Señor El Once : ticks that tock into a boom
Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:
Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.
It isn't that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.
The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980's to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a "two thumbs up!" from them for me to not just put the movie on my "to watch" list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with "nice" people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a negative critic sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.
The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me positive or negative critics [on some subject] were sincere. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and "enjoy" some movie.]
With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.
And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.
Specifically, ticks to them and their agenda might become exposed in an ah-ha moment, sometimes purposely, so that it tocks into a boom to decimates all of their works, the good as well as the purposely bad and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.
Good cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:
Sometimes disinformation is the best source for valid tidbits of information (nuggets of truth). Disinformation by design contains large swaths of truth, otherwise it will not be effective. We must mine, re-fine, and re-purpose those nuggets of truth even after the ticks have tocked to a boom regarding the overall merits of that source, lest we inadvertently play into the hands of (nuggets of) truth suppression.
The ticks of the source of the material should be used to gauge the number of bullshit-filters you apply to the material and how much second-source validation you apply to any extracted nuggets of truth.
Here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
This may or may not be leveled at me. For the sake of discussion, allow me to hijack it by making the ass-umption that I fall into that category. I hope to have (honest) instances where I operated dishonestly pointed out, and I will apologize profusely for my actions in those instances. [If my ass-umption was wrong, then allow me to humbly give my imitation of the Emily Latella (the late Gilde Radner of SNL): "Oooh... Nevermind.]
Skipping over my postings can be the right thing for many participants to consider... [particularly if certain individuals don't want "nookiedoo" getting squished into the waffle treads of their govt-issued black paratrooper boots.]
I would hope that I don't have that "certain personality type" with whom engaging in debate is "futile", because I try to cultivate an open-mind and objectivity in considering that which I haven't before. [In my younger days, I listened to both Punk and Classical. Nowadays it is World Music; if I don't understand the words, I'm more likely to enjoy listening.]
Evidence and science properly applied on 9/11 can get this duped useful idiot to change his opinions.
The ego is NOT our friend and our adversaries know that very well and use it to their advantage to keep us separated as individuals instead of unstoppable as a group.
Agreed. This is why it is best to circle our wagons around what we perceive to be nuggets of truth that we've separated from its original publishing source (e.g., ego) albeit while giving credit where credit is due (for the sake of their ego).
//
Señor El Once : Responding to Dr. Jones' Pixie Dust
Dr. Steven Jones throws some pixie dust into the air to keep us blinking from seeing the evidence of "nookiedoo" [nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)].
Regarding the possibility that mini-nukes were used in the WTC Towers to bring them down, I wrote a paper in 2006 which was peer-reviewed and then published in January 2007.
Nice appeal to his own authority.
I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not. Here is the mini-nukes paper:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
Making Dr. Jones' wish come true, I read that paper and have given my review several times here in T&S. Here is the logic error that doesn't take a nuclear physicists to see:
Three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures respectively A, B, and C. Becaused we measured D, not only were these exact three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z not used, but no friggin' nuclear weapons were used of any sort or manner. ... [Dr. Jones didn't] entertain any speculation into what could cause radiation levels D (e.g., Tritium).
The above is in addition to redefining trace levels of Tritium to be 55 times their previous levels.
Jones: First, as I emphasized in my mini-nukes paper, the dust particles in greatest abundance were “unregulated supercoarse” – and not micron-sized.
This is a scientific slight of hand. The issue isn't what particle size was in greatest abundance. The issues are that significant amounts of "the fine (<2.5?m-diam) or coarse (2.5–10?m- diam) particles" were present and the energy required to obtain them isn't accounted for.
Jones: With regard to nano-thermite, I have repeated noted that NT could have been used to ignite more conventional explosives such as HMX rather than necessarily being used alone.
Another scientific slight of hand, because neither he, nor A&E9/11Truth, nor the govt tested for these "more conventional explosives" in the dust when they had the opportunity to do so.
Prager: "2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated."
Jones: Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT) – not explained in the official story! We have indeed considered this “mystery” – see (for example) our paper published here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
A little bit of truth slips out: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)." Alas, the paper into which he tries to sideline us does a scientific slight of hand by focusing on six spikes in temperature (that NT may well account for), but ignores trying to explain how the overall temperature between the spikes was maintained. He don't go there then. He don't go there now, except for the highlighted admission.
Prager: "5. Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist."
Jones: OK – but did you know that after early retirement I also continue in alternative energy studies, including what some would call “cold fusion” studies?
Another deft side-step by Dr. Jones. The point from Prager was that Dr. Jones is aware of many different formulations for nuclear devices, their elements, and their signatures. (Unlike Prager), Dr. Jones did not correlate the elements from the USGS dust sampling that would prove 9/11 nuclear hijinx right up Dr. Jones' area of specialty. Instead, Dr. Jones deliberately skewed his "no nukes" paper away from neutron devices.
Prager: "6. Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever."
Jones: Baloney, Mr. Prager -- if you're reading this, you can see that I'm publicly discussing this notion. Obviously I'm not refusing “ to discuss the issues raised in this essay" as you allege. Why will you not carefully read my published papers and respond to them?
I'm wondering if the "baloney" refers to Dr. Jones actually agreeing that 9/11 had a nuclear component, or if it is limited to his discussing it in a... *cough*... public forum (9/11 blogger) that would not even let me register [because certain topics like a nuclear 9/11 were deemed too contraversial & diversive and because I was going to talk about 9/11 energy requirements and nukes most likely being able to meet this]. This ... *cough*... public forum outright banned Mr. Craig McKee within a scant few days, and it had nothing to do with ad hominem or disgusting debate tactics or other breaking of the rules of civil discourse.
Prager: "7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy. "
Jones: Nonsense, Mr. Prager – please read my peer-reviewed cold fusion paper published in Nature:
S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989).
I wonder what the "nonsense" refers to. Does it refer to "the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium?" Or does it refer to "precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy?"
Dr. Jones should be clearer.
Meanwhile, in trying to avoid paying $32 for the Nature article, I located this link that has has some great tritium quotes:
Thermal effects in the earth and the distribution of He [Helium] and tritium can be explained in part by the fusion reactions... Based on this new concept, we predict that some tritium should be produced by d-d fusion in the earth (see equation 1). Since tritium decays according to t -> He + beta with a 12-year half-life, detection of tritium in volcanic emissions would imply cold-fusion production of tritium. ...
Other HT data from the Mauna Loa station, such as the high reading in the latter half of 1972, are also coincident with volcanic activity, although a tritium-releasing bomb test also occurred in Russia in late August [1972] A major spike in the atmospheric HT observed near Hawaii in Dec 1974 - June 1975 [10] coincides with another large volcanic eruption on Hawaii Island, but the significance is again obscured by H-bomb tests.
9/11 was not a volcanic event. Therefore, this 1989 article suggests that Dr. Jones knows that tritium is released by various nuclear weapons. Yet his "no-nukes" papers down play tritium extensively.
Jones: We note that Mr. Prager does NOT address several points in my mini-nukes paper, including the issue of how the mini-nuke fire-ball could have been stopped without melting through and destroying the “bath-tubs” under each Tower.
First of all, Dr. Jones' mini-nukes paper frames this in a dubious manner such that it will align with the public's preconceived notions of what constitutes a mini-nuke.
Mr. Prager was speculating about multiple neutron devices. First, they were directed energy devices (like a shaped-charge) pointing up at each point so that they would not "take out" devices lower in the structure or "melting through and destroying the bath-tub". The massive crater below WTC-4 disproves this, as well; refer to 2:08 in the movie Dimitri Khalezov 911 video.
Secondly, the design of the device maximized the neutron energy and minimized blast/heat energy, so the "mini-nuke fire-ball" might just be another mal-framing scientific slight of hand.
Here's some hand-wavey gems from Dr. Jones' introduction and conclusion:
Jones: Endless discussions are not fruitful, whereas measurements and experiments often are.
Of course, wasn't it Stalin who said: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
What we see from the USGS measurements into what was contained within the 9/11 dust is that: "Those who measure the dust decide nothing. Those who analyze & tabulate the measurements [or do nothing with the measurements, as the case may be] decide everything." Prager proves that Dr. Jones did not do this with the USGS hard evidence, let alone with his own dust samples.
Jones: In general, I would say there are two ways to find out whether the “official story of 9/11” is true and complete, or not: 1) by looking at hard evidence and doing experiments to test hypotheses based on that evidence; and 2) analyzing historical and eye-witness testimony.
In my talks, I have emphasized method 1, using the scientific method. But I also emphasize method 2, pointing (for example) to the whistle-blower testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the lack of air defenses that day. And the important evidence regarding the purchase of put options on American and United Airlines during the week prior to 9/11/2001. There are many examples of both types of evidence that point to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.
I applaud Dr. Jones for pointing to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.
Alas, his own involvement seems to have been to lead the sheeple away from considering 9/11 being a nuclear event, and that continues to this day.
//
Señor El Once : Dr. Jones' Tilting and Side-Stepping
Within the stilted 9/11 Blogger discussion on nukes, Dr. Jones writes:
I also get questions about Judy Wood's beam-from-space theory, and I point people to published papers which go through and consider the evidence. Several relevant papers are published in the Journalof911Studies including one by Wood and a response to that. The Journal is known for evidence-based and peer-reviewed papers on the subject of 9/11.
Don't you just love how he frames Dr. Wood's work as "beam-from-space?" He side-steps the real point: directed energy weapon that does not have to be space based. It could also be land based, spire-based, or the size of a grapefruit. A nuclear shaped charge is another way of saying "nuclear DEW" (or "nookiedoo"). Why does he refuse to dive in deeper than that?
Also notable is how Dr. Jones side-steps the pictorial evidence collected by Dr. Wood.
In the discussion, Dr. Jones goes on and misframes EMP:
In tests with nuclear bombs, both the US and Russia established that a strong Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) accompanies nukes, and that this EMP is VERY disruptive to electronics. Indeed, this is the basis of EMP weapons that I've warned about (and that the US is doing so LITTLE to prepare against).
What Dr. Jones doesn't say is that everything above applies to above ground and open-air tests. EMP doesn't apply when its below ground... OR within a steel structure that by its very nature would help contain any EMP [except for what might slip out through window slits]. EMP is also a side-effect that could, by design, be potentially minimized in other ways.
He also doesn't talk about neutron devices and how their design goals & aims are much different than "blast and burn" nuclear devices.
Be that as it may, the anomalous car damage so well depicted on Dr. Wood's website and textbook could be more readily explained by nuclear hijinx, if not by mis-aligned "nookiedoo" neutron devices then by escaping EMP.
Yes, proponents of the mini-nukes idea need to address the EMP issue -- were all radios and cell-phones and video cameras in the vicinity knocked out (useless) AFTER the first Tower came down? No! (There were problems with firemen's radios, but that was even before the destruction of the Towers.)
Scientific slight of hand. What radios and cell-phones and video cameras were even in the vicinity and exposed [e.g., not shielded by other buildings]? People were pushed back a couple of blocks away from the WTC. The magnitude of EMP originating at the WTC would decrease by something like the inverse of the distance squared. The farther away you were, the less the EMP would bee an effect. Moreover as already hinted to, the "nookiedoo" devices were small and ignited inside of a steel structure, both of which would have significantly dampened any EMP, if the design of such already didn't try to minimize this.
IMO, you are right Ynda and the lack of pronounced EMP effects following the Towers' fall may be the last nail in the coffin for the theory that mini-nukes brought down the Towers.
Mini-nukes, but not necessarily "nookiedoo". Nice try at a PR hypnotic suggestion.
//
Señor El Once : comprehending tritium
Lord "No-Nookie" Rogue should be very careful about trying to pin on me his own flaws [a dishonest disinfo technique] and the issues that he "clearly hasn’t the slightest grasp of" [that I can readily prove with links to Lord No-Nookie's own words in these very forums.]
Rather than I, the famed duped useful idiot, it appears to be the Lord No-Nookie who seems to not have comprehended Dr. Jones first paper and how he stilted tritium.
It doesn't take much effort to search for "tritium" in that paper. The stilt is how the nuclear reaction is framed as "a [singular] thermonuclear (fusion) bomb" and how massive its tritium would be. [It wasn't singular, it was multiple with each being significantly smaller in yield.] The innuendo from his paper is that the bomb was large, as given by his references to hydrogen-bomb testing.
How about this PR hypnotic suggestion from Dr. Jones conclusions:
Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
What Dr. Jones doesn't state is that the few nano-curie level is 55 times greater than what it should have been and needs a source.
After acknowledging in a stilted way (high) tritium levels were present, Dr. Jones does not provide comprehensive enough and complete enough rational and scientific speculation into the cause thereof. Dr. Jones, like Lord No-Nookie, is to put a PR hypnotic period at the end of the sentence that would dare to mention 9/11 nukes.
But rather than trying to stay within Dr. Jones' purposeful mal-framing that Lord No-Nookie hopes to prop up, let us go elsewhere. From Wiki:
A neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW) or weapon of reinforced radiation is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation (fast neutrons) rather than explosive energy. Although their extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated, it is the enormous radiation released by ERWs that is meant to be a major source of casualties. The levels of neutron radiation released are able to penetrate through thick, protective materials such as armor, making them useful as an anti-tank weapon.
Before we go any further, ratchet down the magnitude of this in your mind. 9/11 wasn't a single neutron bomb; it was multiple ERW per each tower as well as WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
Being much smaller on 9/11, we have to reign in how much penetration (or escaping) the ERW would exhibit with regards to energy levels being able to leave the steel confines of towers, as well as the fact that this is a DIRECTED energy weapon and aimed where they wanted it.
A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.
The "usual" nuclear weapon yield—expressed as kT TNT equivalent—is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. Compared to a fission bomb with the identical explosive yield, a neutron bomb would emit about ten times the amount of neutron radiation. In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1–2 MeV).
Guess what? Chromium and nickel were measured by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices by Mr. Prager.
And how about the amounts of required tritium in the ERW and that were observed and Dr. Jones brushes aside by stating only what it was not?
Señor El Once : Chromium and nickel and neutron bombs
Referring to what goes into a neutron bomb, I wrote:
Guess what? Chromium and nickel were measured by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices by Mr. Prager.
In a lame-ass and totally ignorant defense, Lord No-Nookie comes back with a brain-dead (and unattributed quote):
The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC.
"Has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data" but that doesn't mean that it does. Hell, and with such weasel words we need to be thinking about what explains all of the unusual environmental data.
Too bad that Dr. Jones admits himself:
Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).
I know when I'm ahead in the debate when the Lord No-Nookie uses quotations he doesn't understand, floods the forum with postings, and resorts to ad hominem.
The [Lord] doth protest too much, methinks.
Señor El Once : not trusting a single word
RuffAdam wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. ... I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
Gee, in this very thread, maybe we should evaluate one particular source of information.
Until I posted this, he capped this thread with three
October 4, 2012 – 10:06 am
October 4, 2012 – 3:25 pm
October 4, 2012 – 3:42 pm
October 4, 2012 – 4:02 pm
Allow me to repost the second one in its entirety, because it is such a great example of a PR hypnotic suggestion sprinkled with vulgarity:
So now, rather than every single thread here being sprayed with “NPT”, “Holograms” & “V-Fakery” – we are now treated to the Rhapsody in DEW, and it’s attendant nuclear rantings.
Enough whizz biz, drop the fizz. That is of course unless we are now to believe that the Pentagon was nuked and dewed and screwed by the same jolly green dildo.
Here's another great re-inforcing PR hypnotic suggestion from Lord No-Nookie's third one:
Again, I assert with increasing confidence that this whole “New Wave 9/11? of “NPT” “Video Fakery” “Holograms” “Nukes” and “DEWS” is PSYOPS THEATER. A Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation’.
This is in addition to Lord No-Nookie's attempts at steering the nuclear discussion in another thread and covering for Dr. Jones.
September 28, 2012 – 10:04 am
October 4, 2012 – 10:53 am
October 4, 2012 – 2:16 pm
October 4, 2012 – 2:21 pm
Why is Lord No-Nookie so invested in propping up the work of Dr. Jones?
The work either stands or falls on its own.
Here's the quote from Nietzsche right back at you (and Dr. Jones):
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Gotta love his accusations that I:
... [breeze] through the real empirical data and rational conclusions based on those.
Lord No-Nookie can't seem to handle that my "breezy" review of Dr. Jones' "empirical data and rational conclusions" has Nietzsche nailed how Dr. Jones and his swornsword, Lord No-Nookie, are "defending [no-nookiedoo] deliberately with faulty arguments."
The phrase neutron bomb as being applicable to 9/11 has been dropped before, yet do you think Lord No-Nookie would google it and Wiki it (as I have done in this very paragraph) to find out how it relates to 9/11?
Lord No-Nookie's posting frequency combined with the tenor of his unobjective words might just resemble the "Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation’ and PSYOPS THEATER" that he would peg on others. Of the 70 postings to this thread, Lord No-Nookie has 31.4% (while I have only 8.6%). On the other thread at 69 postings as well, Lord No-Nookie has 27.9% (while I'm at 19%).
The [Lord No-Nookie] doth protest too much, methinks.
//
Señor El Once : neu nookiedoo: serve you well to just STFU
Lord "No-Nookie" Rogue,
If "wackadoodle nonsense" is your honest opinion, then it would serve you and your cause well to just STFU.
You engage me, you give me renewed opportunities to re-enforce the "wackadoodle nonsense" on "nookiedoo", which thanks to you, maybe I should re-christen "neu nookiedoo" for "neutron nuclear directed energy weapon (DEW)."
As for me contacting Dr. Jones, why should I? You seem to be exchanging emails with him, maybe even inspiring him into doing his recent but lame 9/11 Blogger stop-gap measure against Prager and Wood. He seems to be feeding you your hynotic talking points that, like an obedient foot soldier, you re-post here without much additional analysis or thought of your own [as an excellent reflection of how much you truly don't understand.]
STFU is actually such great advice, I'm surprised nobody with whom you swear your allegience has told you sooner to deploy it as your tactic here. Geez, it would have stopped me dead in my tracks easily a dozen nuclear-damaging postings ago. It would have saved you from dishing out inappropriate ad hominem that easily gets reflected back on you.
The only STFU downside? You would have lost those paid-to-post opportunities for income. But I'm confident you would have made them up elsewhere in other "wackadoodle nonsense" that you feel duty-bound to give center stage and I probably would have lent you silent STFU support on.
Remember: STFU can be your friend in making a convincing case, although damn hard for you to act on.
//
Señor El Once : lowering himself into my sewer
Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, suggests that this humble "duped useful idiot" should contact Dr. Jones directly...
Because in your delusional overheated brain you think you have the chops to debate him. If you think you got the stuff call him out yourself. Make a challenge that he can’t counter. ... I can’t honestly see Dr Jones lowering himself into your sewer however.
Through the Lord No-Nookie's regular email exchanges with Dr. Jones, I expect that any "challenge" from me has already been passed along... one would hope long ago [2012-03-05]:
[Mr. HybridRogue1] 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.
I'm sure that the more recent emails between Ser Rogue provided Truth & Shadows links to Dr. Jones. It is rather noteworthy that Dr. Jones would choose 9/11 Blogger as the setting for his Prager rebuttal [that I've trashed above on October 4, 2012 – 1:42 pm], when nuclear topics aren't discussed there to the extreme of pre-banning people with such hobby-horses. Dr. Jones is more than welcome to participate in this forum; he hasn't been banned or pre-banned.
Duped useful idiot me? Having the "chops to debate" Dr. Jones? I am perfectly content to have Dr. Jones nookie-school me, making it not much of a debate when we find that we agree on most things.
To get us onto the same page literally, I'm even willing to purchase Dr. Jones his own copy of Dr. Wood's textbook [as a starting point], if Dr. Jones doesn't already have it and if Ser Rogue doesn't jump at the opportunity to unload his copy on Dr. Jones and thereby fulfill the conditions that I placed on Ser Rogue's copy -- the "good, bad, and ugly" gift that keeps giving [to Ser Rogue (figuratively) bloody noses.]
The reason Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, suspects that "Dr. Jones [won't be] lowering himself into [my] sewer" is that in "getting schooled" and obtaining understanding, I'm going to raise my hand and ask intelligent questions whose truthful answers might not be so easy to utter without more uncomfortable questions and without the nuclear truth about 9/11 slipping out via those "damn naggit nuggets of truth." Unlike 9/11 blogger, the (de)tour of our discussion won't be so easy to control, I'm afraid.
From my (now distant) past, I received (unheeded) career advice from the Dean of the Engineering School who taught one of my Sophomore courses. He often came to the class after (seemingly) three-Martini lunches with engineering executives and, with his hand feverishly jangling keys and coins in his front pocket as a distraction while he spoke, would proudly detour the lesson with talk of the bright future we engineering students will have upon graduation. Alas, I was stuck in the homework, and he was skipping crucial steps in his lecture that would help my understanding. The career advice came after a bout of my "hand raising and intelligent question asking":
Señor El Once, you are in the wrong field. You should become a lawyer.
Missed my calling. But not my ability to persist in asking intelligent questions.
Somewhere in his dozen or so postings in this thread and the next one over since my last posting, Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, laments:
Am I supposed to just let this crap [about nookiedoo] go past without comment in the hope that it will end?
Yes.
Not your blog. Not your responsibility. "Do NOT feed me, Seymore." Do not manufacture opportunities for me to respond, thereby allowing my nookiedoo "shit to slip in sideways." To use the venacular of the internet: STFU.
And if I err in my assumption and "my crap" [about nookiedoo] is Ser Rogue's responsibility and obligation to not let "pass without comment in the hope that it will end," lurker-readers and participants alike should be asking themselves why? how so?
Meanwhile, here are the highlights from Ser Rogue illustrating why he is the no-nookie Lord.
October 4, 2012 – 3:18 pm
- Can’t say the same for our useful idiot
- I suggest he save this flatulent dialog for his morning sit on the "throne".
- Falling back on your beancounter ways again aye Mr Useful?
- Idioso is mixing dews and pineapples again.
- Bombs or fricking ‘reactors’? Which one is under the shell for this game?
- This wank about posting counts, and ‘agent tactics’ is so much, “bla bla bla”.
- A perpetual “bla bla bla” seeming more like “wah wah wah” with each proceeding post.
- Crisis on a Cracker…
- All we seem to have now is this nuke biz flitting about
- Is Useful Idiot proposing that nukes were used [at the Pentagon] as well?
- what is all this nuke splidge dribbling on this commentary?
- I suggest the nuke issue has been too stressed on this page already.
[Such a great hypnotic suggestion.]
October 4, 2012 – 9:00 pm
- Because in your delusional overheated brain...
- It’s your trip beancounter.
- I can’t honestly see Dr Jones lowering himself into your sewer however.
- You will obviously try ANY tactic to get me to “STFU”. Now won’t you blithercakes?
- Anything to leave you the field for your twisted blabjob.
- You are indeed Sashadik reanimated – hysteria incarnate.
//
Señor El Once : demand for substantiation of belittling Professor Jones
Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, wrote an unsubstantiated assertion that I demand he substantiate:
Why does this useful idiot make it his crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones?
Ser Rogue should prove it with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links.
Ser Rogue regularly gets his knight's helmut rung to refresh his faulty medium- and long-term memory in the discussions here. I'll wager that the instances of me "belittling" Professor Jones or otherwise attacking him personally -- other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11 -- will turn out to be illusions that slipped into Ser Rogue's thinking relative to me exclusively from the "belittling" and unwarranted personal ad hominem attacks coming from his own keyboard and aimed at me. Do we need look any further than "Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic?" Or how about "Señor El Sashadik" from not all that long ago?
In case any one missed it from much earlier threads, two of the reasons Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, is so knowledgable and eloquent in discussing Bernays and "public relations" treatment into public perceptions (such as what the comments of Truth & Shadows projects) are that his professional career was in visual media industries using his artistic talents and that PR was one of the subjects of his personal study.
Applying what he learned, here is but one example of such a PR hypnotic statement:
It is correct that Jones’ information stands on it’s merits. It is also correct that his detractors disinformation fails by the demerits.
Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones' information "stands or falls on its own merits." It is the missing "or falls" phrase that disproves the former, because I've legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter.
And I maintain that I accomplished this repeatedly without having to attack or belittle Dr. Jones personally other than speculations on a much larger agenda that would conceivably tap Dr. Jones as a resource, not much different than I do with Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord.
Three (3) falsehood's addressed.
Mr. RuffAdam wrote in another thread:
Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.
Speaking of "operating dishonestly," the rest of Ser Rogue's posting "[tries to] stand but falls" on its own (de)merits, needing no further comment from me.
// the bizarre character, Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic
Señor El Once : operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.
Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, posts three in a row as a clear indication of his hasty "shoot from the hip" ways. Damage control, I suppose, because the details of his threesome try to weasel out of the dishonesty in his attacks on me.
Ser Rogue stated that I had a "crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones." I demanded that he prove this assertion "with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links."
None of his responses had any URLs in them. None of his responses proved anything of a multi-posting "crusade." None of his postings proved anything of the "belittling" language that I might have used on Professor Jones.
So this glaring lie remains at Ser Rogue's feet as but one example of him "operating dishonestly."
My references to Dr. Jones doing the govt's bidding by steering the public away from a nuclear 9/11 is not a "belittling" remark. Ser Rogue tries to change the playing field by saying: "This charge is in itself spurious nonsense."
The fact of the matter is, a significant portion of a university professor's salary -- particularly those doing scientific research -- is "soft-money" obtained by proposing research projects that someone will fund. That "someone" in most instances -- particularly when the area is nuclear physics -- is the government. Dr. Jones has been beholden to the government for his entire career, such is the level of this "spurious nonsense."
Ser Rogue feebly paries with another dishonest unsubstantiated hypnotic suggestion:
This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones’ work is spurious nonsense as well.
Does fifty-five (55) ring a bell? As in Dr. Jones re-defining tritium trace levels to be 55 times greater than they were prior to 9/11. Or how about his 1989 papers that prove that tritium is a by-product of fusion reaction, yet he had no good explanation for any of the tritium on 9/11/2001?
Here's a great gem! Dr. Jones make a big show of having taken his Geiger Counter to the dust samples and measured no radiation. Yet, Dr. Jones knows from his very own research that neutron radiation is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect; a Geiger Counter will not produce results from a Deuterium-Tritium detonation. Scientific slight of hand, no?
Ser Rogue has never been able to defend the logic error in Dr. Jones work that makes my assertion of him steering the movement away from a nuclear event a bit more substantial than "spurious nonsense." Does Dr. Jones no-nukes paper on Tritium ever mention neutron bombs or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)? No.
Ser Rogue also trips over an imaginary garden hose many hundreds (of thousands of) miles long packed with super-duper nano-thermite (NT) that, by rights, Dr. Jones should have laid at his feet to explain how it could possibly explain a single hot-spot. Of course, maybe it could be said that Dr. Jones always advocated NT in conjunction with other materials and recently even states: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)." When Dr. Jones saw NT being extrapolated into explaining 9/11 features that clearly it could not, he should have set the record straight with the science-challenged 9/11 yeomen. He did not. Quite the contrary, he encouraged it.
Ser Rogue tries to weasel out of his lie:
I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used “ad hominems” or “belittled Jones’ PERSONALLY “- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones’ work.
First of all, Ser Rogue's lie was that I "belittled" Dr. Jones. How can this be accomplished if I didn't call him names or deploy ad hominem? Oh, that's right! It's "the empty boasts... just made above" that I've proven aren't so empty.
Ser Rogue makes this refined accusation without substantiation:
I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.
Your hypnotic PR statement about what "has absolutely no foundation in facts"... well, it has no substantiation. I suggest you google the 1989 or so video with a younger Dr. Steven Jones making comments on behalf of the US govt regarding the merits of Pons and Fleischmann, which appeared to pour cold water on cold fusion for lots of researchers, when in truth with 20/20 hindsight, inspired areas where Dr. Jones continued to research.
Another dishonest technique by Ser Rogue:
I am speaking to his claiming that Jones’ first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is “scientific slight of hand”,that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply does not grasp the issues spoken to. Any “demerits” the useful idiots has spoken to is from his own fevered imagination.
Notice how Ser Rogue does not go into details about Dr. Jones' "scientific slight of hand," that I was able to mention again in this very posting. Ser Rogue doesn't address why any reader -- not just me -- would come to that conclusion. Instead he attacks me personally and "belittles" me. More evidence of operating dishonestly.
Here's another clever strawman:
I will also mention that Señor’s quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.
Obviously, Ser Rogue didn't read the thread, because my first assumption was that Mr. RuffAdam was referring to me [but then he said he wasn't.] Who he was referring to, he has not revealed. Doesn't matter.
My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam's quotation was not to insinuate that Mr. RuffAdam thought that of Ser Rogue. No, no, no.
My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam's quotation was to juxtapose proven examples of Ser Rogue operating dishonestly with the penalties that it should inspire readers to apply, like "not trusting a single word from [Ser Rogue's] mouth... skip right over posts from [Ser Rogue]... engaging in debate [with Ser Rogue] is futile."
As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…
If only Ser Rogue were a man of his word when he makes such promises. More than just a several times, he was "seriously finished with [this] asshole." It has gotten so funny, I'll be inspired one of these days to produce a "best-of Ser Rogue's throwing in the towel and wringing his hands of me."
Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor: STOP.
Ser Rogue admits that it is he who "continues this flaming nonsense." Other than me calling him respectfully "Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord" that comes from his own coinage of "nookiedoo", Ser Rogue will be hard pressed to find instances where I flamed him. What will be found are instances where properly-applied science and analysis of the evidence burn Ser Rogue and where Ser Rogue's own flaming words burn him back.
It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product’ –
This sounds like a threat.
Who is Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, to be commanding in all capital letters that I STOP bringing up this particular "product": "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)]?
it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.
No, it is not the exact technique. I'm substantiating "neu nookiedoo". It has properly applied science and analysis of the evidence behind it, and ties many more pieces of the puzzle together than the other conspiracy theories.
It is not in my hands to STOP, but Ser Rogue's. I told Ser Rogue what he had to do. STFU.
He is the one who continues to provide me with opportunities and openings to discuss neu nookiedoo, while bashing him with his own dishonest techniques.
Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.
Ser Rogue should review how neu nookiedoo was legitimately brought into the discussions, and that others created the opportunity. If Ser Rogue would have taken his own advice to STOP or my advice to STFU, it would have been a single lonely posting: a rabbit-hole entrance for lurker readers to explore for nuggets of truth.
As for what is truly being "jammed down our throats," we only need to tabulate Ser Rogue's posting count (like the latest his-3-to-my-1) and correlate that statistic with Ser Rogue's PR tour of hypnotic assertions filled with lies, ad hominem, and other dishonest operations to get neu nookiedoo out of consideration.
The [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.
Señor El Once : the lucky horeshoe ~3 stories tall
The Lord No-Nookie (aka: Mr. Rogue, Agent Rogue, hybridrogue1), in proving that "he doth protest too much" gave us five-in-a-row:
October 7, 2012 – 1:41 pm
October 7, 2012 – 4:24 pm
October 7, 2012 - 4:30 pm
October 7, 2012 – 6:11 pm
October 7, 2012 – 10:57 pm
None of them said anything significant. I was planning on letting him have the last word.
[BTW, the unattributed rebuttal challenge from the last posting; it was given in 2006 or so. I couldn't find any published challenges on the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Was it because there were no responses, or they aren't publishing them? Also, I'm not advocating "mini-nuke"; I'm advocating "neu nookiedoo," so the challenge is malframed from the get-go.]
However, as I was collecting & re-purposeing my words on "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear directed energy weapon (DEW), which sometimes goes by "enhanced radiation weapon (ERW)"], I got to thinking about some of the latest coincidences on Truth & Shadows.
Coincidence #1: A normally sane and rational Mr. Rogue goes all rabid and postal whenever "neu nookiedoo" comes up, becoming his online alter-ego "Lord No-Nookie".
Coincidence #2: Lord No-Nookie has proven back-channel email access to Dr. Jones, to the point where Dr. Jones is emailing Ser Rogue with a link to his recent (incomplete and lame) rebuttal to Jeff Prager's Dust Analysis on 9/11 Blogger and possibly other talking points for Ser Rogue to deploy against my wild-ass bat-shit crazy. [I substantiate here my "incomplete and lame" assessment of Dr. Jones rebuttal.]
Coincidence #3: The banned Agent Albury Smith makes an oh-so-brief appearance here to drop a horseshoe of good luck, some three stories tall, that is in need of further contemplation.
Coincidence #4: After I offer a curt explanation, the Lord No-Nookie offers up two responses to this horseshoe, with the second one a scant 26 minutes after the first being such a classic no-substance ad hominem:
What a circus those two make... Agent Smith and the Useful Idiot... like Abbott and Costello on acid.
Indeed, that is like a disinformation semaphore that on the surface appears to be a wave-off ("Nothing to see here, folks! Move along now."), when in reality both agents are waving us to land there. So let us revisit the relevant parts again so they can be fleshed out and so that the Lord No-Nookie will know what he needs to escalate via back-channel email to Dr. Jones.
The banned agent Albury dropped a nugget of truth on October 1, 2012 – 4:00 pm when he asked:
[Could] incendiaries or demolition explosives have caused that 180-degree bend in the ~3-story “horseshoe beam” found in the WTC tower debris?
I answered him on October 1, 2012 – 5:21 pm:
No, incendiaries or demolition explosives could not have caused that "180-degree bend in the ~3-story 'horseshoe beam' found in the WTC tower debris." They could cut it, or blow it into pieces. But “nookiedoo” is another matter.
The Lord No-Nooke plopped down his two cents on October 2, 2012 – 7:26 pm (just before the aforementioned "acidic" ad hominem):
Incendiaries do not make things hot? Is that a point bouncing around here? Is this coupled with the idea that heat does not soften steel? Very curious. Ask a blacksmith how he bends a house-shoe sometime.
An anvil, a hammer and a furnace seem to be the common methods.
I've taken the liberty of highlighting the word "furnace." The blacksmith heats the entire piece of metal before attempting to bend it with his hammer & anvil into shape.
When large pieces of metal are too long for the furnace, the area to be bent is heated. It should be noted that iron and steel are great conductors of heat. The ramifications are that it will take more heat (and/or time) to get a localized area of a large piece of metal to glow red-hot and be easily bent, because heat is conducted through out the steel. Here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a horeshoe:
- Core Beam bent
When science literate people study this and try to apply the theory of chemical incendiaries or explosives, they should be left with questions that can't be easily answered.
- Why was this core column not cut there?
- How close was this core column to the neighboring core column that would have been rigged with such incendiary or explosive?
- How much higher temperature does the incendiary or explosive have to burn to not only do its job on the target column but to also span the distance to a neighboring column and to heat it in a localized manner such that it weakens to the point where the weight above it bends it like a horeshoe?
- How quickly could this inceniary or explosive on a core column heat a localized portion of a neighboring column to the bending point? [While Jon Cole and Dr. Jones have done experiments with thermite to show how quickly in human terms (many seconds) it accomplishes its task, the nature of the anomaly within the towers destruction suggests that it would have had to have happened several orders of magnitude faster (milliseconds or less.)]
Now that we are discussing bent pieces of metal, study these images compliments of Dr. Judy Wood [Woo-hoo! Glad that I should slip her shit into the discussion sideways]:
- Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
- Multiple pieces bent
The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. An incendiary or explosive is localized in terms of where it is initially applied. While fast and hot, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these bends, because they would cut or destroy what was right next to them.
These bent beams had an arc over their whole length. It implies a massive heat source (several orders of magnitude hotter than "conventional" mechanism") that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.
Moving on to other images that imply a destructive mechanism in a completely different ballpark than a conventional incendiary or explosive:
- twisted beam 3
- twisted beam 2
In the following images, note the wall assemblies that are rolled up like "steel doobies". Note also how the interior and exterior sides of these wall assemblies are "steam cleaned", meaning they have no paint or other things attached to them.
- twisted beam 1 and rolled up carpet
- Fields on the rolled up spandrels
- The Steel Doobies
A conventional incendiary or explosive cannot explain how the spandrels that connected the three beams in a wall assembly could be heated so completely that they'd wrap themselves up into such a tight "steel joint." Yep, the towers were smoked by something: "neu nookiedoo."
Finally, we have the meteorite, which is noteworthy for how it fuses together various materials. What sort of heat source created this?
Readers are encouraged to read about "enhanced radiation weapon (ERW)" and neutron boms, but starting with the caveat that it is scaled down to the size of a grapefruit, which we know was possible given that 1960 gave us the small Davy Crocket nuke. Then, we are to imagine that each tower (and WTC building) had multiple such "neu nookiedoo" grapefruits and that each could have their energy aimed in a useful direction (e.g., UP, so that they don't knock out lower "neu nookiedoo" or the bathtub).
Allow me to bring up an example of ERW or "neu nookiedoo" with regards to the initiation of the destruction of the South Tower (WTC-2). The top of the tower starts to lean, and according to Newton's laws, its angular momentum should have caused it to continue tipping out to the path of least resistance and then as a near cohesive block fallen onto neighboring buildings. Instead, before the "pile driving block" progresses a few floors below the "impact level", the innards of that upper block get "dustified"; no longer is it a cohesive mass; the angular momentum of that cohesive block is arrested and suddenly becomes the "angular momentum of lots of tiny pieces."
By observing the roof line of WTC-2 in this early phase, David Chandler once calculated that the roof line of the upper block fell at 2/3 the speed of gravity. The implication is that the upper block suddenly lost 2/3 of its internal structural support. This is no easy feat.
9/11 South Tower "Collapse" compilation [video]
David Chandler does prove energetic (chemical) material were present in the destruction by an ejected projectile that suddenly changes direction, at 1:11 in this South Tower Smoking Gun [video].
However, Mr. Chandler takes a step beyond his expertise by stating (0:55):
These effects can be cause by late firing explosives, which can produce white smoke trail. White smoke, consisting of aluminum oxide is a by-product of a thermite reaction."
My comments are not meant to take away from explosive materials being deployed as secondary mechanisms. I've always championed that thermite or whatnot blew the bolts connecting the wall assemblies together milliseconds ~after~ "neu nookiedoo" decimated the insides; the walls helped mask and contain such hijinx and side-effects, like greater EMP.]
Mr. Chandler's PR hypotic assertion is that all of the white stuff is smoke and the by-product of only a thermitic reaction.
The reality is that lots of things can produce white smoke. Moreover, much of what we observe -- IMHO -- is more "white" steam and dust, from the "neu nookiedoo" having energized the metal to the point where it "cooked" off whatever was painted or affixed to it. The steam from that cooking is evident in many pictures.
When the wall assemblies are studied in the debris pile, they do not exhibit evidence of burns or scorching that would be a by-product of a "fiery" incendiary or explosive. [In this image of Wall Pieces cooking things off [img], what configuration of incendiary or explosive would cause the entire length and width of a wall assembly to be affected?]
No, the wall assemblies to me exhibit having their metal heated to the point where they "cooked off" things, like a burner on a stove.
Smoke rises and its rising particles can be seen going to great heights even from a small fire. Steam, on the other hand, also rises but then quickly disappears as vapor in the air. Dust eventually falls and settles. The WTC decimation exhibits all of the above, but a nugget of truth from lots of imagery is the proportion of each in the immediate aftermath.
Referring to the image above, here is a re-purposed discussion from another 9/11 disinfo site (Let's Roll Forums) on Steaming Meteors from 2011-07-20, shortly before they banned me, because evidently "nuclear devices" was a taboo subject like it is so many other places:
![Wall Pieces cooking things off [img]](http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/7403/richarddrewwtc2collapse.jpg){kind=link}
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 onces below them [D]. Those chunks in particular are from the interior side, not the exterior. Where is the "finishing" material that would be glued or painted onto the interior beams?
Go back to the original chunk [A] and note that we see the exterior side. 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.
Now let us return to the coincidences given earlier in this thread.
Let's have the Lord No-Nookie use his established back-channel email contact to Dr. Jones. [Were I to contact him out of the blue, my email will be considered spam. Plus it needs to be more public.] Because 9/11 Blogger doesn't allow my participation, let's use Truth & Shadows as a neutral location for the "nookie-schooling" that I am looking forward to receiving from the good professor.
Dr. Jones should calculate what energies would be required and their duration and their configuration to cause horseshoe and arched beams.
Remember, the steel beam has to be essentially heated end-to-end to the bending point in the precious few fractions of a second while the content of the towers crashed around it.
I maintain that "neu nookiedoo" can do it, easily... And account for tritium, dustification of content, low levels & short duration of "standard" (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation, etc. Super-duper nano-thermite and any combination of conventional (or exotic) chemical incendiaries and explosives? Not so much. Let's recall that Dr. Jones himself says in the 9/11 Blogger rebuttal to Prager:
Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).
I hope that the Lord No-Nookie will STFU... until Dr. Jones can bail him out. We don't need another five postings in a row like what precedes this.
Sincerely yours,
// Señor jackass or weasel with a "neu nookiedoo" agenda, 'cuz this duped useful idiot thinks it closest to the Truth based on properly applied science and analysis of the evidence. Expressed in only ~2,471 words. Woo-hoo!
Señor El Once : Dancing to Mr. Rogue's "No-Nookiedoo Burlesque"
Mr. Rogue's three postings had a word count in the ~1,888 range. Therefore, given my habit of quoting my discussion opponent in order to clarify the points I'm addressing, the second version of my response at ~4,356 words wasn't that out of line. Still, I'll use this version to whack down the word count. Unless stated otherwise all quotes are from Mr. Rogue.
+++ October 9, 2012 – 6:54 pm
I wrote:
Dr. Jones should calculate what energies would be required and their duration and their configuration to cause horseshoe and arched beams. Remember, the steel beam has to be essentially heated end-to-end to the bending point in the precious few fractions of a second while the content of the towers crashed around it.
Mr. Rogue demonstrates his lack of understanding:
This is based on the ASSUMPTION that this beam was bent to a horseshoe in the initial collapse rather than being in the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it for a furnace length of time.
Yes indeed, I make the logical assumption that the core column was bent into a horseshoe during the collapse, because the 3-story beam required ROOM and SPACE to be bent 180 degrees back on itself. Mr. Rogue's seems to assert that a long beam "in the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it" would have have enough physical space and freedom of movement within the debris pile to get bent back on itself. This isn't very plausible for the horeshoe.
"In the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it" is plausible for accounting for the arched pieces, though. But the defect in Mr. Rogue's argument: what produced sufficient heat in the pile to adequately heat end-to-end those beams to get the arches? It is not trivial.
There is no need to “account for tritium..” As explained countless times now; the levels were MINUET. ... Becquerels are a tiny amounts of radiation, a nano-curie, a billionth of a curie. ... 55 times the background is minuscule any device even a small one would have released thousands if not hundreds of thousands and likely millions of Becquerels.
Let's ignore that Mr. Rogue hasn't explained it "countless times" and that this is the first time he has ever brought up "Becquerels," which may be thanks to Dr. Jones kibbitzing him via email.
What we are observing here is a scientific slight of hand. They try to frame the number as being teeny, tiny, small, miniscule -- "a billionth of a curie". Yep, so small, the unaided human eye can't even see it, so you can forget about it, right?
It doesn't matter if the amount is minuscule and non-threatening to health, which is the skew and spin both Dr. Jones and the govt tritium report take. What matters is the measured amount compared to what it should have been. Tritium was measured, even if we can't verify the validity of that measurement or the report publishing it. Therefore it was important and needs its source identified, not brushed aside as Mr. Rogue attempts.
This reported number, if it can be trusted, is still 55 times the background level and is NOT accounted for by airplane exit signs or weapons gun sights. The argument is similar to that of Prager's analysis of the dust. Various elements are found in correlated quantities in the dust from different sampling locations, so therefore were involved in the decimation process. They can't be attributed to building content (e.g., in computers and things), because the initial disproportionate distribution of building content cannot result in proportional correlated quantities in the dust at all of the different measuring points. So it is with their benign but lame sources of tritium.
“dustification of content” – has to do with brisance, not heat, and RDX or PETN can account for both.
If RDX or PETN were deployed in the destruction, it would be true that their brisance could dustify some amount of content. It would also be true that they would produce instantaneous moments of intense heat. Beyond that, however, they fall short in explaining these specific pieces of evidence. Why?
[1] The same brisance of these explosives would destroy the "horseshoe" beam before its heat could weaken a localized spot on the beam for bending into a horseshoe.
[2] The fast burn-rate of RDX or PETN means that they cannot account for the necessary duration of an under-rubble hot-spot that could heat end-to-end those steel beams that became arches. (Unless of course massive quantities of unreacted RDX or PETN were in the pile and strung out like a fuse, ala the "600k mile imaginary garden hose.")
So, another explanation for the evidence must be sought, regardless of whether or not RDX or PETN or super-duper nano-thermite played a role.
You got something Señor Dupe: “A thorough response should address all of the points above.” – Those points being those in the letter found here.
The key phrase is "all of the points" in the games you and Dr. Jones are playing. I don't need to do that if I agree with most of the points (or don't know any better to not agree.) Successful disinformation is made up of mostly truth with a small fraction of disinformation. So addressing "all of the points" in a thorough and scholarly effort is just busy work. I'll go into more detail on my few points of disagreement later.
Mr. Rogue writes:
Just WTF is YOUR "expertise" tango dancer?
Other than Argentine Tango dancing from a decade ago and ongoing literary endeavors, my artistic talents pale compared to Mr. Rogue's. However, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Jones, and I are all VETTED members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, unlike Mr. Rogue. Enough said, genius artist.
+++ October 9, 2012 – 8:02 pm
Mr. Rogue's "No-Nookiedoo Burlesque"
The foundation that Señor Useful Idiot bases his criticisms of Professor Jones begin with the slander begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds; that Jones’ played a role in the debunking of the Pons-Fleischmann cold fussion experiment.
That's my foundation? Nope. Not even close. My criticisms of Dr. Jones certainly didn't start there, either. Shows that Mr. Rogue has not been paying attention, as this posting from 2012-01-25 proves:
Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: "Radiation measurements didn't match A, B, or C levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type X, Y, or Z, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated." Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source... Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of "trace levels" so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being "below trace levels."
Above is the first fold. The second fold within that same 2012-01-25 posting was a game to get an objective review of Dr. Wood's textbook, which eventually Mr. Rogue played, was played, and exposed as a liar and a con-man (2012-09-25). True to his form, such tactics "trying ANYTHING to win an argument" are continued here:
We are then catapulted to Señor Idiot’s complaints about Jones’ first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction. Here Señor Idiot puts a large stack of chips down on double zeros and spins the wheel, with this spittle about 55 times the background of Tritium.
Actually, the 55 number comes from Dr. Ward. The foundation of my criticism with Dr. Jones has always been the blatant logic & reasoning error quoted above. He frames the thinking about nuclear weapons into large bombs with known radiation signatures, and then says, "Oops! We don't have those exact signatures" [because it had a different radiation signature that neither discusses nor leaves the door open to consider] "so it wasn't anything nuclear at all."
Dr. Jones must be feeding Mr. Rogue information:
As I have noted this is a miniscule amount – that measurements in Becquerels is of tiny amounts of radioactivity. Even falling back on the concepts of the shielding processes of a ‘neutron bomb’ and attenuating some ninety something percent of the release of precursors and isotopes, would lead to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times – and likely millions of times the background for Tritium.
Let's assume these assertions valid. They are based on the validity of a shoddy government report on the tritium levels that Dr. Jones accepted without question.
The source government report on tritium levels, unlike the USGS report on the dust, is very suspect in how & where the measurements were taken and what was written up. In terms of systematic scientific thoroughness, the two reports are like night and day. Dr. Jones complained many times about the government not releasing reports, slow-walking them, and blatantly skewing them [i.e., the NIST reports on the collapse that stopped at collapse initiation, didn't provide computer models and assumptions used, and at one point averaged three collapse stages in the WTC-7 (with a 100 foot stage being identical with free-fall) so they could claim with a straight face that these three stages together were slower than free-fall.]
The point is, Dr. Jones accepted the tritium report without question and is guilty of propagating from that report a new definition of "trace background level" to be 55 times greater than what it was. What skewing of the data was done before Dr. Jones did his no-nukes wave-off? We don't know.
And today that I am on a neu nookiedoo bender, it dawns on me that (1) Dr. Jones skewed nearly all aspects of his paper into the realm of large nuclear devices, (2) Dr. Jones did not discuss neutron bombs (and ERW) despite being a form of a nuclear weapon, and (3) Dr. Jones avoided the plausible theorizing of, say, the Anonymous Physicist, under the guise of being "scientific" and "staying within the bounds of publicly known nookie-things." Gee, he doesn't want to be found guilty of speculating or hypothesizing in his no-nukes (aka tritium) paper, but he is all over speculating and hypothesizing in the paper with Ryan on the evidence of energetic materials.
Here's something for Mr. Rogue to ask Dr. Jones. (a) Does Dr. Jones have a security clearance? (b) Based on Dr. Jones' resume and from whom he's worked, does Dr. Jones have very strict non-disclosure agreements with penalties approaching those of National Secrets? Therein might be the key for the glaring weaknesses this former Argentine Tango dancer found in Dr. Jones' no-nukes paper.
Jones’ Geiger Counter would not measure Tritium__true, but Tritium would not be the ONLY radiation from a nuclear explosion. There was no radiation in the dust samples or the steel beams Jones Geiger tested.
A standard nuclear explosion gives off alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. What does a neutron bomb give off? Hint: it tweaks down the output of such "standard" radiation and produces short-lived and hard to detect neutron radiation. Dr. Jones didn't go snooping for radiation in the dust until well after the fact, when some forms of radiation would have dissipated. Much too much damning evidence was shipped off to China.
In another glaring example of Mr. Rogue not paying attention, he missed reading in Jeff Prager's work the articles about Big Ivan, largest nuclear blast in the world (1961) yet giving off very little lingering "standard" radiation.
To the idea that tritium from gun sights is absurd – the FBI had an office space in one of the towers as well as the WTC7. There could have been a huge arsenal – several hundred weapons and extra sights and other such items in that space alone.
"There could have been a huge arsenal (in WTC-7)" is vastly different that "there was a huge arsenal."
The keyword is "distributed." Such weapons, if they existed as sources of tritium, would not have been evenly distributed through the WTC complex. In fact, they would have been localized. Tritium at the WTC-7 would have been highest. Was it? Or was tritium all over the place?
Then there is the utter nonsense to do with decibels {dB} and Sunder’s assertions that they somehow determined there were no explosions based on measuring dB from recordings. The assumption that one can some how extrapolate from a process that is impossible in the first place, is doubly crippled by the body of evidence that there were explosions. And this has all been gone ’round. Yet Señor refuses to flush this turd, seeing it as one of his precious ‘nuggets’. It is not a nugget, it is a turd of nonsense. It is impossible to measure dB from a sound recording.
The conditions were given where decibels could be approximated from a sound recording. Decibel levels can't be determined from all sound recordings, but certainly from some that met the narrow band of conditions. Mr. Rogue's failure to acknowledge this fact is a rather glaring.
Indeed, I acknowledge the body of evidence that there were explosions. What Mr. Rogue can't seem to acknowledge from the work of Dr. Sunder is that all of Mr. Rogue's very brissanty explosives in the quantities required to pulverize the towers would have had deafening sound signatures in close proximity and even at some distance. Point me to all of the on-the-scene surviving first-responders and civilians (Mr. Rodriguez?) who suffered hearing loss while observing (or running away from) the WTC destruction. He can't do it. Therefore, this remains a valid clue that such quantities of chemical explosives were not deployed; something else did the lion's share of the destruction. What was it?
Then there is this issue of attempting to force the illnesses of the first responders into a ‘radiation sickness’ argument. That this is adequately dispelled by the actual empirical data will not sink into the thick skull of the useful idiot. And anyone with two neurons to click together will see this is so by reading/studying the following link.
The above link has absolutely no information about health effects. While it does list many of the toxic elements leaching out, its purpose was to prove evidence of energetic materials (e.g., thermite) by way of six measured spikes in the levels of certain elements.
The issue isn't that toxic elements at GZ wouldn't impact health. The issue is the sudden impact of serious health issues (nearly all of them cancer related) that historically has only been observed by excessive radiation exposure that accelerates such cancer. Mr. Prager goes into this, but there are other sources.
The above paper also gives a compelling argument for the chemical explosive and flagellants as the most reasonable explanation for the hot spots in the rubble. And also explains any disfigurement of metal anywhere at and around the WTC complex, including the vehicles. And that key is eutectic damage.
The above paper from Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones does ~not~ give "the most reasonable explanation for the hot spots in the rubble." It hypothesizes what could have caused the six spikes between 10/2001 and 02/2002, but not what caused the hot spots. Dr. Jones from 9/30/2012: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."
From that same paper:
For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
- Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles
Mr. Rogue trudges on:
As the caustic toxicity of the chemical and gaseous content of the dust is adequate to explain the first responder illnesses, it must count as a secondary, not a prime argument. First there must be actual evidence of that radiation. Tritium itself won’t do, as has been explained too many times already.
Given that the deep-pocket perpetrators knew they were using neu nookiedoo, they would have taken steps to make sure "evidence" of radiation didn't make the light of day, at least not in blatant form.
Tritium is a trace indication of nuclear something, but its measured levels can't be trusted in the govt report that deliberately misrepresented trace or background levels as being 55 times their previous values. Given the track record of NIST and the EPA, 55 is probably way on the low side.
Along the same lines of controlling the radiation message, where are the companion reports on alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation? Dr. Jones did his skew, and nowhere does he consider a Project Excalibur or neutron nuclear device or even devices right up the alley of his research.
Let us also not forget that they were so sure of what caused the collapse of the WTC -- airplanes, jet fuel, gravity --, the list is rather long of all the things they did not or were not allowed to look for.
Uranium is in any environment on this planet, thus it’s daughters would be as well. We need proofs of copious amounts of something radioactive…but there is no proof of any.
In the dust analysis, uranium and other elements were found in questionable large quantities in the dust analysis. Mr. Rogue didn't understand Jeff Prager's correlation of the elements in the dust. Moreover, Mr. Rogue needs to look up neutron radiation and its half-life before jumping to the conclusion of what constitutes insufficient proof of something radioactive. Mr. Rogue is purposely misframing the 9/11 nuclear event.
+++ October 9, 2012 – 9:39 pm
This whole squidsquaddle of Señor El Dupe’ is based on the spurious contention that I don’t WANT nookiedew to be true__Or that I am attempting to HIDE that there is a nuclear element__Or that I would not accept actual proofs of such. These assertions are nonsense.
Actions speak louder than words.
Mr. Rogue rarely makes admissions to failings of individual points in his arguments, let alone to whole concepts that he champions. To take serious consideration of 9/11 neu nookiedoo off of the table, he plays the game of proposing alternatives that are on the margins of being plausible for accounting for feature A (e.g., pulverization) but that are totally inconceivable to account for feature B (e.g., duration of hot-spots) without an astronomical unreasonableness in the deployment quantities.
Mr. Rogue should take note. When nano-thermite's brissance starting coming up short for pulverization, Dr. Jones backpeddles and hints that something was used with thermite (e.g., RDX or PETN). Yet this is done without running the numbers out the other end to see what quantities would be required to address hot-spot duration. At best, he and Mr. Kevin Ryan make valid supposition into six spikes in temperature being attributable to pockets of unspent energetic thermitic material. Dangling in the air, Dr. Jones says recently: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."
Need I point out what the government, Dr. Jones, and A&E9/11Truth (alledgedly) failed to test for in their samples? Chemical explosives (e.g., RDX or PETN, etc.) I added "alledgedly", because failure-to-test is different than failure-to-report. If tested and reported zero evidence of chemical explosives, it would be just as damning as some evidence of the same, because it allows no wiggle room to get away from nookiedoo.
But topping off Señor El Dupe’s mundane crap as to the merits of all of this, is the lame attempt to align me with Assbury Smith. Another stoop into pure scandalous PR.
Given that Mr. Rogue taught this forum all about "the two prong pincer attacks of disinfo agents," he should know a mere mentioning of Mr. Rogue and Mr. Albury Smith as both being agents does not logically have to align the two in any of their overt views. Were Agent Smith allowed to continue to participate, I'm sure it would turn into something akin to the fake television wrestling matches where the victor is pre-determined, and the loser has the task of making his loss believable to help establish the legend of the victor. But hey, that's just "another stoop into pure scandalous PR" from me, but at least it is a valid stoop and one that I'll cop a plea to.
I have no vested interest in it at all.
His posting frequency, particularly on my hobby-horse themes, contradicts this.
Mr. Rogue writes:
If [neu nookiedoo] could be PROVEN, that would be one thing.
Mr. Rogue has issues with acknowledging the nuggets of truth that prove neu nookiedoo. Worse, he tries to twist the falling tetris blocks of 9/11 evidence into his more mundane chemical CD realm, and is left with gaping holes that he can only fill with belittling ad hominem.
So far everything I have encountered from the proponents of nukes or dews has turned out to be spinning bullshit.
Coming from a self-proclaimed "genius artist" who re-posts unattributed talking points from Dr. Jones verbatim with very little that would suggest any depth to his own understanding, this assessment doesn't mean much.
For a brief moment, however, let us assume this assessment true; this does not validate or make any more reasonable ANY combination of conventional or exotic chemical explosives (RDX or PETN with NT) that Mr. Rogue has championed. Here's Dr. Jones again: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)." And while we're at it, let's take a look at the horseshoe and arches again.
The moment of assuming Mr. Rogue's "spinning bullshit" assessment as being valid has passed. Were Mr. Rogue's understanding not reliant on Dr. Jones -- who truly does have a vested interest today in keeping neu nookiedoo from nuking his reputation --, he would know that Jeff Prager's analysis of the dust is pretty damning proof, as is all of the evidence amassed by Dr. Wood.
I've come this far, I might as well boost my word count by addressing:
And going through all this YET AGAIN…for christ sake…
In order for a "YET AGAIN" to apply, at least one complete looping cycle has to have preceded it. We didn't have that, certainly not on "neutron nuclear DEW". I've flagged Mr. Rogue in the past for saying "we already discussed X, and I fragged your ass", when really we didn't and he didn't. Just another dishonest word game.
The eagerness with which Mr. Rogue wants 9/11 nuclear contemplation taken off of the table -- a consistent trait since his entrance into these forums in January 2012 -- does not go unnoticed, particularly when he uses faulty arguments and dispicable debate techniques to snipe at things in isolation.
Okay, we've got about ~3,847 total from which we subtract Mr. Rogue's direction quotation 1,070 words, leaves us with my ~2,777 words.
Señor El Once : Lingering Radiation
I forgot the word "lingering" in the following paragraph:
In another glaring example of Mr. Rogue not paying attention, he missed reading in Jeff Prager’s work the articles about Big Ivan, largest nuclear blast in the world (1961) yet giving off very little lingering “standard” radiation.
And now that I've revisited it, let's take it further. Big Ivan was directed upwards. Certainly it gave off various levels of "standard" radiation, but they went up into the sky along with the directed energy. According to how the nuclear device was designed and deployed, the amount of lingering radiation of the biggest nuclear bomb in the world (1961) was small and dissipated quickly. Preceding Big Ivan in 1960 was the Davey Crocket, noted for its much smaller tactical size.
Now let us turn our attention back to 2001 (some 50 years later) with many more advances in nuclear weapon's technology and even Project Excalibur proposals about directing energy from a nuclear reaction and DU (depleted uranium) weapon's deployment in battle. My contention is that several grapefruit size "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear DEW (directed energy weapon)] per WTC building took them out.
The devices were aimed upwards, which served many purposes. In the case of the towers, this helped mitigate nuclear fracticide whereby an upper nuke wipes out a lower nuke, thereby causing the lower one to not reach its full nuclear potential, and possibly leaving it to nuclear fizzle [which indeed is precisely what the hot-spots in the pile resemble]. By aiming the device upwards, that is also the direction for most alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. Dr. Wood makes a big deal up the fine particles rising. This is indeed something to consider. Her book and website have excellent pictures of the crater in WTC-6 and the seemingly cylindrical boreholes in WTC-5. [A sphere intersects a plane at a circle. The seeming boreholes in the roof could be more indicative of a cone or spherical blast intersecting the plane of the roof.]
At any rate, the above is to be considered when framing the seeming lack of radiation on 9/11. Where did it go? What kind was it? How quickly would it dissipate? What would be lingering? How much validity should be placed on government radiation reports, particularly after their failings and skew are noted?
Señor El Once : spin balls from here to eternity
I have no vested interest in this nuclear spat.
Mr. Rogue's 36 comments (37% of the 97 total) with 9,226 words (36% of total) tell another story regarding "vested interest," as does the fact that most of my 22 comments (22.6% of the 97 total) related to neu nookiedoo and were fueled by Mr. Rogue himself.
And If Señor Spinball wants to spin his balls from here to eternity on this topic – so be it.
Why, thank-you kindly, Mr. Rogue. Don't mind at all if I do.
And in all the hub-bub about neutron nuclear DEW, its signatures in the dust, and tritium radiation, I completely forgot to bring up Dr. Wood's textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" Such a great collection of nuclear after-effect images.
If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
~ crafty Dr. Judy Wood
Indeed, the evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinx is on display in those pages, right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection, that Mr. Rogue's pyroclastic demolition mechanisms don't explain nearly as well as neu nookiedoo and its side-effects.
But there’s not a single nourishing analyte in his stew.
Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!
Nothing quite like a hole shot into the foot of Mr. Rogue's argument because of a stupid over-generalization: "... not a single nourishing analyte." Oh so easy to prove wrong and discredit Mr. Rogue with as little as "a single nourishing analyte."
Which nourishing nugget of truth from my posting should I pick to dispell the PR hynotic suggestion cast by Lord No-Nookie? Perhaps the horseshoe? Perhaps the arches? Perhaps the September 30, 2012 quote from Dr. Jones: "Something maintained those high temperatures [in the rubble hot-spots] (not just NT)"?
Oh, but why put such onus on me? Where are my manners?
Mr. Rogue brought it up. Mr. Rogue should defend it. Mr. Rogue should get cracking at proving each "wannabe-nourishing analytes" contained therein as not being such.
It is unclear whether Mr. Rogue is referring to a stew of 2,777 words from my last posting or to a stew of my 15,286 words (~60%) under this article alone. Let's assume the former for now. We can always double-back later.
Chop, chop, hop to it, Lord No-Nookie! And don't miss a single one, so tasty is that broth of damn naggit nuggets of truth.
Maybe you'll do better than your good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter review on crafty Dr. Wood's textbook. Be a good Boy Scout and "Be Prepared," cuz you just know its coming.
Woo-hoo! Yet another opportunity to "slip [Dr. Wood's] shit in sideways!"
Even the meaty aroma of the broth is a synthetic fragrance made from neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones.
Speaking of "neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones", amorous readers should be wary of any double meanings to Mr. Rogue's earned title -- "the no-nookie Lord" -- beyond neu nookiedoo that gets smooshed into the waffle treads of his black paratrooper boots that he wears to bed with his skinny black tie, dark sun-glasses, and Scoobey-do under-roos in his DUMB site (deep underground military base) a.k.a. his mama's basement, particularly in the shadow of my meaty word count being 66% longer and of his comment count stream continuing to dribble on beyond what should be -- beyond what he promises to be -- his last words. Always the heart breaker, so married is he to his job.
Oh man, I better stop. This ad hominem is so much fun to write. I can see where the no-nookie Lord gets off "spinning his balls" in this vein. Most addictive. But not very convincing, I'm afraid.
No comments:
Post a Comment