIRE and burn things as well. This is a problem with 9/11, because much injury and damage did not occur from visible fire, flaming embers, or a hot & spice pyroclastic flow of particulate matter. Had that been the case, like the wild-fires in Colorado, the much easier combustible materials in the viscinity and path would have been noticably consumed.

No, evidence is there for the objective thinkers to suggest other forces and mechanisms. My PULP FICTION doesn't know exactly what they are, but for sure, the DELPHI techniques of your participation here are working overtime to keep that realization from thought.

---

Señor El Once : send an email to Jones

2012-07-12

Mr. Hightower made an excellent suggestion to Mr. Rogue:

You could easily send an email to Jones yourself seeking his comments to your questions and report back to us what you find out.

In fact, I made a similar suggestion to Mr. Rogue on March 5, 2012 as his Spring Break assignment:

Use my March 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm posting as the starting point for your back-channel access to Dr. Jones. I've given my critique. Have him address them.

Instead of contacting Dr. Jones, who did Mr. Rogue establish email contact with and get all buddy-buddy? Dr. Frank Legge. El-Oh-El!

---

Señor El Once : fracture and scatter: I am winning this debate

2012-07-12

Sweep, sweep, sweep! Brush, brush, brush! Nothing to see here, folks! Move along now. But before you go, let me put a spin on what you did see and mischaracterize the words you read.

I did not say Filipe David was "hit with a blast of X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment, neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others, hot enough to cause his skin to peal off like rags, and that he was then able to get up and make it to the others in the office." I imply that he may have been hit by alpha and gamma rays.

I did not "speak above to "fireballs, when referring to the churning dust clouds." The fireballs were in reference to Filipe David and others burned in the lobby who did not actually "see" such. As for the "pyroclastic flow with ‘hot ash’ in it", you're the one blowing that (out your ass), not the towers.

I am not "stretching for nice and tidy models in all of this, when you are dealing with an extremely chaotic set of transforming integers moment by moment. You are. The fact remains that the pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners [and lots of more easily combustible things.] The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance (West Broadway, park lot). Not all line-of-sight vehicles were affected, because my premise has been that the culprit electromagnetic energy "slipped out." Lots of shielding agents including the intact outer shell, intact lower floors, falling steel debris, and neighboring buildings would reduce the angle of incidence and intensity.

By the way, the only thing I say I don’t care about is the stupid tally business which affords you the moniker of “Beancounter”.

In true beancounter fashion, I've got more stats below the +++ line.

And the reason I won’t read and rebut every point in your massive tomes is it becomes such a bore…as I say, ALL of it is based in speculation and all the evidence is forced to comply with your crackpot wankaroo.

Your reasoning is bullshit. It reeks more like agency tactics coming to light. You make lots of postings here and there, often where they don't belong, to fracture and scatter the discussion. You expect others to answer in an equivalent fractured and scattered manner, on-the-fly and in-a-hurry [making the thought and reasoning fractured and scattered as well], lest you come back with a quick-draw rebuttal (and insults) to detour the rest of the thread.

On the other side, I take more time and thought with my replies. Of your postings worthy of a response, I gather them together and address the interesting points one-by-one. I make it easy for any interested party to grab my "posting of the day", edit out what they don't care about, and then address the left-over point-by-point. [This is how snail-mail correspondence used to work back in the day. Very tried and true.] It is not so difficult. In fact, it is very user-friendly, because I'm not juking the readability of the thread.

You say:

ALL of it is based in speculation.

True. The ironic part is that so is yours.

You say:

[A]ll the evidence is forced to comply with your crackpot wankaroo.

The ironic part is that you don't address all the evidence, and your explanations get limp sashadik lamer each time, forcing you to resort to insults and ad hominems. [Shall this beancounter tally those for you? Although I imply with some justification that this indicates agency tactics, such tallies when extracted from context are a damning reflection of the person wielding them, the ultimate in-your-face backfire.]

Tetris: the same blocks can be arranged in many different ways. The goal is to not have gaps.

True, my 9/11 conjecture has gaps, and I am earnestly trying to get them filled or my speculation re-directed.

But my gaps aren't as glaring as the gaps in your speculation once math & science is properly applied.

Jesus H. Christ!

Duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a damn important piece of evidence that your speculation tries to salt while telling everyone it's sugar.

The misframing and errors in the lone 9/11TM response to the lone "tritium" radiation report exposes the cover-up and hints at grander, more energetic causes.

This whole societal paradigm is based on bullshit…a Carny Hawkers World it is. Rejoice in that Beancounter – you are likely “winning” this “debate” on that account.

I am winning this debate, because you don't see it as a "debate." You see it as an agenda.

I am winning this debate, because you aren't addressing the salient points of my massive tomes. "It becomes such a bore." Ah, poor baby! You'd rather incite flame wars and distractions: that's more exciting, eh?

I am winning this debate, because I can't even get you on the same literal page (e.g., Dr. Wood's textbook) to discuss what might be on that page in a rational manner. And that is what makes me dangerous to your agenda. It isn't that we won't find crackpot wankaroo, because we will. The dangerous part is that the good, bad, and ugly review that I commissioned cannot forget or leave out the good or try to bury it with crackpot wankaroo labels. Salvaging good [nuggets of truth] is orthogonal to your agenda.

I am winning this debate, because I expose you as the Carny Hawker by shedding light on the games you play.

+++++++++

I've done a crude analysis of 8 articles:
When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie
The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research
Pushing the boundaries of truth: 9/11 Vancouver Hearings embrace controversy
+++++
Free form 9/11: diverse voices make Vancouver Hearings messy but intriguing
The fog of words: how we inadvertently reinforce the 9/11 official story
Gage concedes his entry into 9/11 Pentagon ‘quagmire’ has been divisive
‘Propaganda team’ uses contrived Pentagon fight to derail 9/11 Truth movement
Two quit in protest after Zarembka dumped from Consensus 9/11 Panel

The good news for the rogue agent is that the top 3 have me beating his word count by ~6.7k, ~1.3k, and ~3.2k words respectively.

The bad news for the rogue agent is that his word count beats me in the other articles. His posting count always beats me.

Of the 664k words & ~3.0k comments in total to the above articles,
- The rogue agent makes up 29.2% (194k words) and 38.2% (1141 comments).
- I make up 24.2% (160k words) and 8.7% (261 comments).
- Everyone else makes up 47.6% (316k words) and 54.9% (1639 comments).

---

Señor El Once : promises to not respond to me and then don't keep them

2012-07-13

I wrote:

Others reported that this basement explosion vaporized a 50 ton steel press.

Mr. Rogue wrote:

So we are to take it that a nuclear device caused this explosion capable of vaporizing this 50 ton steel press – but the radiation within this blast was only powerful enough to pass through the dermal layers of Mr Filipe David.

First of all, Mr. Filipe David wasn't even on the same underground level as the blast or the 50 ton steel press. He was shielded by much building structure.

Cough up the evidence of nano-thermite causing that pre-demolition sub-basement explosion, and I'll gladly change my nuclear tune. [Actually, it isn't a tune that I'm even really playing with vigor.]

I just don’t find this credible. And it is attached to a string of other incredible assertions, that I still maintain are all based on empty speculation – the whole chain of reasoning begins and ends on such speculation.

The way you've spun it, I don't find it credible either. The nuggets of truth are (1) that Filipe David was injured by side-effects of a pre-demolition blast from a lower level at the time the alledged first aircraft hit. (2) That a 50 ton steel press was vaporized [different witness] and much was blown out and missing from that particular level.

Everything we write about 9/11 is speculation. So I guess, you got me (and you) all figured there.

I mentioned the hot griddle before. If a chemical explosion created a blast wave powerful enough to vaporize this 50 ton steel press in the basement levels below Filipe David, the searing heat would certainly cause that very heating up of the materials around it, including the floor of the level David was in, and the air inside…as much a broiler effect as a griddle.

More empty speculation from you, I see. If anything, it was the heat wave through the air, not the cooking for the ceiling/floors.

While I am aware that Senor Once has reasserted several other points, and I find such reassertion’s as comical as the one above, I will mention only one more: this “line of sight” insistence by Once is bunk. I maintain that there was such vehicle damage under the full radius around the towers, and that anyone familiar with this scenario has seen photo evidence of this.

With your trusty Dr. Wood textbook as a useful guide, point out the vehicles and their locations when they were zapped. Look at the handy map that came with the book and you'll see that from an elevated location in the towers, full radius around the towers could affect a lot. Remember to distinguish between what was damaged by falling debris and what had fire damage and very little evidence of "firey burning debris" on top.

Line-of-sight is not bunk, agent rogue. Why were the cars in the cross streets of West Broadway (from the reporters Barcley and West Broadway video) not damaged, while "car after car after car" was scortch on West Broadway? How was the car park hit but not vehicles along West Street?

I say that angle of incidence of the misaligned beam coming from upper levels of the tower could hit somethings and not others.

I also again submit that to continue to go round’n’round these issues with Senor Once is a waste of everybody’s time: A trip to nowhere.

Brush, brush, brush! Sweep, sweep, sweep!

You make these promises to not respond to me and then don't keep them.

And one more thing needs mention, this page after page of beancounting the posting statistics…it is theater of the absurd.

Oooh! Looks like I've hit the agent's hot button. Doesn't like his antics tallied and his trend-lines exposed, eh?

---

Señor El Once : long-term memory doesn't go beyond two weeks

2012-07-13

I'm starting to gather reasons why I shouldn't engage Agent Rogue of the NSA's Q-Group A-List anymore.

Reason #1: His long-term memory doesn't go beyond two weeks, in a very "Memento"-ish sort of a way.

Starting to explain a lot on why his merry-go-rounds get cranking. It is truly a pitty when he does it in the same thread.

When he posted this same hero Dr. Jones stuff on June 29, 2012, I addressed his salient points and then gave it a b-i-g   Y-A-W-N.

I'll throw my jaw out if I yawn any bigger.

---

Señor El Once : subdue affiliations with an alphabet group

2012-07-14

Dear Mr. Rogue,

For the simple reason that you do often write agreeable comments towards other participants and sometimes as interesting top-level postings, I promise to subdue my efforts at affiliations with a particular alphabet group.

With regards to your nuclear postings: you are entitled to your wild-ass bat-shit crazy opinions, just as I am entitled to my rational and reasonable speculation.

What makes your opinions so wild-ass bat-shit crazy is they are built on trusting the validity and voracity of govt reports on the matter. I'm not going to bore you with NIST, EPA, FEMA, etc. examples of blatant skew and misrepresent of facts in their printed, official reports, some that are TRAT ("They'll Never Read All That"). Other postings of mine [June 18, 2012 at 10:23 am] have detailed the same in what meager two nuclear documents are coughed up by the govt to fawn having gone through the motions and touched all the bases on justifying a non-nuclear 9/11. On June 29, 2012 at 12:40 pm, I wrote:

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.”

In that same posting, I wrote some of my speculation:

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 abd 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 [Cadallac]!” 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.

On July 14, 2012 at 5:30 am you wrote:

6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.

Dude, (1) the nuclear rays were directed primarily inside the structure. Structure & rubble over the radiating source would help protect against such burning. William Rodriguez was outside WTC-1 under a fire truck. (2) The govt is claiming close to ~3,000 deaths on 9/11. Even after simVictims whacks this number down some, I'm sure that 9/11 produced some real victims... some even ended up being blown to bits that clean-up workers found in the dust of a roof of a neighboring building.

Most of the other points [from Dr. Jones unattributed, I presume and not <blockquote> inside </blockquote> tags] are posited on the premise of thermalnuclear explosions and desired destructive goals of blast wave, heat wave, minimal (or contained) EMP, and radiation side-effects that tweaked the extent of alpha, beta, gamma, etc. The nature & design of the nuclear device change when other exotic Excalibur and nuclear-powered DEW are considered.

One final thing, Mr. Rogue wrote:

His nukes without radiation is bullshit now as much as it was two weeks ago.

When "his" is associated with Mr. Rogue, then I completely agree. I've never said "nukes without radiation", but you wrote it more than once to skew and misframe my position. "Nukes with tweaked radiation" has been what I've been saying as part of trade-off's in the design of the nuclear devices.

---

Señor El Once : attempt at a physics explanation is bullshit

2012-07-18

Mr. Rogue wrote:

As far as the plane “gliding effortlessly” into the side of the tower, as Fetzer is so fond of saying; this is an optical illusion -usually drawn from viewing videos that have been compressed so hard that the details are lost.

Briefly, I would say that one must be aware of the physics of momentum, wherein an object in flight; the center of momentum of such objects are the center of mass. This means that an object like an airplane, the center of mass is generally where the wings are attached to the body. In crash physics it is shown that an object striking an object at rest [in a state of inertia] the object does not slow down at the moment of impact, but only when the center of mass is reached. The rest of the physics has to do with kinetics, materials, mass, and density ratios.

The center of mass plays a role in predicting lots of things, but it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down. Your attempt at a physics explanation is bullshit and reflects your poor understanding.

The reason that the plane seems to defy physics and effortlessly penetrate the towers stems first and foremost from velocity-squared term in the energy equation of momentum. At large velocities, the energy available is very large to "shred & splatter into nothingness" the common & light materials of planes when opposed by 60 cm wide steel columns on 100 cm centers. The energies allow the common & light materials of planes to impose a slicing action on the steel columns while decimating themselves. [Lead bullets often don't penetrate metal; they splatter on one side, transfer their energy into the steel, tear steel bonds, and send a plug of steel out the backside. The hole makes one assume the bullet penetrated completely, but that assumption would be wrong for thicker pieces of metal.]

When velocities are much lower, the common & light materials of planes (or vehicles) have enough strength compared to the energy at play in the collision to survive in larger pieces with deformation.

It was the magnitude of the energies applied to the materials that caused them to fail spectacularly sooner on impact. In such a scenario, it is not this boojie woojie (old) "center of mass" not slowing the plane's tail until it gets to the towers. No! If anything, the center of (new) mass was slowing and constantly changing as the light materials of the plane (as compared to the towers) decimated themselves into independent tiny entities that were no longer part of the plane's cohesive mass.

Radar data and video evidence seem to validate both that a real plane flew & its speed, but the velocity and precision of the planes at such low altitude also suggest strongly that they were not commercial planes of the OCT. This is pretty damning, and undermines lots of OCT (like who was on the planes and how they took it over.)

Speed asserted to be around 500 mph, the crash takes place in a matter of a split second. The human eye is incapable of discerning but a fleeting glimpse of actual visual information in an event occurring at such a short time

If the human eye were only observing the last 2 or 3 plane lengths of the collision, it would catch very little detail. The camera is different, but still limited when its frame rate is put to the test with such velocities. It depends on the distance between vehicle and photographer and the photographer's field of view. Even in ideal (normal) cases, the number of frames captured to show the length of the entire plane disappearing is less than (half?) a dozen.

Videos ... have been compressed so hard that the details are lost.

This hints at a damning piece of evidence that we should have, but don't. It fact, that evidence could have shut up much of September Clues long ago. Namely, the networks have the original footage without the "pesky, annoying, and unusually large" banners at the bottom of the screen or the loss via compression. They have never made this available. However misguided September Clues may be in "exposing" glitches and calling it fakery, we should not throw out the nugget of truth contained therein of media complicity in the event and certainly its aftermath.

---

Señor El Once : a tad bit too much reliance on quoting the works of others

2012-07-15

Both here and on the Media thread, Mr. Rogue puts on display the weaknesses in his understanding of physics. He puts a tad bit too much reliance on quoting the works of Dr. Jones above (and Dr. Jenkins over there) with little indication that he understands the text he is copying and pasting from PDF files, which is more dubious given the known issues with Dr. Jones' work and the assumptions upon which it rests that includes accepting without question the govt reports on tritium and no companion reports on alpha, beta, and gamma radiation.

And the Pincer Movement: Now of course, we have these Nuke and DEW distraction techniques, which are specifically formulated to hand-wave real physical and empirical evidence of official complicity in the acts of 9/11.

Mr. Rogue is entitled to his opinions, just as I am entitled to my rational and reasonable wild-ass bat-shit crazy speculation.

If we were to talk Delphi Concensus, Helgian Dialect, and Pincer Movement at play on Truth & Shadows, what comes to mind to me are Dr. Fetzer (holograms) and Mr. OneBornFree ("all 9/11 imagery is fake") tag-teaming on one side of the pincer, while Mr. Rogue makes up the other pincer side (super-duper nano-thermite and thermaburic bombs fed by AC units).

Nukes and DEW wouldn't keep coming around if lots of factors didn't point right at them, many of which aren't addressed adequately by the other theories.

I maintain that all who promote this nonsense are either “useful idiots” or actual counterinsurgency operatives. It would be only natural that any such operatives would go out of there way to paint anyone exposing their bullshit as “an agent”. We might wonder how someone here so readily characterizes himself as a “useful idiot”. It could very well be an attempt at ‘reverse psychology’.

I plead "duped useful idiot!!!"

Yes, dear readers, by all means look to my words and vet me against The 25 Rules of Disinformation. Do the same for Mr. Rogue. Here's a few that have resonance to me from our exchanges on T&S.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
8. Invoke authority
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man. Have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions

The dedication and focus of Mr. Rogue, both here and on Coalition Of The Obvious and other places... Just, one forum is about all I can muster, and that at only one or two postings a day. You can bet that if I were an agent, I would "quit my day job" and ramp-up my output here, there, and everywhere. The Keyboard of Señor El Once ... slash-slash [Like Señor El Zorro's "Z", the "//" double slash marks would be mine.] The fame of agent Señor El Once would be great! Slash-Slash!

One might want to exchange "stats" for "fruits" in the following advice on separating wheat from chaff:

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

---

Señor El Once : being prompt rather than correct

2012-07-15

I wrote on July 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm

The reason that the plane seems to defy physics and effortlessly penetrate the towers stems first and foremost from velocity-squared term in the energy equation of momentum. At large velocities, the energy available is very large to “shred & splatter into nothingness” the common & light materials of planes when opposed by 60 cm wide steel columns on 100 cm centers. ... It was the magnitude of the energies applied to the materials that caused them to fail spectacularly sooner on impact. In such a scenario, it is not this boojie woojie (old) “center of mass” not slowing the plane’s tail until it gets to the towers. No! If anything, the center of (new) mass was slowing and constantly changing as the light materials of the plane (as compared to the towers) decimated themselves into independent tiny entities that were not longer part of the plane’s cohesive mass.

I therefore proved Mr. Rogue's little understanding of the copy & pasted text from Dr. Jenkins.

Because Mr. Rogue is so keen on being prompt rather than correct, he tries to chide me with his July 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm posting [in the wrong place]:

You are the one with “poor understanding” Once, the Sandia tests were done specifically to prove the equations that predict ‘center of mass as center of momentum calculus’. Using high speed camera’s they proved the proposition in toto.

But then quick-draw Mr. Rogue must back peddle in his July 15, 2012 at 8:21 pm posting [in yet a third place]:

The center of mass of course changes as the amount of the mass is reduced in a crash. When a crashing object reaches the impact point of the proximate mass, the mass is already 1/2 of the original mass, and the center of mass moves back toward the tail as the rest of the mass is shattered.

Exactly what I said. However, to the original point and your original comment, the changing center of mass is not the reason for the tail's seeming lack of deceleration. Instead, it is the energies associated with the high velocity and even larger velocity-squared term in the momentum equation that significantly overwhelms the resistive structural energy of the common and light materials of the aircraft.

Here's a lovely little strawman from Mr. Rogue:

Your support of Fetzer’s Wonderland-Physics shows your true aptitude Señor.

Nothing I wrote merited this association. To be clear, Dr. Fetzer brings up the lack of perceptible deceleration in the tail as an indication of video fakery or holograms. And Dr. Fetzer's error in his thinking is not appreciating the overwhelming quantities of energy the velocity-squared term at high velocities means when compared to the resistive structural energy of the common and light materials of the aircraft. Under such conditions, the tail does not appear to deceleration on low-resolution low-frame rate videos. [If the FAA radar data can be trusted, then Dr. Fetzer also overlooks how the radar blips are only possible when a physical object was there for them to reflect off of. Holograms can't do this. And as far as my research shows, holograms can't be projected like he supposes.]

So not only does Mr. Rogue neither understand Dr. Jenkins (analysis) nor Dr. Fetzer's (errors), but his unwarranted reference to Dr. Fetzer displays his true aptitude for physics: nada.

---

Señor El Once : a genius of art with carry-over brilliance in all sorts of harder science areas

2012-07-16

[Y]ou made this preamble, [because] it enabled you to disparage me by saying I have a poor understanding of physics, that you characterized as ‘bullshit’.

Not just this one, I can reference many examples from Mr. Rogue's tenure on T&S of his poor understanding of physics. [For example: Can he say "nuclear fizzle"?]

He likes to position himself as being a genius of art with carry-over brilliance in all sorts of harder science areas. But how he positions himself and where he actually turns out to be on that understanding continium are proven to be two different matters.

Here is yet another example of poor comprehension skills:

Why is it then, that you mention this center of mass, the ‘new mass’ if, “it has little to do with determining when a penetrating object will slow down”?

It came from Mr. Rogue. Mr. Rogue had written erroneously on July 15, 2012 at 7:13 pm:

In crash physics it is shown that an object striking an object at rest [in a state of inertia] the object does not slow down at the moment of impact, but only when the center of mass is reached.

Mr. Rogue's imprecise writing on physics highlighted above... simply has no basis in truth.

In crash physics, whether or not the trailing edge of the object is perceived to slow down at the moment of impact depends on the structural energy associated with the materials of the vehicle.

At lower velocities, the crash energy might be in the range of the structural energy of the vehicle's materials. As a result, the vehicle's structure is able to deform and consume energy. The deformation results in the trailing edge decelerating. At the low end, the crash energy might be insufficient to dislodge material from the vehicle. Center of mass is dependent on deformation. At the upper end of lower velocities, material might get dislodged, in which case center of (new) mass would change.

At extremely high velocities, the crash energy completely overwhelms the structural energy of the vehicle's materials very early. These materials are splattered & shattered & shredded from the main mass overshadowing and eliminating any possible deformation energy of the materials leading to perceptible deceleration of the trailing edge. Deformation doesn't happen, because the materials failed spectacularly. The center of (main) mass keeps shifting backward as matter on the crashing edge violently exits the equation. This is what I was calling the "center of (new) mass."

This is the type of disingenuous rhetorical gamemanship you continually serve up to me.

#2. Become incredulous and indignant.

Errors & mistakes are errors & mistakes. Mr. Rogue made them, and has had the misfortune of me "continually serving them up to him." It isn't disingenuous on my part. As for Mr. Rogue's part?

You are sashadik Señor.

#5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule.
#18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad.

I am looking forward to Mr. Rogue addressing me in the future as Señor El Sashadik.

Your support of Fetzer’s Wonderland-Physics shows your true aptitude Señor.

#4. Use a straw man
#10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
#13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

---

Señor El Once : Nuggets of Truth: That's my central calling.

2012-07-16

Señor may say: "I plead “duped useful idiot!!!” But I do believe he puts much too much effort into his plea...

It is called "agreeing with thy adversary quickly whilst thou are in the way with him."

Early on when I was told to Feed My Sheep, God also gave me this inspiring advice: "Embrace the Insult! Own it!"

Lo and behold, in doing do, the insult loses its sting to hurt me.

Framing me as an agent - that seems to be his central calling here.

Nope. Nuggets of Truth. That's my central calling.

Casting Mr. Rogue into the frame of a Q-agent? Mr. Rogue provides plenty of lumber to the frame. When considering the Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist, we have:

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists'... Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a [forum] focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

8) Time Constant. The response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY [forum] posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A [forum] ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the [forum] example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

My Q assessment can be changed. But certain genius ego ticks and an unwavering holding to a perceived agenda keep it coming back. And there is still a matter of a book review lingering...

If you aren't covering up your own mole hole here Once, then you are just a jerk.

A jerk with a passion for nuggets of truth, that Mr. Rogue uses his gamesmanship to try to too easily and too eagerly sweep away. Foiling your Q-agenda, eh?

Señor El Once // [slash-slash]

---

Señor El Once : tally your bananas

2012-07-16

So, hey beancounter, tally your bananas and list how many of your posts are and are not aimed at banging on my ass about anything and everything.

100% of my 4 published postings [including this one] in this thread were aimed at banging Mr. Rogue's ass.

But in classic (#4) straw man fashion, it wasn't about "anything and everything," because Mr. Rogue has ~31 postings (28.7%) here. Were I "focused on Mr. Rogue's ass like a Hellfire Missile", we could expect to see 31 postings from me instead of the 4 (four) that are here.

All 100% of my 4 postings addressed specifically Mr. Rogue errors. Thereby handily disproving Mr. Rogue's classic (#5) assertions:

For Señor el Sashadik, it is all an obsessive and persistent attack on just about anything I say. ...

In furtherence of tallying bananas, let us review stats from July 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm, because they demoonstrate that Mr. Rogue's own participation exposed his ass as a target to be aimed at.

A crude analysis of 8 articles [up to the date-stamp]:

Mr. Rogue's made 1,141 comments on those 8 articles, which was 38.2%.

Mr. Rogue wrote 29.2% of all the words [664k] in the comment sections to those articles.

Mr. Rogue's word count exceeded mine on all articles except for three.

Mr. Rogue has positioned himself as the dominant participant on T&S. What comes with that territory? The above posting from Mr. Rogue should be viewed as the "'How dare you!' gambit" [from #2. Become incredulous and indignant.]

"How dare Señor El Sashadik focus on my ass like a Hellfire Missile and demonstrate my gaps in my copy&paste knowledge of physics and expose my blatant errors!"

The word stats for the three in the list of 8 invalidates Mr. Rogue's (#18) assertion:

Señor Beancounter el Once, never makes a comment on this blog that isn’t a shot aimed at myself.

Mr. Rogue seems a little bit touchy in a #18 sort of a way. Could also be Artificial Emotions.

---

Señor El Once : Ain't no "woops" about it

2012-07-16

And so the STALKING becomes more intense…

It ain't stalking (a) if I'm addressing specific errors in Mr. Rogue's work and (b) if Mr. Rogue is addressing me and I'm responding.

A nice try at framing the discussion in his favor with such negative stalking connotations. Mr. Rogue is free to go back to Coalition Of The Obvious without any interference from me, or any of the other multitude of web cafes where he loosens his skinny-black tie and whiles away the hours.

Also mentioning “fizzling” while not mentioning woops, “let’s not call it EMP” and failing to mention FOUR YEARS…[long enough to attend and graduate from college], as a CHUMP for the NPT.

Thanks for bringing these up. They reflect Mr. Rogue's skew, his poor understanding of physics, and his lies.

(1) Ain't no "woops" about it. EMP stands for electromagnetic pulse, and is associated with nuclear weapons that go boom. Such a singular pulse is generally not associated with directed energy weapons. However, DEW devices emit electromagnetic energy. When observing the evidence, it is first important to understand what electromagnetic energy can do and how it could possible account for the evidence. Then we can split hairs whether it was pulsed or constant and what its source might have been.

This is the nugget of Truth that agent Rogue wants to sweep aside with his straw man games of "let’s not call it EMP". I wanted it called simply "electromagnetic energy" so that bases of DEW and nukes could be covered in one go. [Mr. Rogue's faux issues with this demonstrate his lack of understanding, except for how he uses it to distract the thread into rhetorical detours.]

(2) Yep, I was a CHUMP for four years on NPT. I spent that entire time looking for convincing arguments to the contrary, but other than name calling (e.g., "chump"), nobody could take it on. Thanks to Mr. OneSliceShort (and no thanks to agent Rogue) for providing convincing evidence to swing my opinion a different direction. Yes, indeedy.

What of it? Agent Rogue has been a chump of super-duper nano-thermite for much longer. Not that it wasn't present, but that it can't account for all the evidence, most spectacularly the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. On this theme, the audience should note Mr. Rogue's inability to perform high school math to calculate quantities needed for either the destruction or the hot-spot duration underscores my earlier point about his poor understanding of physics.

Failing to mention that not once did [Senor El Once] challenge [Dr. Fetzer] in the whole thread of Fetzer’s bullshit “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.

Let's provide more context. The thread in question had 875 postings whereby 288 (32.9%) came from agent Rogue and another 180 (20.6%) from Dr. Fetzer. OVERWHELMING!

So naturally, my measely 41 postings (4.7%) seem insignificant,... as would the seven actual postings from me addressing Dr. Fetzer directly.

See how easy agent Rogue's lies are exposed. Not once, eh? As easy as searching for "Dear Dr. Fetzer," in that thread:

- April 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm: Got on his case about "Faked."
- April 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm: Told him he was defending NPT and holograms poorly.
- April 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm: Ripped apart holography.
- May 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm: Ripped apart his 10 points of agreement.
- May 2, 2012 at 11:40 am: Ripped apart his use of "video fakery" and "no planes theory."

No, instead he argued against Keenan Roberts and I instead, we were pointing out Fetzer’s BS the whole time.

You mean Hit-and-Run (#6) agent Keenan Roberts who was proven to not be a man of his word and seemed to have been sent to distract the thread?

So if Señor Beancounter wasn’t defending Fetzers lame physics bullshit – I’d like to know what that was all about.

Here's what it is about. I have a life and a job that doesn't pay me to post. There was no need for me to get involved beyond my 4.7% participation. And the five links above show when I did get involved and how that played out for "Fetzers lame physics bullshit."

As further proof of Mr. Rogue's lies, this forum knows me well-enough by now to determine when I am defending or attacking something. My lurking silence doesn't mean squat.

And in case Mr. Rogue missed it in his 288 flooding postings on that thread, my arguments in this thread about velocity-squared and its correlation to energy come directly from contemplating my exchange with his tag-teaming little buddy, Keenan Roberts. How ironic.

Mr. Rogue is under no obligation to respond to my postings. The flavor of his postings is becoming more and more distasteful. Guess that's what happens when valid agent buttons get pressed; the agent digs for more ways to attack that end up exposing even more of his agency ways.

Señor El Once // [slash-slash]

---

Señor El Once : The “Lie” falls back in YOUR lap

2012-07-17

The “Lie” falls back in YOUR lap beancounter.

Oooo-uh. Before which Mr. Rogue writes:

But I pointed out that:
‘not once did he challenge him in the whole thread of Fetzer’s bullshit “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.’

Of course I didn't, because Mr. Rogue was. My value-add would have been insignificant to what amounted to his truther-legend-establishing 288 posting triumph versus Fetzer's 180 out of eight hundred something total. My posting count (41) indeed struggled in the lower double digits, and is proven insignificant by comparison.

And not one of Señor’s challenges to Fetzer have to do with his “Mass Differential” as the only thing that mattered in the plane v building scenario.

Of course I didn't, because "Mass Differential" was Mr. Rogue's thang, and not my interest. I preferred lurking in on the Mr. Rogue and Dr. Fetzer circus that displayed many amazing eye-opening features.

Such manufactured drama from Mr. Rogue:

The “Lie” falls back in YOUR lap beancounter.

El-Oh-El. // [slash-slash]

---

Señor El Once : defending Sir Isaac Newton and Dr. Fetzer

2012-07-17

Other facts such as – NO you didn’t just “leave it up to me”, nor were you silent in the debate with Fetzer on the issue, you in fact argued against Keenan and myself, as vigorously and disingenuously as you are here against me now.

Without substantiating links, all we have to rely on is Mr. Rogue's (proven faulty) short-term memory.

The following April 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm posting is as much an example of me defending Sir Isaac Newton as it is of me defending Dr. Fetzer from "science-challenged attackers":

Dr. Fetzer wrote:

…same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off.

Mr. HybridRogue1 replied:

I have heard this assertion before, and I don’t buy it. There is the whole issue of weigh– coupled with inertia. You cannot simply reverse the scenario as stated above. It is not the same physics as a bat and a ball. The overall weight of the plane and the forward momentum is the core factors in this equation.

Exposing your credentials in boojie woojie high school physics again, Mr. HybridRogue1? Man, you can imagine how much I hate pointing this out.

To your chagrin, Newtonian physics does allow thinkers to reverse “a plane’s wings hitting a lamp post at 500 mph” to become “a lamp post hitting a plane’s wings at 500 mph” or even “a lamp post flung by a tornado at 250 mph into a plane’s wing traveling 250 mph in the opposite direction.”

The point in all of this is that damage to the plane’s wing would be crippling and questions whether the plane could even remain in flight.

...

Of course, all of us are making the bad-ass assumption that the plane was actually traveling at 500 mph at ~100 feet above sea level.

Or surely, when Mr. Rogue references me "[arguing] against Keenan and [himself], as vigorously and disingenuously as ... now", he is referring to this "embarrassing" posting from me from April 19, 2012 at 9:05 am :

Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts ... You make excellent points on No-Planes (NP) and its physics that certainly have me thinking and reconsidering perspectives. In fact, many nuggets of truth on related but tangential topics have been jarred free for me to see.
...
The reason that these topics — NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood — keep re-appearing is that they have unaddressed truths [e.g., massive energy requirements, anomalous after effects, full-sprectrum dominance in the military-corporate media]. Normal duped useful idiots like myself see this, but we are few who can articulate a stink. Any 9/11 theory-du-jour to be valid is required to address these nuggets of truth.

Or quote possibly this late entry of mine from May 3, 3012 at 12:11 pm demonstrates me "[arguing] against Keenan and [himself], as vigorously and disingenuously as ... now":

As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it. My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.

Mr. OneSliceShort’s excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.
...
When considering what got me to change my tune, it was none of Mr. HybridRogue’s 31.5%, Dr. Fetzer’s 20%, or Mr. Roberts 6.7%. Credit goes to Mr. OneSliceShorts modest 9.1%.

As Mr. Rogue suggests:

...all anyone has to do is go back to that thread and read the thing in sequence for context.

El-Oh-El. //

---

Señor El Once : laying out dizzy disinfo games

2012-07-17

In the middle of his spinning, Mr. Rogue has a lucid moment and asks:

What are you trying to prove here? What is this all about?

Just laying out Mr. Rogue's dizzy disinfo games for all to see.

Don't happen all the time. Mr. Rogue makes many interesting comments. But when it comes to themes that he has been proven to be less-than-objective on [as if it were an agenda], Mr. Rogue avoids the theme and dives into the games.

It is hardly to my chagrin Señor.

Sure it was. It was a ding to Mr. Rogue's "genius" ego and intelligence that he got wrong a concept from first semester physics. In trying to best Dr. Fetzer, Mr. Rogue was making assertions about physics that weren't true, and I called him on it. I've done this several times through out our discussion history, some of which are already documented above.

The point is, it doesn’t make any difference if the frame is switched from ‘plane hitting building’ to ‘building hitting plane’, and I point this out to Fetzer several times on that thread.

... Except that the context of the discussion in which I was involved was "plane hitting lamp" and "lamp hitting plane" having to do with the Pentagon plane. It was leading to further proof as to why the Pentagon plane did not knock down light poles and was a flyover.

The other context to which Mr. Rogue refers, I'll just take his word that it happened [while I was in lurker mode and doing my best to ignore Mr. Rogue] and that he can cough up links. It wasn't a discussion (or flame war) that interested me until later when Fetzer began talking about holograms.

[And don't you dare come back squawking you didn't say it had to do with "mass-ratio" as the sequence of your argument leading to your flying lamp post comes directly from - my "chagrin" at 'reversal' of the dynamics of the physics of Momentum]

I'll dare. [squawk]I didn't write it had to do with "mass-ratio"[/squawk] because my corrective posting on physics was from April 17, while the first occurrence of "mass ratio" was April 22, a Sunday of a weekend in which I would not have been online. [My postings jump from April 19 to April 24.]

Mr. Rogue is wrong with regards to the sequence of the discussion and the level of my involvement. More spin. More games. More dishonesty.

There was no EMP blooper. More hype from Mr. Rogue.

There was no absurdity of the “dustification” of the steel in the towers suddenly occurring to me, in the Judy Wood thread. Dustification of steel was never a point I argued; dustification of content is a different matter. Thus, more misframing from Mr. Rogue.

The point is that Mr. Rogue is a dishonest broker when it comes to discussions with me. Certainly, it gets his goat that I champion "nuclear DEW hybrid esotic weapons," which immediately relegates me to a subspecies compared to Mr. Rogue. Although I wanted to believe his "chemical conventional" means of destruction, the math and science properly applied trash it as being the Occam Razor primary mechanism even before one recognizes that it doesn't address all the evidence. Mr. Rogue does not like having his genius nose rubbed in this or that fact that the 9/11TM needs to be looking into other mechanisms of destruction and energy for 9/11.

I don't let go of my nuggets of truth, and I don't succumb easily to Mr. Rogue's negative debate tactics. And that drives the man to distraction.

Thus, instead of Mr. Rogue ignoring me and going on his merry-go-round way, his ego feels that his agenda has suffered a set-back. The result is Mr. Rogue reaching again and again into the disinformation playbook: creating straw men, putting words in my mouth, misframing, ad homenim... Anything to keep rational discussion away from considering how aspects of 9/11 were nuclear and probably DEW.

Like John Wright (of 9/11 Blogger) and David Chandler before him, Mr. Rogue's promised objective good, bad, and ugly book review of Dr. Wood's textbook is missing in action. Certainly it was sidetracked by the time suck of the circus acts that Mr. Rogue performs here.

P.S. I agree to your three > points.

//

---

Señor El Once : the butterfly trying to emerge from these confines is: NCPT!!!

2012-07-18

Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Regarding "R.I.P. - No Plane Theory"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21992

Apologies. I missed the thread. Not enough time in the day for all the time-sucks that demand our attention, I guess. I had my blinders on. [Who am I kidding? I'm not even registered on Pilots9/11T.]

Well done. My only critique actually also relates to Mr. TamberineMan's wonderful posting about the scene at the NPT wake that closed with banging sounds from within "the coffin, the lid nailed down and 'the stars and stripes' draped over it, with a little bunch of flowers (that have seen better days), casually flung on top."

You see, the butterfly trying to emerge from these confines is: NCPT!!! [No Commercial Plane Theory.]

Thanks for the respectful reference. Yes, sincher for me were (1) the video of the last twelve seconds of UA175 that shows with 3D modeling how the videos of the seemingly different flight paths does correspond to a single flight path, (2) contemplation about what velocity-squared at high velocities does to the collision energy with respect to the structural energy of the vehicle materials, (3) demonstrations thereof with the rocket sled splitting a car from MythBusters, and (4) the Sandia & other Mythbuster videos showing high velocities versus "common vehicle materials."

Kudos again.

//

---

Señor El Once : so gritty, they crunch

2012-07-18

Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

The “nuggets of truth” are everywhere. It’s just individual conclusions and wordsmithery that add more dirt to the pan.

I know you weren't aiming this at me and I don't take it personally, Mr. OneSliceShort, but I plead guilty to the charge anyway. [joke on]"Too cheap for a second pan, I like my campfire-style pan-fried 9/11 eggs sunny-side up and so gritty, they crunch."[joke off]

If clear evidence pointed to anything I’ve ever rejected, I’d be all over it like a rash.

A revelation came to me while performing in the circus of the Tritium report and Dr. Jones' "no nukes" paper. Unchallenged was the authenticity of the Tritium report. More importantly like a Magician waving his distracting wand, no one thinks to ask for companion reports on Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. radiation. No one expects to get them. No one should trust their contents if they existed.

Thus, you should have no fear of my "individual conclusions and wordsmithery" giving you a rash, because, gosh darn it! We ain't never gonna see no "clear evidence" or companion reports or paper-trail to substantiate some of my wild-ass bat-shit crazy nuking DEW theories. [Only nuggets of truth needing to be adequately addressed.]

Depressing.

On a completely different topic, I tend to "carve out my personal time" very early in the day (4:30 am), like by going to the fitness club. I can observe the sky before dawn. Man, it is awesome! Mars & Venus are aligned, yet a third "star" flickers red/green (top/bottom, as if in Morse Code but also almost like a Police Car's red/blue warning lights flashing in the distance). Together they make it a triangle right there above the horizon until the sun comes up. [Monday had a cressant moon in the mix.] By 5:15 am (MST), these wonders are obscured, so the earlier the better.

And today I observe for the first time (although they may have been present before) a small cluster of stars just above the top planet. Six brighter ones in the cluster look to be arranged like the little dipper only smaller. MAKE AN EFFORT TO SEE THIS CELESTIAL EVENT playing in an early morning sky near you!!! You can always go back to bed and sleep some more afterward.

And this little celestial nugget of truth may or may not be relevant, but it is certainly a sight to behold! [Wonder (a) if I should be prepping, and (b) if my "genetic stock" is worthy of surviving the Georgia Guidestone-esque recommended culling, should HAARP enhance this celestial event into ELE and validate the FEMA camp preparations, executive orders, etc. for dealing with the "left-behind." I understand that the PTB have a thang for numerology, specific calendar dates (9/22, 9/11, 7/7, 3/11...), and celestial alignments & horoscopes, so might aim for significant Mayan Calendar dates or planetary alignments to really mess with our minds and prove "there ain't no coincidences."]

It inspires me to post less, lurk more (if at all), and do the "human experience" thang with more gusto while I can. After all, the PTB were able to run out the 9/11 clock to a decade already with no serious repercusions, investigations, or trials. The way I see it, the T&S database probably won't change anything in the course of events, but might survive as a record that we weren't all not paying attention.

//

---

Señor El Once : leaves the impression that you met with Mr. Legge

2012-07-18

Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

[Frank Legge] went into almost a state of hysterics, as I argued the points you make here, to him. We even had the overview photos with flight paths laid out as we discussed this, along with ground view photos of the Naval Annex showing Hemphill’s exact position at the time. ... Both [Dr. Legge and Dr. Fetzer] can deny the most OBVIOUS truths – and do it right to your face.

Your language leaves the impression that you met with Mr. Legge in person.

Were you writing about a cyber-exchange? Or did you really meet with him?

I suspect the cyber-exchange, but just wanted to be sure.

---

Señor El Once : Dang-nabbit nuggets of truth!

2012-07-18

Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Yes, I saw your thank you when it came floating by. Thank you.

[pokes wasp hive] [Mr. Rogue and Sr. El Once] both got more in common bar your disagreement over the issue! [/pokes wasp hive]

True dat!

I know an objective review of Dr. Wood's textbook won't set Mr. Rogue into her camp. However, he'll have enough of a foot grounded there to explore other variations, like what I do with my wild-ass speculation that stands on the shoulders of (disinfo) vehicles. Dang-nabbit nuggets of truth!

Trying to bring me into the two grumpy old men brawl on nukes v thermite, eh?

Nuclear-powered DEW (or nuking DEW ala Project Excalibur) versus super-duper nano-thermite, if you will.

I've proven capable of publicly admitting when I'm wrong. Want to be able to do the same thing on this theme, as well.

Gotta be the right proof, though, and scientifically sound.

I'm convinced nano-thermite was involved, but not that it was the primary mechanism. [Required quantities is not believable.] The song-and-dance to lead us away from discussing radiation, required energy for pulverization, anomalous vehicle damage, under-rubble hot-spots, etc. doesn't lead me away. Makes me want to camp out with my pan and mine more of those dang-nabbit nuggets of truth.

---

Señor El Once : a matter of perspective

2012-07-19

Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

I watched the video of WTC-7 from Mr. Shack that you posted. I give Mr. Shack kudos for his cleverness, and Mr. Rogue kudos for providing the understanding and hints that lead to discovering the errors in Mr. Shack's perception management tour.

At 4:00, Mr. Shack draws some dashed lines for the corners and says: East side of WTC7 'expands' Eastwards. Shortly thereafter (5:10) he provides a clip from a different angle that shows the The East corner falls distinctly Westwards.

It is all a matter of perspective. The corner in question is falling neither eastward or westward. It is falling northwards. The camera of shot 1 was west of the corner, while camera of shot 2 was east of the corner.

To explain, try this experiment. Place a piece of paper on your desk such that its edges align with your desk. Move your chair to the right. Take a pen and stand it perpendicular on the lower right corner of the paper. Have the pen fall over such that it falls off the front edge of the desk and parallel to the left edge. Due to your chair's orientation, you will perceive the pen as falling to the left despite the fact that it is falling forward with respect to the desk & paper.

Now move your chair to the left. Do the same operation with the pen. Due to the chair's new orientation, you will perceive the pen as falling to the right despite the fact that it is falling forward with respect to the desk & paper.

It is an optical illusion that Mr. Shack is using to try to caste the video evidence as all fake. His analysis is wrong.

I'm a little bit keen on this, because the same element of differing perspectives had me (because of Mr. Shack's productions) believing that the various footage of the 2nd plane had completely different flight paths. Once 3D modeling of the city was done and a flight path from one video was plotted, the 3D model proved that the perspectives of the other videos represented the same flight path.

This being said, IMAGERY MANIPULATION DID HAPPEN WITH REGARDS TO 9/11. The catch is "to what extent?" I believe it did not happen to the extent that Mr. Shack and you push it. On the other hand, we cannot assume that all was genuine, either. Case by case. Mr. Shack fails to prove to me WTC-7 footage was faked.

P.S. A nugget of truth from September Clues (and others) that proves to me that imagery manipulation happened was the four different versions of the helicopter shot: one with nothing, one with a reflective orb, one that masked out the background and showed the pixel plane coming from a different direction, and one with the orb replaced by a hazy plane. Somebody was playing around with it.

---

Señor El Once : the physics mistake is the same one that Dr. Fetzer makes

2012-07-20

{This was not submitted online to the discussion.}
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

Let me make an attempt at explaining the physics mistake that you are making. It is the same one that Dr. Fetzer makes.

Lead is a weak and maluable material compared to steel, yet a lead bullet can seemingly go through steel when its velocity is increased to great speeds. The operative word is seemingly, because slow-motion of a bullet often reveal that it splatters into nothingness on one side of a steel plate, but its localized energy is transmitted into the plate to break bonds and send a "plug" of the plate out the back-side. The hole matches the bullet diameter, but doesn't mean the bullet passed intact to the other side.

The energy of its momentum is (1/2)*(mass)*((velocity)^2) ... note the velocity-squared term. Each increment in velocity exponentially increases the energy.

High school physics simplified things by using low velocities. The energy of the collision of two objects was generally less than the energy of the objects to resist deformation or shattering. As velocities increased, the objects exhibit more deformation or shattering. Driver's Education brought these lessons home by showing wrecked vehicles from closing collision speeds less than 120 mph, and oh, how the vehicles were mangled and wrecked (and the occupants to.)

With 9/11, the velocities were between 400 mph and 500 mph. The energy available to mangle and wreck the vehicles was very great. So great, the materials didn't deform, they instantly shattered. The Sandia and MythBuster videos (e.g., rocket sled slice car) show this quite well.

It is entirely possible for an aluminum & sheet metal wing to significantly damage (or slice) a steel column. But like the bullet, the wing splatters into tiny fragments while transferring its energy to the steel "to slice" a plug out of it.

---

Señor El Once : horse apple stuck on the sole of my sneaker

2012-07-20

Dear Mr. Wegrzyn,

I enjoyed the video. Nuggets of truth. Alas, I suspect that another type of nugget was also present that looked kind of like horse apples.

I believe Dr. Wood is certainly over the target to point out the energy requirements of pulverization or dustification and to encourage us to look for more exotic means of explaining it.

The horse apple that stuck on the sole of my sneaker is Dr. Wood's free-energy mantra. Don't get me wrong. I want to believe in this so badly. And we must use caution by asking ourselves questions about the viability of the technology and then its applicability to 9/11.

I've read Dr. Wood's wonderful textbook [that I recommend to others -- even have the distinction of purchasing Mr. Rogue and Mr. McKee their copies], but believe that she gives "nuclear anything" a bum's rush. [I'm including in that "nuclear anything" things like nuclear-powered DEW, nuking DEW ala Project Excalibur, and just plain milli-nukes.]

Dr. Wood doesn't address the "tritium report", but my take on it is that it would not exist (with proven juking and with Dr. Jones' companion "no-nukes" wave-off) if there weren't something nuclear to hide (like companion reports on alpha, beta, and gamma radiation measured.) Dr. Wood tries to brush of the significance (and questions the existence) of the hot-spots, but to do this she relies on... a govt report... that is accepted without question. It has satellite images of hot-spots that may not be so trustworthy, particularly with regards to how it seems to contradict what first responders were saying many weeks into this.

My issue with Dr. Wood and her textbook is that it stretches for "free energy from space" with little substantiation when a nuclear reactor or new fangled nuclear device (designed for specific electromagnetic output instead of forceful blast/heat waves) seem more Occam Razor to meeting the energy requirement and to explaining several niggly pieces of evidence in the aftermath that super-duper nano-thermite promoters trip over as if it were a 664k mile long imaginary garden hose wrapped around their feet.

Be that as it may, I like how Dr. Wood in the video calls attention to WTC-4. Particularly considering its looted gold vaults, this building is worthy of deeper study by any serious 9/11 researcher.

//