Maxwell C. Bridges

The above posting sat in the moderator's pending queue since 11/19, although I did try several times to get it pushed through. Finally settings were change and my reasoned argument could be presented.

Mr. Rogue ain't gonna like it firstly because it came from me. But secondly he'll have issue with it because the nuclear 9/11 Tetris Stack has fewer gaps than where he wants to park research of the WTC destruction.

You see, he's building up a case through his series of recent postings against lots of "wild" 9/11 theories, including "neu nookiedoo." Mostly, I support him in this endeavor, except that he has a penchance for not mining disinformation sources for nuggets of truth before dismissing them.

At any rate, let this article provide structure for Mr. Rogue's efforts and even be a target for criticism. I have no problems being convinced through properly applied science to the evidence of other beliefs.

The following was mostly published and then DELETED from the comment section under one of Mr. Rogue's articles.

+++++

Through my subscriptions, I've observed a vast array of topics posted on COTO that hint at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world, postings that run parallel to where my own research has taken me ... some of it I'm duped by, but most of it I'm still objectively reviewing with an open-mind.

Well, if any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that exotic mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe.

If you are asking "why would they use exotic neu nookiedoo?", you are asking the wrong question without the perspective of the combined wisdom of those who post here. You should be asking: "why would they NOT use exotic neu nookiedoo?" And the answer is moot, because they did.

I'll give you that when DEW is first taken through the lens of Dr. Wood or the frames of Dr. Jones, the picture gets skewed and is ripe for debunking.

The fact of the matter is neutron bombs are not that exotic except that we THINK they have never been deployed and few have any concept of what their destruction and aftermath would look like.

Mr. Rogue gives his PR hypnotic assertions of there being "no record of any radiation in the WTC aftermath evidence." First of all, the tritium report proves this wrong, as does the dog-and-pony-show by Dr. Jones; neither would have been necessary if anomalous readings were detected.

Secondly, Mr. Rogue quotes Lioy – WTC Dust Study:
"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."

Background levels was precisely what they re-defined in the tritium paper, and we don't know what juking was done with the numbers before hand to achieve that trace mark, 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11. Ergo, it is significant when they say "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." The real point is that for the causes the govt attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing elevated to twice background level should have existed at all.

Thirdly, if we give any credit to WHO the players were, of course there would be no PUBLIC record of radiation. Look at how those same players shut down NYC fire investigators. Look how they got the EPA and NIST to lie. Look at how media toed the line and beat the drums of war.

Fourthly, radiation comes in different types whose longevity and measurability depends on many factors including design of nuclear device, implementation, and distance from source.

But yeah, I'll let Mr. Rogue raise doubts, so let's just set the "record of radiation" aside. What other factors suggest that 9/11 was nuclear? How about:

- the FRIGGING energy requirements of pulverization?

- the speed and thoroughness of the destruction?

- the unquenchable under-rubble hot-spots that burned for many weeks?

- the first responder ailments?

- the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement?

- the arched and horeshoe steel beams?

Mr. Rogue accuses me of circular argumentation "if we assume this, and assume that, and assume this other thing..."

The above doesn't assume anything.

This is just a partial list, and Mr. Rogue has valiently tried to address many of them as coming from non-nuclear sources, but not without tilt and lean. (WTF? How come Mr. Rogue won't let me build my 9/11 Tetris stack in peace?)

Here's an example analogy. A house gets creamed and investigators ask whether baking went on. Mr. Rogue suggests that we would expect to measure in the dust of the kitchen flour, baking soda, and eggs, because they were stored in respective cabinets there, so nothing anomalous: no baking. On the other hand, I say that the flour, baking soda, and eggs were measured in *CORRELATED* quantities in many different corners of the decimated kitchen. *CORRELATED* quantities can only happen if baking (into bread) happened.

The baking on 9/11 was of a nuclear nature, which correlations in the USGS dust (by Jeff Prager) proves, if those of us with a bent for seeing the obvious didn't already deduce such from the energy requirements.

//

x24 COTO Crew-cuts with Señor El Once : Released from Spam

2012-11-25

2012-11-25
By: hybridrogue1 on November 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm

Maxifartimus is peddling hallucination.

His "nuclear evidence" for WTC is zero-zero-zero.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 25, 2012 at 9:52 pm

"The fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium is known. Mr. Rogue should provide the levels at which Uranium is found in the environment. The point is that all were found in abnormal quantities. Therefore, enjoy Mr. Rogue's dog-and-pony-show."~Maxifartius

This claim by Maxipad "that all were found in abnormal quantities," is more of his hallucinatory bullshit.

From the very source that Prager uses to promote his bullshit:

A published study by Paul Lioy et al. presents data regarding radioactive isotopes (radionuclides), such as would be produced in abundance if nuclear weapons were in fact deployed:

Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD).

>>Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioyfull.html

\\][//

+++++++++
{2012-11-26: Mr. Rogue responded on 2012-11-25 to this old subscription posting. The "Littleton" reference is of interest, because it was where I spent Thanksgiving Day.}
By: Señor El Once on November 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Subscribe. Neu Nookiedoo. Delete me. Woo-hoo. Haven't even read your article yet, but know that I will eventually and that I certainly don't want to miss any comments.

2012-11-25

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 25, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Littleton too aye nookeedoodoo?

\\][//

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

Published 2012-11-25
By: Señor El Once on November 20, 2012 at 10:39 am

Mr. Veritable1 writes:
"This site has evolved to something that is worldwide with many people tuning in to see what's being unearthed."

Ergo my subscription.

Mr. Veritable1 writes (at 8:45 pm):
"This is about educating ourselves, we don't all always see eye to eye on certain things but we hold a common courtesy towards each other."

And this "common courtesy towards each other" was on full display with Mr. Veritable1?s 7:41 pm posting.

Mr. Veritable1 continues:
"As JG alludes to, the deed was done and arguing about the how and why by who is nothing more than a distraction created to confuse the question being asked by those that are coming around to ask the question."

Makes sense until astute readers start parsing it. "How", "what", and "why" are valid questions, and where I suppose I don't see eye-to-eye with you is whether they are a distraction, or whether those who try to derail them with puckering comments is a distraction.

The role of media on 9/11 fits squarely within the "how" and "what" questions, for how media beat the drums of war for the neo-cons. Your overly broad writing logically brushes these aside.

Furthering the "how" front, does it matter whether a real commercial plane or a mocked-up military plane hit the towers? Only that if it was the latter, then they knowingly hyped the "deaths" of its passengers who weren't on board.

Does it matter whether RDX, nano-thermite, or ERW brought down the towers? This framing ignores that the govt's official position is that a physics-defying pile-driver under the force of gravity pulverized the WTC complex and is a blatant example of lying. Keeping with the framing, though, does it matter? It matters only in the sense that ERW is nuclear and displays an extra degree of callousness by, among other things, penalizing the prompt good deeds of the unwitting first responders. The "how" extends to the agencies who proclaimed the air safe, who didn't investigate causes, who slow-walked and delayed their shoddy reports, and who became the media darlings. You ignore the "how", "what", and "why", then you don't have the proper context to ask questions, like "why do I really have to have my grok groped when I fly to visit grandma because of alleged box-cutters?"

Mr. Veritable1 in referring to DEW continues:
"That's what you bought into. Your point of view. Unless you know for certain that it all ties into Dr. Judy Woods theorem to be indisputably true."

Unlike you, I have read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook cover-to-cover. To even utter a phrase like "Dr. Judy Wood's theorem" displays your ignorance, because crafty Dr. Wood presents scant few. Her main contribution is in presenting evidence that any 9/11 conspiracy-theory-du-jour has to address, and to plant seeds that the WTC destruction demonstrates a magnitude of destruction whose energy levels exceed conventional means.

I stand on Dr. Wood's shoulders, but deviate substantially from lingering innuendo that she drops in her book but does NOT connect in any cohesive fashion (e.g., Hutchison Effects, energy from hurricanes, Tesla energy from space), nor does she definitively state any specific cause or mechanism.

The Anonymous Physicist (who has his own issues) gave a fine critique of Dr. Wood's website at the time but also relates to her textbook. I will paraphrase his words as: "Her job was to gather all of the evidence that 9/11 was a nuclear event and wrap it under the kooky umbrella of Hutchison et al so that it could be more easily dismissed without any further consideration."

Mr. Veritable1 charges:
"you're here to play games with people."

Nonsense. The games being played are BY YOU PEOPLE. We don't even have to leave this thread to see such games just in the reaction to my good-faith attempts to subscribe to the comments that, had my "delete me" request been granted, would not have resulted in any ad hominem or coarse, vulgar remarks.

Playing games with people? I suggest you review Mr. Rogue's work prior to my entrance:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/all-of-the-above/

Had it been published in a timely manner, this posting addresses the games being played against me.
https://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/september-morn-a-film-set-for-theatrical-release-questioning-the-offiical-story-of-911/#comment-35720

Mr. Veritable1 writes:
"In case you haven't grokked it yet, we have a great respect for Willy here as a serious researcher. He's been very instrumental in bringing the level of understanding to where it is."

No doubt, no doubt. I have issues with 5% or less of Mr. Rogue's efforts and for the most part enjoy his writings (when he isn't spewing "creative" ad hominem). The small sliver of disagreement that we have is that he believes the primary 9/11 destructive mechanisms deployed at the WTC were essentially chemical in nature (RDX, nano-thermite, etc.) I'd be happy to believe this too, providing the high school chemistry & math didn't calculate obscenely massive quantities to account JUST for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and providing we didn't have evidence of nuclear misdeeds. Conventional means just isn't Occam Razor, particularly for the "usual suspects" who have access to every "nookie-and-krany" in the arsenals of the world and had Generals and Majors with itchy trigger fingers literally dying to do something very exotic [and then to have the media tell the public "do not trust your lying eyes."]

Face it, if only conventional demolition means were deployed on 9/11, they still could have (barely) skewed it to be "foreign terrorists", and with the help of a complicit media, we might have bought it. The same would have been true with nuclear means, but with this distinction. The USA giant that they were gording into war might have said: "Fuck it! You nuke us (so we are told), so we nuke you! End of story." And end of all of the PNAC gains that this new Pearl Harbor hoped to achieve in the Middle East. They had to be very careful and draw hard-and-fast (and stupid) lines: "air planes, jet fuel, office fires, pile drivers, and gravity." Worse, with nukes coming to light, Silverstein and others with vested NY interests would have been left holding the bag as nuclear radiation fears (whether or not totally justified for the EXACT nuclear mechanisms chosen) caused a great exodus. In my books, neutron nuclear DEW explains a lot more of the stilted and stupid positioning of numerous agencies than a revelation of conventional demolition means would have.

Mr. Veritable1 writes:
"We'll debate you but you may not like where it goes. This is inhabited by some very knowledgeable keen thinkers. If you can bring some valid points to the table enough to engage us bring it on…"

Thank you for the invitation. Should it be granted moderator approval, you shall have what you request on Thanksgiving day.

//

++++++++++
2012-11-25
By: veritable1 on November 25, 2012 at 11:06 pm

No thanks Maxipad, hashing things out with you would be a huge waste of time. You suffer from myopic vision and are bent on forcing your views onto everyone. Your whole thing is all on the event of 9/11 and what you've bought into, meanwhile we're looking at the 3300 years that brought us to that event. You need to find somewhere else to try to cull ones out of the herd to force feed your drivel onto. You need to unstick yourself from the what and how of the event and spend the many hours that others here have put in to unravel the truth from the bullshit of the paradigm that's been foisted upon us. Good luck on your sanity.

2012-11-25
By: hybridrogue1 on November 26, 2012 at 12:33 am

I will address the forum as per Señor El Once's latest time and date stamped at: November 20, 2012 at 10:39 am, although it was actually posted tonight the 25th.

I would like an explanation for this deed.

Now the fact of the matter is that my utter disdain for Señor Maxipad, has little to do with his stupid 'nookeedoodoo' bullshit, but to do with his PR tactics and stalking intertwined with his accusations that I am a "Q-Agent for NSA" and tipping the scales to hot and pissed off, his assertions that I was using a "sock puppet" named E. Wright, having to do with my mother's middle initial.

THIS is why I will not "debate" his bullshit.

If anyone is interested to see that all of his "evidence" is brain dead flatulence, the issues are addressed adequately at this point on:

http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/disinformation-no-planes-theory/

Although my entire rebuttal will be some five times this material, which will be posted as an essay here and elsewhere, there is plenty of proofs put already to put the nuclear issue to bed,
In fact the issue was technically dead since 2007 when Jones wrote his definitive rebuttal for Journal of 9/11 Studies.

This goober by Jeff Prager, and an anonymous "physicist" is all a rhetorical pap-smear built on fantasy "science".

Let's face it, anyone anonymous can claim to be a 'physicist'.

Now, why is this issue even put to this particular thread? It has nothing to do with the attack on Gaza, which obviously Maxipad doesn't give a shit about. His comments do not address any of the surrounding issues as to the maniacl system that these attacks are made by – NO – it is all this fanaticism over his fucking nookeedoodoo.

This punk is barred from saying anything on my threads, and the whole forum knows that I think he should be blackballed from COTO completely.

\\][//

++++++

2012-11-26
By: hybridrogue1 on November 26, 2012 at 1:35 am

To be perfectly clear, I am not in the slightest daunted by Maxipad's lunatic arguments for his nookeedoodoo, I despise the person. He is a fanatic, he is pathological, a game playing PR bitch.

I again invite him to go fuck himself.

\\][//

x25 Señor El Once : look forward to more of your debunking efforts

Dear Mr. Rogue,

As I've stated numerous times in as many venues, I only really have issues with about 5% of what you write (or omit.)

I do not have issues with the fact that torched cars were towed *to* the bridge and that Dr. Wood's lingering innuendo about those same cars getting torched *at* the bridge is deserving of being tagged wrong. What remains of truth is that the cars were torched *at* their original location when other things far more combustible were spared.

Another thing you got wrong is your description of the destruction that stopped after WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. Just as worthy of our study -- and captured fairly nicely in Dr. Wood's book -- are WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, as well as the Banker's Trust Building and the WTFC across the street.

Dr. Wood strives hard to drop lingering innuendo into certain causes, which Dr. Jones then interprets as "beams from space." When limiting our thought to WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, this does indeed seem ridiculous, because this implies destruction tippy-top-down as opposed to the observed destruction of within the buildings towards the top that then progressed down. This being said, "space beams" doesn't have to be so far fetched for some of the other buildings, but this is mentioned only to keep our minds opened: the same mechanisms do *not* have to account for all of the observed destruction to 7 buildings, which is one of the disinfo games often played. ["By golly, if I prove that mechanism X wasn't responsible for building A, then (faulty) logic has me conclude that mechanism X wasn't responsible for any of the buildings. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now."]

My issues with Dr. Wood's work grows, but not to the point where I dismiss the evidence that she collects and some of the observations that she makes. Examples of the latter include:

- The vertical linearity of the destruction path in WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.

- The lack of sufficient WTC-1/2 debris to account for WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.

- The seeming "disassociation" of materials in the destruction.

I look forward to more of your debunking efforts. Because "neu nookiedoo" is out there, make sure you address it point-by-point. Don't forget to explain the horse-shoes.

And don't forget to contemplate Big Ivan and its neutron cousins (ERW). By that I mean, we know that neutron bombs exist. What effect does neutron bombarding have on a material that is composed of atoms which are themselves composed on protrons, electrons, and neutrons? Seems to me that neutrons was one of the things that gives an atom its nuclear weight and characteristics. So when a neutron "cue ball" is energeticly slammed into the neutron "racked pool balls" of an atom to send them scattering across and outside of the "pool table," seems to me that this would instantly change the characteristic of the atom and might be observed as the "dustification" and "disassociation" of materials.

Mr. Rogue, you have warned me that you are going to delete my postings on your threads instantly. Is your position so weak that you cannot tolerate reasoned debate?

Doesn't really matter to me whether this posting survives or not. The message above has been delivered. Your thesis-in-progress must address my messages, or it won't just be judged incomplete and inadequate, but also in a manner that reflects unfavorably upon both you and your motives.

My motives? I'm the duped useful idiot who does not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this topic, my one-trick pony. This black sheep wants to be brought back into the fold, but only properly applied math & science to all of the evidence has the chance of duping me another way.

I am open to changing my tune. Are you?

One last thought.

If I was a vile participate slinging insult after insult with colorful language, nobody could blame you for censoring me. But when I come here with substantiated views that endeavor to take the high road and when the bad language and behavior comes not from me but you and the regulars, then censoring me may have the opposite and more far-reaching effect.

//

x26 hybridrogue1 : suckered twice by the same monkey

2012-11-29

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 1:50 pm

I am going to explain to Mr Bridges one last time why he is not welcome on these pages.

It has nothing to do with his nookeedoodoo argument. It has nothing to do with "fear" in "debating" him. We have "debated" in circles for month upon month on these issues.

My issue with Bridges is [1] that he feels he can chase me around the web, and FORCE a debate on me, [2] that he has and continues to try to frame me as an agent for the system, [3] and most distressing, he attempted with scanty and delusional "evidence" to frame me as puppeting another gravitar on Truth and Shadows.

Therefore, Mr Bridges is not someone I wish to know or have conversations with on any subject whatsoever – and he is certainly not someone I need advice from.

FINI

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-11-29

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm

I will make one more comment about – NOT TO – Maxifartius' propositions.

Since it is a FACT that there is no record of any radiation in the WTC aftermath evidence…none – zero…nothing in anyway substantially above background; any assertions to a nuclear event are totally supposition.

One may assume that the record is not honest. One may assume there is a magic neutron bomb that is so well attenuated that zero radiation manifests.
One can make up any story one wishes in such a manner.

One may assume that they KNOW that the hot spots in the rubble cannot be explained by chemical fires. But it is a circular argument to make the case based on such an assumption, that this is proof of an exotic weapon.

It is this irrational approach to these issues that leads me to dismiss Bridges completely.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-11-29
By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm

This, from the essay above, bears repeating, as it is my main impetus in addressing these issues:

Why were military-grade explosive chips found in the towers' dust throughout Lower Manhattan?

This is the the question that is become the 'Smoking Gun', physical 'hard evidence' that fits as the keystone to the arch of all the other evidence that this event was a systemic military-industrial state operation.

Now the question arises, why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as this?

As with all of these New Wave 9/11 theories, the hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-11-29

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm

Perhaps you missed Senor el wince's latest post today, it wasn't a small dribble of piss. It in fact had some length and was cordial enough on it's own.

But it is much too late for cordial for this skunk-walker.

We all know the saying that Bush couldn't quite articulate on "fool me once.."

I won't be suckered twice by the same monkey.

\\][//

x27 Señor El Once : Looks like fear to me

{Not posted to a forum.}

Looks like fear to me.

Because Mr. Rogue brought it up, let's talk about his lame reasons for not debating me in reverse order.

"[3] and most distressing, he attempted with scanty and delusional "evidence" to frame me as puppeting another gravitar on Truth and Shadows."

What can we say about coincidences in politics or 9/11? There aren't any. Sure, we might afford Mr. Rogue some leeway in being innocent of sock-puppeteering A.Wright from the familial name coincidence, but that's not the only facet to consider.

(a) Mr. Rogue has experienced the stiltedness of A.Wright many times, to the point where just about any rational debater would be throwing in the towel, because A.Wright's has clearly never given an inch on anything and was never going to be "convinced" of any other views. Yet did Mr. Rogue ever make such threats to quit A.Wright? Nope. Mr. Rogue has thrown the towel at me many times when I was besting his arguments, but never to A.Wright.

(b) Mr. Rogue regularly and oft times alone engaged A.Wright, despite the obvious game playing from A.Wright. Yet many of those battles have an aura of incompleteness and insincerity that comes to all of us when we try to play against ourselves at, say, Chess or Poker.

(c) Mr. Rogue taught us all about Helgian Dialectic and pincer tactics.

(d) Talent and time. If Mr. Rogue were inclined to create a sock-puppet to argue with himself to establish his "legend", more so than many others, he could pull it off.

(e) Mr. Rogue's non-denial over-reaction to the revelation of the coincidence.

(f) Sock-puppetry fit in well with many other annotated instances of Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly.

Mr. Rogue charges:
"[2] that he has and continues to try to frame me as an agent for the system,"

Mr. Rogue supplies the materials for the frame. I've said all along that it wasn't something I hold to. And then Mr. Rogue would do something new to get me believing that his beliefs and motives were less than genuine.

Mr. Rogue charges:
"[1] that he feels he can chase me around the web, and FORCE a debate on me,"

Mr. Rogue posted the COTO links on my regular haunts. That's an invitation to come here. Mr. Rogue mentions me by name and in an unflattering way. That's an invitation to respond.

As for FORCING Mr. Rogue into debate, yeah, right. Mr. Rogue exceeded every other participant on T&S (and here). He jumped onto my home court, jumped onto my hobby-horses, and steamrolled his views (most of which I have no issues.)

Mr. Rogue gave his word. He AGREED to objectively review Dr. Wood's textbook as one of the conditions to receiving a gift copy, and ever since has been weaseling out of giving it due consideration for the good, the bad, and the ugly.

It isn't that I hold up Dr. Wood's work as the gospel. But it has nuggets of truth that Mr. Rogue refuses to acknowledge. This stellar example of his lack of objectivity is what pegs Mr. Rogue an agent to me.

Mr. Rogue writes: "FINI" and hardly an hour and half later writes a continuation. A PR effort:

"Since it is a FACT that there is no record of any radiation in the WTC aftermath evidence…none – zero…nothing in anyway substantially above background; any assertions to a nuclear event are totally supposition."

A bold-faced lie which the tritium report and Dr. Jones' dog-and-pony show disprove.

This is a PR hand-wave, because radiation comes in different types whose longevity and measurability depends on many factors including design of nuclear device, implementation, and distance from source.

Would it surprise anyone even mildly on the 9/11 Truther side that there would be no PUBLIC record of radiation measurements? Or that measurements were not permitted? Or that such a report was shredded and its author's suicided?

Set the "record of radiation" aside. What other factors suggest that 9/11 was nuclear? How about:

- the FRIGGING energy requirements of pulverization?

- the speed and thoroughness of the destruction?

- the unquenchable under-rubble hot-spots that burned for many weeks?

- the first responder ailments?

- the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement?

- the arched and horeshoe steel beams?

Mr. Rogue accuses me of circular argumentation "if we assume this, and assume that, and assume this other thing..."

The above doesn't assume anything.

And if we want to talk circular arguments, what energy sources does Mr. Rogue propose? NT mixed with other things to get the brissance required for pulverization that then runs into EXTREME difficulties in accounting for the under-rubble hot-spots due to the massive quantities it suggests.

It is Mr. Rogue who is being a bit irrational in a very science challenged way.

In fact, the whole under-rubble hot-spot thing has been another glaring tick in my opinion of agency affiliations. I mean, a rational and honest debater would see how conventional (chemical) explosives CANNOT account for this feature very easiy, if at all. They would be open to exploring other sources to see if the pieces of evidence fit better, or simplified the implementation, or seemed more appropriate for those deemed responsible with regards to methods and means.

Not our Mr. Rogue.

He spends all his time trying to ping the fringes of the neu nookiedoo argument by saying how isolated pieces of evidence under certain conditions could be explained by other things, yet is impervious to seeing how those other things come up short on the whole.

//

x28 Señor El Once : seeing the obvious

{As expected, this was removed from COTO on or before 9:08 pm server-time, after having been published at about 8:00 pm server-time.}

Dear Mr. Boomerangcomesback,

Obviously you and Mr. Rogue aren't as skilled at seeing the obvious as you obviously think you are.

Case in point, the posts from me that you claim were "nothing" or "derelict punyisms" weren't. They were subscriptions to follow-up comments for the article that I tried to make innocuous and even requested be deleted on occasion precisely so they would aggravate neither regulars nor readers.

I've written more weighty words, but you'd have to be a contributor to view them, because more meaty comments were filtered to spam or assigned to trash, and my main posting is still pending approval.

Who's being the chancre?

Oh, and here's another obvious tick of you two not seeing the obvious. Through my subscriptions, I've observed a vast array of topics posted that hint at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world, postings that run parallel to where my own research has taken me ... some of it I'm duped by, but most of it I'm still objectively reviewing with an open-mind.

Well, if any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that you take exotic mechanisms off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe.

If you are asking "why would they use exotic neu nookiedoo?", you are asking the wrong question without the perspective of the combined wisdom of those who post here. You should be asking: "why would they NOT use exotic neu nookiedoo?" And the answer is moot, because they did.

I'll give you that when DEW is first taken through the lens of Dr. Wood or the frames of Dr. Jones, the picture gets skewed and is ripe for debunking.

The fact of the matter is neutron bombs are not that exotic except that we THINK they have never been deployed and few have any concept of what their destruction and aftermath would look like.

I'm not your buddy Tom Murphy, so you don't have to convince me of controlled demolition. What you have to convince me of is that the massive tonnage (overkill amounts) of conventional chemical-based explosives were dragged into the towers, were planted in the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took as holiday before 9/11, and were indeed more Occam Razor for those with deep pockets and very deep arsenals than, say, a dozen apple-size neutron bombs per tower (albeit with some amount of redundancy.)

Mr. Rogue gives his PR hypnotic assertions of there being "no record of any radiation in the WTC aftermath evidence." First of all, the tritium report proves this wrong, as does the dog-and-pony-show by Dr. Jones; neither would have been necessary if anomalous readings were detected.

Secondly, if we give any credit to WHO the players were, of course there would be no PUBLIC record of radiation. Look at how those same players shut down NYC fire investigators. Look how they got the EPA and NIST to lie. Look at how media toed the line and beat the drums of war.

Thirdly, radiation comes in different types whose longevity and measurability depends on many factors including design of nuclear device, implementation, and distance from source.

But yeah, I'll let Mr. Rogue raise doubts, so let's just set the "record of radiation" aside. What other factors suggest that 9/11 was nuclear? How about:

- the FRIGGING energy requirements of pulverization?

- the speed and thoroughness of the destruction?

- the unquenchable under-rubble hot-spots that burned for many weeks?

- the first responder ailments?

- the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement?

- the arched and horeshoe steel beams?

Mr. Rogue accuses me of circular argumentation "if we assume this, and assume that, and assume this other thing..."

The above doesn't assume anything.

This is just a partial list, and Mr. Rogue has valiently tried to address many of them as coming from non-nuclear sources, but not without tilt and lean. (WTF? How come Mr. Rogue won't let me build my 9/11 Tetris stack in peace?)

Here's an example analogy. A house gets creamed and investigators ask whether baking went on. Mr. Rogue suggests that we would expect to measure in the dust of the kitchen flour, baking soda, and eggs, because they were stored in respective cabinets there, so nothing anomalous: no baking. On the other hand, I say that the flour, baking soda, and eggs were measured in *CORRELATED* quantities in many different corners of the decimated kitchen. *CORRELATED* quantities can only happen if baking (into bread) happened.

The baking on 9/11 was of a nuclear nature, which correlations in the USGS dust (by Jeff Prager) proves, if those of us with a bent for seeing the obvious didn't already deduce such from the energy requirements.

I could go on, but I don't expect Mr. Rogue to let this comment live for very long. And he wonders why I call him an agent? A man of his demonstrated intelligence and broad interests simply cannot remain so unobjective about neu nookiedoo and come to such shoddy conclusions into 9/11 causes without a paid agenda making it so, and with such eifer and frequency no less.

In fact, you will probably only see this if you were astute enough to subscribe to the comments, in which case an email will tell you of its existence. But you will know. The obvious will dawn on you. Including the fear this monkey inspires.

//

x29 COTO Crew-Cuts : knock him back out again

2012-11-30
By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 9:08 pm

El Wince,

I'm sure you roast when each post is toast…

Is it your habit to fuck a girl even though she said no?

You can't seem to take no for an answer here is the reason I ask.

And it's rhetorical, so if you answer that it's toast as well.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: fremo on November 29, 2012 at 10:05 pm

http://www.rogermorris.co.nz/index.php?/series/other-stuff/

Speaking of art. This used to be titled the magician, but I changed it to The Matador since that seemed to be going on as well.

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm

So Roger, you are the guy who took Agent Smith to the dumpster on C2…I always dug your style.

I just took a look at your stuff really fkn' cool. I love it. Thanks for sharing.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: Puddy Dunne on November 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm

Nice graphic Fremo. No frame needed. Very cool.

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 10:29 pm

"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."
~Lioy – WTC Dust Study

Not only is there zero proof of a nuclear device, there is proof there was NO nuclear device. Therefore, any arguments that nuclear is the only possible answer to any anomaly to do with WTC 9/11 are nonsense…all such arguments are non Sequitur, as they have no base to arise from.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 10:42 pm

Yo Mr Dunne,

I don't spoze you have been here to catch Senor El Dunce posting the same thing over and again each time I delete.

I am getting tired of this harassment…he won't take no for an answer….WTF??

I'm just about ready to talk about his mama…{grin}

\\][//

+++++++++
By: Puddy Dunne on November 29, 2012 at 11:11 pm

Why are you deleting it? Don;t you want to argue with him? He's not posting the comment I was. Is it that you don't want him to comment on your posts? Then that's your prerogative I guess. So be it.

I read his comments and don't know what the issue is other than some disagreement on DEW and U possibilities along with the chemo findings.

I just don't see him like the cognitive misers and low-information shills that we come to know. Nor is he verbally abusive. 911 is a decisional conflict for all truthers but at least we agree on what it wasn't and don't have to rely on NIST and other psyoperators to explain our intrapsychic defects .

I was coto back when you were really ostracized and marginalized for saying the Apollo was a hoax or the Challenger was taken down by Scalar weapons. I have developed much tougher skin.

I can say this though. I believe you have limited time to spend on 911 as soon you will have much larger fish to fry on the next level exercize. I am thankful to have your analytical approach where I may take a more heuristic approach. Thanks for well documented, clear and data driven information.

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm

Puddy,

This is my post from 1:20 PM today:

It has nothing to do with his nookeedoodoo argument. It has nothing to do with "fear" in "debating" him. We have "debated" in circles for month upon month on these issues.

My issue with Bridges is [1] that he feels he can chase me around the web, and FORCE a debate on me, [2] that he has and continues to try to frame me as an agent for the system, [3] and most distressing, he attempted with scanty and delusional "evidence" to frame me as puppeting another gravitar on Truth and Shadows.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
So to answer your question NO, I don't have any intention of "debating" with him. We HAVE debated these issues over and again for months. I am not doing it again here.

That, my friend, is that.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Nuclear 9/11 has been ruled out by empirical evidence,the case is dismissed.

This is my firm position, due to the data I can come to no other conclusion. I know every one of Bridges' arguments, they are all, every one based on presumptive supposition. The basis of the whole argument is defeated decisively because there is NO radiation beyond a slight measure of background.

Now proofs to this are what the forthcoming essay is about. This page is simply to do with the prologue that sets the stage for that exposition.

It is my position that I have previewed as much as I need to at this juncture. I am not going to play out the whole thing here in disjointed bits and pieces…that is why the essay is being written, so that it all flows together and puts all the dots in place sequentially.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: camusrebel on November 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Mr. Hammer…I'd like to introduce you to Ms. Nail…(pay particular attention to her head)….."the hidden agenda is to…DIMINISH THE SMOKING GUN" . One does not go to the local Home Depot and just grab a quick pound or 2 of nano-thermite. Rock on rockstar. Blonde hair..Madison Square

By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 1:34 am

You have grokked my main point Camus.

That is the bottom line:
"the hidden agenda is to…
DIMINISH THE SMOKING GUN"

It is funny – not haha – that Maxipunk finds it so easy to forget that just a couple of weeks ago he was trying to frame me as puppeteering another gravitar on Truth and Shadows. He has been trying to frame me as an agent of the state for close to a year now.
And suddenly he wants to 'make-nice'? Riiiight..

I think the guy is schizo on top of being full of shit.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: boomerangcomesback on November 29, 2012 at 10:30 pm

I was referring to your spacious non-posts at C1. Didn't see what you are referring to. Anyways, the hybrid ain't paid, are you? Y'all have much more time to debunk or bunk so its for you to duel.

By: hybridrogue1 on November 29, 2012 at 11:02 pm

No duel Boomer,

Each time he walks through the door

I'm going to knock him back out again.

The only way to deal with this juvenile bullshit.

\\][//

x30 Señor El Once : let those agency dogs and sockpuppets lie

By: Señor El Once on November 30, 2012 at 7:34 am

For those who were pinged by email of this follow-up COTO posting, note that these words will probably only survive in your email folder. So read it there.

So, to set the record in the precious few minutes that this comment will survive under Mr. Rogue's PR effort, I was NOT repeatedly posting any of my previous comments. Mr. Dunne saw them get deleted and re-animated them.

Because Mr. Rogue brings it up twice now -- when I would have preferred to let those agency dogs and sockpuppets lie --, let's talk about his lame reasons for not debating me in reverse order.

"[3] and most distressing, he attempted with scanty and delusional "evidence" to frame me as puppeting another gravitar on Truth and Shadows."

What can we say about coincidences in politics or 9/11? There aren't any. Sure, we might afford Mr. Rogue some leeway in being innocent of sock-puppeteering A.Wright from the familial name coincidence, but that's not the only facet to consider.

(a) Mr. Rogue has experienced the stiltedness of A.Wright many times, to the point where just about any rational debater would be throwing in the towel, because A.Wright's has clearly never given an inch on anything and was never going to be "convinced" of any other views. Yet did Mr. Rogue ever make such threats to quit A.Wright? Nope. Mr. Rogue has thrown the towel at me many times when I was besting his arguments, but never to A.Wright.

(b) Mr. Rogue regularly and oft times alone engaged A.Wright, despite the obvious game playing from A.Wright. Yet many of those battles have an aura of incompleteness and insincerity that comes to all of us when we try to play against ourselves at, say, Chess or Poker.

(c) Mr. Rogue taught us all about Helgian Dialectic and pincer tactics.

(d) Talent and time. If Mr. Rogue were inclined to create a sock-puppet to argue with himself to establish his "legend", more so than many others, he could pull it off.

(e) Mr. Rogue's non-denial over-reaction to the revelation of the coincidence.

(f) Sock-puppetry fit in well with many other annotated instances of Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly.

Mr. Rogue charges:
"[2] that he has and continues to try to frame me as an agent for the system,"

Mr. Rogue supplies the materials for the frame. I've said all along that it wasn't something I hold to. And then Mr. Rogue would do something new to get me believing that his beliefs and motives were less than genuine.

Mr. Rogue charges:
"[1] that he feels he can chase me around the web, and FORCE a debate on me,"

Mr. Rogue posted the COTO links on my regular haunts. That's an invitation to come here. Mr. Rogue mentions me by name and in an unflattering way. That's an invitation to respond.

As for FORCING Mr. Rogue into debate, yeah, right. Mr. Rogue exceeded every other participant on T&S (and here). He jumped onto my home court, jumped onto my hobby-horses, and steamrolled his views (most of which I have no issues.)

Mr. Rogue gave his word. He AGREED to objectively review Dr. Wood's textbook as one of the conditions to receiving a gift copy, and ever since has been weaseling out of giving it due consideration for the good, the bad, and the ugly.

It isn't that I hold up Dr. Wood's work as the gospel. But it has nuggets of truth that Mr. Rogue refuses to acknowledge. This stellar example of his lack of objectivity is what pegs Mr. Rogue an agent to me.

Mr. Rogue writes: "FINI" and hardly an hour and half later writes a PR continuation.

And if we want to talk circular arguments, what energy sources does Mr. Rogue propose? NT mixed with other things to get the brissance required for pulverization that then runs into EXTREME difficulties in accounting for the under-rubble hot-spots due to the massive quantities it suggests.

It is Mr. Rogue who is being a bit irrational in a very science challenged way.

In fact, the whole under-rubble hot-spot thing has been another glaring tick in my opinion of agency affiliations. I mean, a rational and honest debater would see how conventional (chemical) explosives CANNOT account for this feature very easiy, if at all. They would be open to exploring other sources to see if the pieces of evidence fit better, or simplified the implementation, or seemed more appropriate for those deemed responsible with regards to methods and means.

Not our Mr. Rogue.

He spends all his time trying to ping the fringes of the neu nookiedoo argument by saying how isolated pieces of evidence under certain conditions could be explained by other things, yet is impervious to seeing how those other things come up short on the whole.

++++++++

You know the old expression: "Better the devil you know than the one you don't."

If I had agency suspicions against Mr. Rogue on T&S within the first month of his tenure there (approaching 1 year now), why didn't I strongly recommend that he be given the boot? Refer to the expression. Mr. Rogue writes well, makes many good points, and has helped me immensely in honing my views, despite his lackadaisical and weasel-out efforts in going after the good, the bad, and the ugly in the disinformation sources that I rely upon.

The only hurdle for me was that if Mr. Rogue was an agent, I could expect -- and in fact observed -- no tiny sliver of doubt creep into the thinking of Mr. Rogue regarding the applicability of the mechanisms that he champions as opposed to the more fitting applicability of mechanisms nuclear. A line was drawn for him to defend -- acknowledge no nuggets of truth from nuclear or DEW sources --, and he has done some extensive yoga manipulations to avoid crossing it.

Depressing, but very much in line with the Helgian Dielectric that he often preached.

That is to say, it was depressing because debate with Mr. Rogue was never going to be conclusive as in: "convince me of X or let me convince you of Y or let's meet some middle XY ground." Nope.

Mr. Rogue sometimes takes his Helgian debate position and can give no ground. And once his artistic emotions kick in -- like from having been slighted or exposed --, rational thought gets pushed aside and his ego gets pumped with heels dug in to defend his precious X well beyond its sell-by date.

So, you see where my quest for truth has reached an impasse, particular with my attempts to have a rational discussion on the subject. I will never be able to freely debate neu nookiedoo on COTO, particularly if Mr. Rogue sets the agenda, publishes the articles, and controls its comments.

What are the possibilities that COTO will approve my posting that languishes in the moderator queue?

//

x31 hybridrogue1 : Fuck you Senor Asshole – no more.

By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 1:34 pm

BEARING FALSE WITNESS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Woke up to ANOTHER GOD DAMNED MAXIPUNK POST, on this thread…

This time the whole fucking thing was an indictment – an "explanation" of why I am a government agent and used A. Wright as a 'sock puppet'…

My step father accused me of things I was innocent of when I was a kid, and I got punished for them too. There is NOTHING I hate more than false accusations.

"Bearing False Witness" is considered a terrible crime in most human societies.

Again, his whole rant was delusional bullshit, and I am not going to waste my time psychoanalyzing each assertion point by point.

But I will dismiss his entire spurious argument about how 'suspicious' it is to him that I argued with A. Wright with this statement, one I have made elsewhere:

The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist's mind, but to lay his dissembling techniques bare to a candid world.
~Willy Whitten

And I will end with this note; that when someone tries so hard to frame another, it is often to steal the thunder of a counter accusation against themselves.

It is easy to simply write Max Bridges off as a fanatic and lunatic, but it should also be considered in light of the fact that he is making an argument to effectively DISMISS the SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE that the chemical explosives found in the dust in the aftermath of the WTC destruction, that this anonymous character calling himself a variety of code names, is in fact the saboteur, and double agent that he accuses others of – not just myself.

Bridges has made the spurious argument that I have "INVITED" him to COTO, by insulting him in posts here. Or that posting the URLs to COTO on "his haunts" is an invitation of him personally. Such misconceptions would evaporate in a sane mind, once they were told, NO, you are mistaken, you are CERTAINLY UNWELCOME HERE.

But Maxipunk is not sincere in any of this…it is all a fucking con.

I am fed up with it.

Fuck you Senor Asshole – no more.

\\][//

x32 Señor El Once : jar Mr. Rogue out of his comfort zone

{This posting survived about two hours before being deleted.}

I wasn't the one bringing up agency affiliations or sock-puppetry in this thread. It was Mr. Rogue who introduced it twice. Mr. Rogue can go cry in his morning coffee.

Mr. Rogue writes:

"But Maxipunk is not sincere in any of this…it is all a fucking con."

The second part is incorrect. Only the first half is correct. (Par for Mr. Rogue's course.)

I have never been sincere in tagging Mr. Rogue as a govt agent. In fact, my whole purpose EVER in bringing it up relates to Mr. Rogue's own quotation:

"The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist's mind, but to lay his dissembling techniques bare to a candid world." ~Willy Whitten

Whenever I dinged Mr. Rogue as supposedly being an agent, I had a list of his dissembling techniques with linked examples that substantiated my jibes (e.g., putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting my position, flooding the forums with posting, ad hominem, book reports sans book, blatant lies, skewing of data, etc.)

Its purpose was to jar Mr. Rogue out of his comfort zone so that he'd mend his ways going forward, and maybe open his mind and not be so stubborn. Indeed, I was hoping that I could change Mr. Rogue's mind, or he'd present a convincing case for me to change mine. I don't like being the sole duped useful idiot on this topic.

Mr. Rogue writes:
"It is easy to simply write Max Bridges off as a fanatic and lunatic, but it should also be considered in light of the fact that he is making an argument to effectively DISMISS the SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE that the chemical explosives found in the dust in the aftermath of the WTC destruction, that this anonymous character calling himself a variety of code names, is in fact the saboteur, and double agent that he accuses others of – not just myself."

This is a great example of Mr. Rogue's dissembling techniques, because I have NEVER EVER "DISMISSED the SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE that the chemical explosives were found in the dust in the aftermath of the WTC destruction." Liar, liar, pants on fire.

What I have DISMISSED is this evidence representing the primary or most critical cause of the WTC destruction. Found in the dust? Sure thing, BUT NOT in sufficiently massive quantities to account for the under-rubble duration. SOMETHING ELSE maintained the hot-spots, which even Dr. Jones admits. [And then a whole series of anomalous evidence can be presented to take contemplation further away from the pat answers of Dr. Jones, on whom the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 rely.]

So why is it that so many including Mr. Rogue come up to the line, say "that's rather anomalous," yet WON'T CROSS the research line into discovering exactly what that additional "something" was?

The high school math & chemistry blatantly prove (to those who understand it) the limits of those "chemical explosives" and the inverse relationship of brissance to burn-duration: speed up the former, shorten the latter. Assuming them the cause, it doesn't take much to calculate backwards from the burn-duration to estimate quantity... a huge number that represents the UNSPENT and some of the OVERKILL portion above and beyond the quantity required for pulverization. UNREASONABLE are these numbers by any stretch of the imagination to suppose that the perps would suffer such logistics hurdles WHEN THEY HAD OTHER DESTRUCTIVE MECHANISMS AT THEIR DISPOSAL.

So what can we say about Mr. Rogue to so READILY, EAGERLY, and DISINGENUOUSLY park prematurely the search into the true cause of the very thorough WTC destruction at something that can't explain it? If it ain't an agenda, then it is a long list of negative adjectives that are applied to his intelligence and stubborness.

Mr. Rogue writes:
"I am fed up with it. Fuck you Senor Asshole – no more."

I've heard that one from you before. At least here in this thread, you have the power of DELETE. Woo-hoo! I love it when you demonstrate your level of intolerance and get all "jejune" and unhinged. Plays right into the meme I playfully tagged you to.

//

+++++++++++++
{Posting was changed and became.}

By: Señor El Once on November 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm

DELETED – THIS POST IS DELETED

DELETED BY MODERATOR

THIS IS THE 8TH TIME

Mr. Brueck takes this as a game. This is not a game board.

If anyone wishes to communicate with Mr. Brueck, contact him directly at his email address:

{Email address removed.} ?>

Moderator \\][//

x33 hybridrogue1 : YOU ARE NOT WELCOME ON COTO.

November 30, 2012 – 2:02 pm

Señor El Once,

I want you to stay the fuck off of my threads on COTO.

You claim that I "invited" you by posting the URL to the site here. You know as well as I do that this is spurious nonsense. I made a general invitation to the community here.
When you began your rants there I told you immediately and in no uncertain language that you were NOT WELCOME there.

So let me make it perfectly clear one more time:

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME ON COTO.

Got it asshole?

\\][//

x34 Señor El Once : "It wasn't what I wrote that was damning, but your reaction."

Dear Mr. Rogue,

I am a respectful participant against whom you tainted the waters before I ever arrived. Even so, I've been told that as long as I write reasoned comments and articles, I'm welcome on COTO. At least two of your defenders (Boomed & Veritable, if memory serves me) practically egged me into taking the plunge into becoming a contributor. So go blame them.

And get this. Although you deleted my comments under your article, what remains of yours is a bit contradictory to the rules of engagement on COTO. Got a bit unhinged, eh? Could get yourself banned. I've saved my comments and can re-purpose them to prove that they were not out of line.

In the Nixon era, the phrase went something like: "It wasn't the crime but the cover-up (that did him in.)" Applied to your situation, "It wasn't what I wrote that was damning, but your reaction."

My contributor settings were tweaked, such that my article came out of posting limbo and could be pushed live:
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW

Enjoy your weekend.

//

x35 COTO Crew-Cuts : Gameboy rheotrical antics

2012-12-01

By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm

"In the game of 9/11 Tetris, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a "theory stack" that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps."~Señor El Gameboy

I will leave Maxipad to his Gameboy rheotrical antics.

I will simply remind:

"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."
~Lioy – WTC Dust Study

Not only is there zero proof of a nuclear device, this is proof there was NO nuclear device.
Therefore, any arguments that nuclear is the only possible answer to any anomaly to do with WTC 9/11 are nonsense…all such arguments are non Sequitur, as they have no base to arise from.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 7:19 pm

>"Background levels was precisely what they re-defined in the tritium paper, and we don't know what juking was done with the numbers before hand to achieve that trace mark, 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11. Ergo, it is significant when they say "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." The real point is that for the causes the govt attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing elevated to twice background level should have existed at all."~Bridges
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

But, the slightly elevated background levels do not necessarily have anything to do with "the causes the govt attributes to the WTC tower destruction." What they have to do with since they are not nearly in the range to assert nuclear attributes to that destruction, are alternate sources for the slightly higher levels. The environmental pollution of leaking landfills is a well known problem.

Tritium occurs naturally in the environment in very low concentrations. Most tritium in the environment is in the form of tritiated water, which easily disburses in the atmosphere, water bodies, soil, and rock.

A recently documented source of tritium in the environment is tritium exit signs that have been illegally disposed of in municipal landfills. Water, which seeps through the landfill, is contaminated with tritium from broken signs and can pass into water ways, carrying the tritium with it. Current treatment of landfill leachates do not remove tritium.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.html
Radioactivity in the environment is in fact ubiquitous.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 7:52 pm

>"the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement?"~Bridges
. . . . . . . . . . .

Another mere assertion.

Not explained at all is what these "correlations" are, or what the "certain elements" are, or how the pattern supposedly matches "nuclear involvement".

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 7:58 pm

That's really somethin'

A Humpty Dumpty punkin'

For the country bumpkin

With stardust in his eyes

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 9:16 pm

The nuclear issue was settled in 2007 in this paper by nuclear physicist, Steven Jones:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf

If this isn't clear to anyone, then they aren't paying close enough attention.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Further;

Professor Jones is a nuclear physicist in the field of cold-fission; he is not a "nuclear weapons physicist" as Prager claims in his paper.

Prager sneaks in the word, "weapons" between "nuclear" and "physicist" with malice of forethought. This is his central agenda for his paper; to defame Jones and thus obliterate the 'Best Evidence' in the WTC case, which is the military grade explosives discovered in the WTC Dust.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on November 30, 2012 at 11:40 pm

>"a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe."~Bridges
. . . . . . . . .
If this was heated by radioactive blast it would still be radioactive.

RDX has a temperature close to that of the surface of the sun, and brisance enough to blast this beam out of shape. There is no knowing where this beam was flung, what other objects it came in contact with, what might have fallen atop it while all was soft from the heat of the explosion. And this is true of all of the metal in the imagery offered by Bridges.

Again it is merely assumption to accept this imagery as proof of a nuclear event.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 1, 2012 at 12:41 am

EMP does not cause a blast.

An electromagnetic pulse is the product of a blast. All it does is fuse electronics magnetically. It does not blow things up. It does not melt people, it does not cause fairy wings to drop off or cause dancing flashing light-shows.

It goes "pop" and the lights go out, just like a pulse knocks off your computer.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: boomerangcomesback on December 1, 2012 at 2:29 am

Not that I have time nor inclination to isolate and give a defecate, but El Gameboy's comment quoted above rings of a couple of intended misdirections, using language as the modality — (1) evidence has NOT come down at weird angles. No, it came down quite normally as expected with munitions, demolition, physics, and stuff like gravity effects, guffaw. The raft of "weird" evidence is all the cover-up, propaganda via the MSM and NIST, etc. The hiding of evidence, from the buildings (steel shipped to China), the surveillance videos, and a raft of other "evidence" done away with (the $2.3 Trillion "problem" Rumsfeld copped to on 9/10 at the Pentagon), etc., etc.

(2) Oriented into a "Theory Stack"? WTF is that? Coining new terms speaks to me of doublespeak and shillage in the poor(rige). Perhaps in some circles, "theory stacks" are well know idioms, maybe even a colloquialism, I dunno? But anyways, now we're supposed to be stacking theories according to him which sounds like stacking bullshit into towers of Babel. He's purposefully confusing the already complex crime, limplying (yes, pun intended) a "new" form of "theories" to be piled atop one another in the interest of _____? X Yes, X.

Whaz up Oncenator?

The buildings got blown up up, then fell down as is usually the case with things that get blown up. The criminals are still living high, and playing their games in gov't, corporate Amerika, and within the MIC. This "How" thing is one thing. They Why and Who is quite well known by now, as we've seen the qui bono scenario play out.

Alrighty then! Arrest them all! Including El Bozo, for crimes against sanity.

By: boomerangcomesback on December 1, 2012 at 9:40 am

Geez, my rogueish friend. Forget the nook clearer angle. You don't have to beat it to death for refrito flatulence's sake. The red/gray thermite flakes "actually" existing as physical "evidence" all around the crime scene of 9/11 scream out "exotic military-grade" explosives, pre-planted of course.

Would not gieger counters at the time of 9/11 and after have revealed the existence of nuclear events? Would not dna testing upon sick first responders and living or dead victims of the event reveal radiation illnesses, positive rad reads, and such like? It seems obvious you can't hide nuclear ravages under a rug.

3/11 in Japan is a weird example of propaganda and reality. I believe the Rense site to constantly pump propaganda out concerning everything "nuclear" (See the upper right portion of their home page daily to grok how they highlight new developments…supposedly). Coupled with suspect Japan-based "reporters" like Benjamin Fulford, who has reported many a time that there appears to be NO radiation effects, but blames the tsunami/EQ on deepsea-planted nukes… you can see that web readers are stuck in the "push me / pull you" Dr. Dog Doo Little but Shits Big Piles of Poo Poo Propaganda.

It is quite likely that the goal of the psyop lowlanders is to so muddy the waters of logic, common sense, and fact, that people throw their hands up saying, "Who can you believe?!", WTF!

Sooo…draw your conclusions out carefully and plainly. Set your dots accordingly so folks can connect them. Because all kinds of silly lines and random dots materialize upon the canvas of "Truth" and reality, hoping to skew the picture into a rohrshach ink blot smudge.

You're very good. Don't concern yourself too much with those who seek to derail your logical and scientific conclusions. I believe some time back in the "Tom Murphy" Wars, I used the term — Fuck the Master Baitors. Ignoring the ignorance might afford some bliss. Turn off that static station and cue the cool tunes.

By: hybridrogue1 on December 1, 2012 at 11:37 am

Yea…I have sorta burnt out on the whole thing now…

It's seeming like that Antonioni flick, BLOW-UP

strange and surreal…

lagrange and sangreal…

Gleason and Morton's salt..

Sumbody roll me a taco

[v2 v1 2v] see?

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-01
{Made in reply to a November 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm "subscription" posting by me.}

By: hybridrogue1 on December 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Ole Scratch heebee waitin' fer ya

yup heebee

yup

yup

yuppidup

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm

To say that Judy Wood's DEW proposals have been rejected by the great majority of 9/11 scientists is an understatement. However, as with many things in this dumbed down society, it has legs with the dimmer bulbs and the raging PR bullhorns of the fringe – where even purple plesiosaurs from Mars are accepted as a viable option.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-01
By: hybridrogue1 on December 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm

SUMMARY

The summary of the nookeedoo theory is quite simple:

It is a series of presumptions set upon a base of disfigured interpretation of the data. From this series of non sequiturs, to the lack of a clear description of what the actual mechanics of the device presumed to have achieved the destruction, there is simply nothing of substance there.

There is obviously a great deal of rhetorical acrobatics employed in the PR, it can ramble on like the merriest of minstrels. But this is the tale of the pied piper who has sold a lie.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm

"In searching for a new enemy to ~~unite us~~ divide and conquer them, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." ~ Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 2, 2012 at 12:22 am

Nano-Bio

Willy Whitten is a retired special effects artist with 20 plus years of professional experience in Hollywood.

He is also a student of Forensic History, with special attention given to the Public Relations Regime and their perpetual PSYOP.

He was aware on the very morning of September 11, 2001 that the events taking place were a psychological operation. They fit the standard template perfectly. All the usual suspects gathered together for the Electronic Media Voodoo Ritual.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-02
By: hybridrogue1 on December 2, 2012 at 11:15 pm

I wonder how many IPs Maxipunk is using to keep juking his post back into the Most Popular box?

It's futile…you can't keep it up forever Maxifartimus.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-04
By: hybridrogue1 on December 4, 2012 at 12:06 am

Well, your post on COTO went over like a pewter balloon.

Didn't it Maxifartimus? Lol.

Only an ignorant neophyte could buy that Bullshit Lollipop!

The following is what you are trying to bury, isn't it?

"The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires."~Jones

\\][//

x36 Señor El Once : Responding to a "a disfigured interpretation of the data"

2012-12-05

{Also posted on 2012-12-05, which as expected was deleted.}

By: Señor El Once on December 5, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Mr. Rogue writes on November 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm many things. I admire his promise:

"I will leave Maxipad to his Gameboy rhetorical antics."

... which is then followed by about 15 postings (by the time of this writing) that demonstrate him hypocritically doing just that. Certainly, much of it is worthy of commentary. For lack of time, I will address some stray nuggets that Mr. Rogue mentions.

"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."
~Lioy - WTC Dust Study

If we can trust the reported measurements as well as the very definitions of "background levels" [which the tritium report re-defined], then this quote is good news, because it means that the nuclear weapon was not "dirty."

The two things to take into consideration are that it remains anomalous for both the official government story and the conventional chemical explosives, and that this does not rule out neutron weapons.

The government's official story suggests upper-story piles driven by gravity caused the WTC towers' decimation. Thus, "beta activity being slightly elevated" is something that should not be there. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even "slightly elevated beta activity" should not be left around as a signature if they were the only cause of destruction. Also, neither should have elevated the levels of tritium.

Brief Detour into Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons differ in how much heat, blast, light, pressure and radiation they produce. By altering the physical structure of the device and the proportion of its explosive components, different effects can be achieved. Let's take a brief detour into nuclear weapons, because 9/11 misconceptions are purposely created by mixing concepts of one with another to supposedly debunk that 9/11 was nuclear. [Source for quotations.]

9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear weapons based on the fission process, "in which isotopes of uranium or plutonium are compressed into a "critical mass or fissile core) and then split by heavy, sub-atomic particles called neutrons. The energized neutrons reproduce themselves in an explosive chain reaction. Each fission neutron reaction releases an average of three neutrons, yet these account for only a minimal proportion of the weapon's total energy output. By far the largest share is transmitted through the thermal heat and blast of recoiling fragments of radioactive uranium and plutonium atoms, which comprise most of the weapon's fall-out." It is an uncontrolled chain reaction and thus a fraction of fissile material is fissioned. Fission products that are produced along with enormous amount of energy, disperse in the environment.

9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear based on the standard fusion process, in which the isotopes of the lightest element, hydrogen, namely deuterium and tritium, are combined into a slightly heavier atoms of helium through a reaction that is "triggered" by the tremendous temperatures (between 10-100 million degrees) and pressures generated by a fission explosion. At the instant of detonation, fusion weapons release about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects. A standard thermonuclear device will destroy buildings in a vast shockwave of heat and pressure. In addition to fission products we also have neutron-induced radioisotopes that are also dispersed along with enormous amount of energy in the environment.

9/11 did not employ a neutron weapon as intended for the battlefield. A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron bomb requires considerable amounts of tritium. It releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation (lethal to living tissue high-energy neutrons and gamma rays) while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes. The fission bomb is kept as small as one can assemble and the amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. Once the fission bomb raises the temperature so as to initiate tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction, the fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.

The battlefield application would ignite the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel. Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours. The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.

9/11 changed the application of the fusion-based neutron weapons. Fusion nuclear weapons of tactical yield are hard to design and implement, with the probability of "nuclear fizzle" increasing as the explosive yield decreases. As the debunkers readily point out, even the smallest known conventional fusion bombs would be too energetic for the tactical destruction of 9/11. However, when those same micro-nuke fusion bombs are configured as neutron bombs, the massive neutron radiation energy can be directed upwards, and the remaining blast and heat effects is decreased to a tactical level.

RDS-220 [or Big Ivan (1961)] was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one(s) made of lead. This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of about 51.5 Mt), yet still proved the full yield design. The result was the "cleanest" weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions.

In terms of physical destructiveness, much of its high yield was inefficiently radiated upwards into space.

Returning to our discussion

Mr. Rogue supplies a quote from Dr. Jones:

The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.

I can embrace the quoted passage from Dr. Jones in its entirety as being valid. The issue is that the "unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust" is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well. Do the math and run the number (or have Dr. Jones do it.)

What does Dr. Jones have to say on the matter? He and Mr. Ryan suspect that the "unspent aluminothermic explosives" account for six or so spikes in the gaseous output of the smoldering WTC pile. But at the end of September (2012), Dr. Jones was saying "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)." Mr. Rogue should enlighten us exactly what was that "something" that "maintained those high temperatures."

Mr. Rogue aims the phrase "disfigured interpretation of the data" at me, yet his half dozen responses to my COTO posting demonstrates in his words this more readily.

Here's a great example. I provided a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe. Mr. Rogue writes:

"If this was heated by radioactive blast it would still be radioactive."

Not true. Yes, the neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The key phrase is "short-lived." So, no, the horseshoe would not still be radioactive today.

The horseshoe beam was probably "relatively close" [but not necessarily "next to" or "adjacent to"] the nuclear detonation that generated intense heat in the fusion process sufficient to instantly weaken such a hefty beam at a localized spot.

Mr. Rogue suggests:

RDX has a temperature close to that of the surface of the sun, and brisance enough to blast this beam out of shape.

Considering this alternative, pure RDX has a final flame temperature for absorption at 3062 K (~2788 C or ~5051 F). The sun has a surface temperature of 5778 k (~5504 C or ~9940 F). While RDX burns hot, it does not have a temperature close to the sun.

Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state. Nuclear fizzle occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. For practical purposes, a fizzle can still have considerable explosive yield and high temperatures when compared to conventional weapons.

So when we consider the distance between the horseshoe's bend (or the arches) and the point of detonation, "aluminothermic explosives" would require the bent beams to be physically closer than a nuclear device, with the trade-off that the closer the beam was, the more likely "aluminothermic explosives" would cut or blow apart the beam or leave artifacts of the explosion on the beam BEFORE it could weaken the steel with heat to allow bending. The bending of both the horseshoe and the arches is indicative of a very large heat source probably many times the heat that "aluminothermic explosives" could generate.

As for the brisance of RDX to blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch, RDX has a burn-rate of 8750 m/s (~31,000 f/s) while nano-thermite has a burn-rate of 350 m/s (~1,100 f/s). I suspect that RDX could blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter. Moreover, do the math and run the numbers: Using either burn-rate alone or any value in between, calculate how long of an RDX/NT "fuse" would be required to account for under-rubble hot-spots that burned for many weeks. Imagine an imaginary garden hose of this length and any arbitrary cross-sectional area and do the math to translate it into a volume and weight. The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources are stopped at RDX/NT.

Another example of "disfigured interpretation of the data" is where Mr. Rogue writes:

"EMP does not cause a blast. An electromagnetic pulse is the product of a blast. All it does is fuse electronics magnetically. It does not blow things up. It does not melt people, it does not cause fairy wings to drop off or cause dancing flashing light-shows."

"EMP causing a blast" is a fiction that Mr. Rogue seems to be pawning off on me. An EMP is one of the side-effects of a nuclear detonation and can be mitigated by many means [such as a small detonation within a steel box.] If that steel box has window slits, some EMP may escape line-of-sight.

Indeed, an EMP does not melt people. However, an EMP can induce large Eddy currents in metal that then causes the metal to heat up to the point where things on the metal (e.g., paint, rubber seals, plastic handles & gas caps) can ignite. I guess it is a matter of semantics regarding whether one says "the burning gas cap caused the car to blow up" or whether one traces this burning gas cap back to its root causes.

I wrote: "the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement."

Mr. Rogue has issues with this "correlation" term. Here's a simplified explanation from me.

In dust sample #1, element A is represented at 5%, while element B is represented at 7%. In dust sample #2, A is at 10% and B is at 14%. In dust sample #3, A is at 35% and B is at 49%. Whereas the amount of element A varies from sample to sample, the amount of element B tracks or is correlated to element A by a factor of 1.4.

In the past, Mr. Rogue has brushed this aside (paraphrased): "So what that element A was discovered in the dust? It is found in nature. And the amounts of element B are so small, measured in parts per million (or even parts per billion)."

Correlation implies "recipe:" element A & B were combined in their correlated quantities BEFORE they were distributed throughout NYC in dust. Moreover, the recipe in question was one for nuclear devices, and involves more elements than the two fictitious A & B elements used by me to explain the "correlation" concept. Refer to Jeff Prager for more details.

Mr. Rogue wrote on November 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm when mentioning the Lioy et al WTC Dust Study:

Not only is there zero proof of a nuclear device, this is proof there was NO nuclear device.
Therefore, any arguments that nuclear is the only possible answer to any anomaly to do with WTC 9/11 are nonsense... all such arguments are non Sequitur, as they have no base to arise from.

I beg to differ.

The Loiy et al quotes about only background-level measurements of alpha, beta, and gamma activity in the dust does not rule out a nuclear device. Distance from the detonation to the dust samples is one factor, while the time when the measurements were made is another, both of which in a matter of a few days could lower radioactivity to such levels if the nuclear weapon was neutron based.

Moreover, the flawed tritium measurements and the much belated analysis of the dust [as well as the energy requirements of pulverization and the unquenchable hot-spots] prove there WAS a nuclear device.

Coalition of the Obvious, time to see the obvious. And hiding the means-and-methods of the US Government with respect to nuclear weapons would seem par for the course.

// @ 2,459 Words

x37 hybridrogue1 : a point lacking proof

2012-12-06

By: Señor El Once on December 5, 2012 at 2:51 pm

"NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9 NUMBER 9?
[the Beatles]

THIS IS COMMENT NUMBER 9 DELETED

If Señor El Once wishes to post these "// @ 2,459 Words"
he is free to post them on his own nookeedoo page.

This is not his gameboard.

DELETED BY MODERATOR

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-06
By: hybridrogue1 on December 6, 2012 at 3:08 am

So Maxifartimus is still arguing from a point lacking proof. Now he claims the radiation was short lived and was therefore no longer present when the analysis was made of the dust. That is yet another assumption! There is certainly a lot of PR jabber to back up this assumption. But a non-proof remains a non-proof. An argument may be more or less reasonable, but it is empty without proof. These arguments all add up to excuses as to why there is no evidence. A more reasonable argument is that there is no evidence because the nuclear hypothesis is simply wrong.
To prove his arguments are circular and unsubstantial time and again is become an aggravation.

To be clear, it is certainly possible to plant a nuclear weapon under or within a building. There is no argument against that. The argument is that there is no evidence that this is what took place in Manhattan on 9/11. All of the prime evidence mitigates against the proposition that there was a nuclear aspect to the destruction of the WTC towers. This evidence has been presented and expounded upon in great detail.

The argument that there is some slight level above background is proof, is wrong by the definitions of Maxipad's own argument, in that the chemical explosives would not be the cause of even this bit of radiation. But that is a straw-man argument. It is not argued that ANYTHING to do with the destruction of the buildings needs to explain what is a ubiquitous feature of modern metropolitan environments; higher levels of radiation than EPA standards. These "background levels" allowable by the EPA are only regulations, they are levels meant to be maintained for human health reasons.
They are not levels that nature is going to pay any attention to; if landfills are leaching these substances, nature is going to spread them through the water table, it is simple geology.

So it is not my assertion that the radiation could have arisen from anything to do with the destruction. My assertion is that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the added radiation that is backed by data. The EPA reports on the fact that Tritium is getting into water-table because the present systems of leaching do not effect it.

If Maxifartimus does not understand and accept this counterargument, I am certainly not surprised.

\\][//

x39 Señor El Once : 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)

2012-12-21

{This is Part 2 to "9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW" (2012-11-30).}

Truth is a diamond that is surely pure
Truth's an antidote, the virus curer
Truth is the lock on the door - not the keys
Truth is the confession that brings you ease
Truth is the answer to the main question
Truth is the part you forget to mention
~Franklin Ryk 1998 (@ 12 yrs)

Please forgive me for this minor detour in topic from the recent "slaughter of lambkins" and how it represents a new thesis of the Helgian Dialectic, for which there will be an antithesis and final synthesis to lead the sheep astray. We can already see them going after guns and the internet.

I feel compelled to bring up a 9/11 topic mostly just to hedge my bets in case the world really does end on 2012-12-21 as per the Mayan Calendar. I will want to be able to stand before the Supreme Architect of the Universe and say that I sought to reveal (9/11) truth right up until the end.

When, as I expect, we wake up on 2012-12-22, this article about events from 2001-09-11 won't be totally out of place in the sense: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana). Participants of this forum already speculate about heinous misdeeds to come, some of it with nuclear aspirations.

The Belief: 9/11 was not a Nuclear Event

Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".

A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure...

For the sake of discussion, let's accept these measurements as being truthful. Being truthful in what is revealed is different than being complete. Indeed, what astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions are based on incomplete data. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" goes the computer expression.

Bent Scope

This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade. The worms are visible in the study's "bent scoping" that run very much parallel with the "bent scoping" of the NIST reports on the WTC tower destructions; those NIST reports were restricted to the cause of the "initiation" of the destruction and not any analysis of the pulverization at free-fall speeds in the immediate aftermath that their "(un-)scientific method" had them pre-concluding was airplane impacts, jet fuel fires, and gravity.

The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" demonstrates similar "bent scoping".

"We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC."

In fact, just a few sentences away from the passage that Dr. Jones quotes from this study's abstract (also given above) relating to measured tritium is this:

"Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights."

Scientific sleight of hand. When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.

No Further Samples Needed?

Allow me to call attention in the follow passage to (a) the time delay in which some measurements were taken, (b) the limited number of samples, and (c) the assumption from those samples that no further samples were needed.

Sample 1, measuring 0.164±0.74 nCi/L, is from the WTC sewer, collected three days after the attack, and is just above the detection limit. Samples 6 and 7 of about 3 nCi/L are split samples from WTC 6, basement B5, collected 10 days after the attack. Thus, tritium was detected in these samples from ground zero, but the concentrations are very low. In fact, 3 nCi/L is about 7 times less than the EPA limit in drinking water of 20 nCi/L (17). No health implications are known or expected at such low concentrations (13). As a consequence, no additional ground-zero samples were judged to be necessary.

The testing decisions were probably valid for the bent scope of attributing the tritium to RL devices, but they cause problems when this study is re-purposed by Dr. Jones to bolster no-nuke conclusions. Timely and systematic measurements for debunking nuclear causes should have included samples from areas closer to hot-spots.

Moreover, tritium is diluted by water. In fact, we know from the document millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.

It makes perfect sense that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water), which is how tritium primarily occurs in the environment. However, readers must make assumptions (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.

Regarding this last assumption, while the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L), the normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Therefore, sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Let's not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively.

Transported with the Fire Plume

Indeed, the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) had tritium measurements 3.2 times greater than expected.

There was also a possibility that some HTO would have been transported with the fire plume during the first several days after the attack and deposited downwind.

A tritium by-product is not be just HTO but also HT, which is similar to hydrogen gas. Ignoring for a moment the assumption from the passage that the tritium source was consumer products being destroyed by the fire plume at ground zero, neutron nuclear devices could be the source of the fire plume plus HTO as well as HT gas, which would not be measured for a bent scope that assumed only consumer products as a tritium source.

Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces.

Faults in the Conclusion

Here are some interesting aspects from the study's conclusions highlighted:

34 Ci of tritium were released from the emergency tritium RL signs onboard the two Boeing 767s, on impact with the Twin Towers at the WTC. The measurements and modeling are consistent with a prompt creation of HTO in the jet-fuel explosion and fire, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The modeling implies that the contribution from the aircraft alone would yield the HTO deposition fraction of 2.5%. This value is too high by a comparison with other incidents involving fire and tritium. Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is too small to explain the measured concentrations, and another missing source is needed. ... The exact activity of tritium from the weapons was not determined. The data and modeling are consistent with the tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) in the debris, from which tritium was slowly released in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Our modeling suggests that such a scenario would require a minimum of 120 equipped weapons destroyed and a quantitative capturing of tritium, which is too high, since many weapons were found with only minor damage and tritium sights are shielded in a metal. Therefore, such a mechanism alone is not sufficient to account for the measured HTO concentrations. This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source.

I will re-phrase this conclusion, but beforehand, readers should note that the speed and precision of both aircraft as well as the damage inflicted that was caught on video suggest from physics that they were not commercial aircraft. Therefore, when this study concludes with bold statements about the amount of tritium attributed to "emergency tritium RL signs" in 767's, it is starting from weak assumptions about the nature of the aircraft and what they would contain. (Pilot-less aircraft being used missiles don't need cockpits, seats, or exit signs, among other things.)

As the conclusion progresses, it buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft situation yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.

To fill the gap, they turn to the supposition that tritium RL sights on weapons could account for this, whereby their modeling suggests a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons destroyed with leaking tritium. Alas, this number is not golden by itself, because many weapons were recovered with only minor damage. The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, of what weapons were found, of their state of damage, or of where they were stored before the destruction.

The extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption, just like the assumptions into the nature of the aircraft.

The conclusion is a bit forced but perfectly in line with the bent scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."

The authors succeeded in conveying the message that -- whatever the true source -- the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health, if indeed reported measurements can be trusted and despite the limited number of samples chosen for the bent scope study.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm

The radioactive decay product of tritium is a low energy beta that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of human skin. Therefore, the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion. In addition, due to the relatively long half life and short biological half life, an intake of tritium must be in large amounts to pose a significant health risk.

Miniscule

Debunkers try to explain WTC tritium away as miniscule, insignificant, and with negligent health impacts. With respect to where and how it was measured for the goals of their report to speculate about consumer RL devices, this does not have to be false. But with regards to the significance of even a miniscule amount being larger than expected, it does not have to be the complete story on 9/11 tritium, either.

No warranty, liability, or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information...

Before we end a review of the study, let's highlight its wonderful disclaimer:

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. ... This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.

Dr. Jones spinning it further

Now let us return to Dr. Jones' report, "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".

As proven above, Dr. Jones based his "no nukes" paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.

Dr. Jones uses the incomplete tritium numbers from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" and then frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb, and writes:

Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.

Assuming we can trust the measurements given in that report [a big assumption], it re-defines "trace" or "background" levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11 in order to downplay any adverse health effects. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates "trace" as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and then introduces a blatant logic error best summarized as follows:

"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."

Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.

Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn't measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.

Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:

Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?

This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed (e.g., upwards), and that large releases of tritium did not happen.

In other words, large releases of tritium probably did happen on 2001-09-11. Any conclusions that imply otherwise were based on measurements that were not taken systematically in a timely fashion and happened after much dilution in water (or dissipation in HT gas).

Brief Detour into Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons differ in how much heat, blast, light, pressure and radiation they produce. By altering the physical structure of the device and the proportion of its explosive components, different effects can be achieved. Let's take a brief detour into nuclear weapons, because 9/11 misconceptions are purposely created by mixing concepts of one with another to supposedly debunk that 9/11 was nuclear.

Fission Nuclear Weapons

9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear weapons based on the fission process, "in which isotopes of uranium or plutonium are compressed into a "critical mass or fissile core) and then split by heavy, sub-atomic particles called neutrons. The energized neutrons reproduce themselves in an explosive chain reaction. Each fission neutron reaction releases an average of three neutrons, yet these account for only a minimal proportion of the weapon's total energy output. By far the largest share is transmitted through the thermal heat and blast of recoiling fragments of radioactive uranium and plutonium atoms, which comprise most of the weapon's fall-out." [Source for quotations.] It is an uncontrolled chain reaction and thus a fraction of fissile material is fissioned. Fission products that are produced along with enormous amount of energy, disperse in the environment.

Fusion Nuclear Weapons

9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear based on the standard fusion process, in which the isotopes of the lightest element, hydrogen, namely deuterium and tritium, are combined into a slightly heavier atoms of helium through a reaction that is "triggered" by the tremendous temperatures (between 10-100 million degrees) and pressures generated by a fission explosion. At the instant of detonation, fusion weapons release about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects. A standard thermonuclear device will destroy buildings in a vast shockwave of heat and pressure. In addition to fission products we also have neutron-induced radioisotopes that are also dispersed along with enormous amount of energy in the environment.

Battlefield Neutron Weapons

9/11 did not employ a neutron weapon as intended for the battlefield. A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron bomb requires considerable amounts of tritium. It releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation (lethal to living tissue high-energy neutrons and gamma rays) while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes. The fission bomb is kept as small as one can assemble and the amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. Once the fission bomb raises the temperature so as to initiate tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction, the fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.

The battlefield application would ignite the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel. Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours. The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.

Tactical Neutron Weapons

9/11 changed the application of the fusion-based neutron weapons. Fusion nuclear weapons of tactical yield are hard to design and implement, with the probability of "nuclear fizzle" increasing as the explosive yield decreases. As the debunkers readily point out, even the smallest known conventional fusion bombs would be too energetic for the tactical destruction of 9/11.

However, when those same micro-nuke fusion bombs are configured as neutron bombs, the massive neutron radiation energy can be directed upwards, and the remaining blast and heat effects is decreased to a tactical level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

Officially known as enhanced radiation weapons, ERWs are more accurately described as suppressed yield weapons. When the yield of a nuclear weapon is less than one kiloton, its lethal radius from blast, 700 m (2300 ft), is less than that from its neutron radiation. However, the blast is more than potent enough to destroy most structures, which are less resistant to blast effects than even unprotected human beings. Blast pressures of upwards of 20 PSI are survivable, whereas most buildings will collapse with a pressure of only 5 PSI.

High Temperatures during the Destruction

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction by Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.

The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings. The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C).

...

The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules.

We observe spherules with high iron and aluminum contents, a chemical signature which is not consistent with formation from melted steel.

...

The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.

A neutron nuclear bomb could do this.

Under-Rubble Hot-Spots

"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones:

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 (Lipton and Revkin 2001).

What the Dust Reveals

From Jeff Prager's work. The contents of dozens of dust samples acquired by the US Geological Survey:

Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.

Dispelling the Error in the Belief: 9/11 was a Nuclear Event

From Veteran's Today:

To sum up the WTC1 and 2 operation: a series of shape charged mini-neutron bombs are detonated from the top of the buildings to the bottom to simulate a free fall collapse. Material is ejected upward and outward due to the shaping of the mini-nuke charges. Two giant 110 floor 500,000 ton skyscrapers are destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively. Cement and steel are turned into very small particles while paper blows down the street.

Why didn't the paper catch on fire? First it's hard to light a piece of paper on fire in a wind tunnel. Second the paper's high tensile strength to weight ratio allowed the lightweight paper to blow away in the blast wave while the heavier material was vaporized. Paper has give to it.

...

Why was there no flash? When small bombs are detonated inside of giant skyscrapers the flash is hidden from view.

When it's over, nuclear fissile material is leftover and it reacts for months creating 1,500 °F ground temperatures (China Syndrome).

Hundreds of dump trucks of dirt are required to be hauled in and out to clean up the mess.

The USGS collects dust samples that show elevated levels of uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium and chromium which indicates fission has taken place.

The DOE collects water samples that have elevated levels of tritium, which indicates fusion has taken place.

So a fission triggered fusion bomb such as a neutron bomb would explain the USGS and DOE samples quite nicely. So we have a text book case of nukes being used but the manner they were deployed in is so far from what the average person suspects that it takes years for the mini-nuke theory to gain prominence.

My beliefs regarding the causes of 9/11 destruction have morphed "all over the place" over time, as is fitting for how nuggets of truth reveal themselves in the 9/11 dis- and mis- information streams [which this very article is probably one.] This duped useful idiot apologizes in advance for any potential misleading. 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW changes the information and provides a new frame that is not yet fixed.

John Maynard Keynes is credited with saying: "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

// @ ~4,475 Words

x40 COTO Crew : Energy Weapons or Not

2012-12-21

By: dawnatilla on December 21, 2012 at 2:32 am

Not sure if you are referring to Energy Weapons or not.. but there is extensive evidence of this being the case. Not much else would have steel beams disintegrate in mid air, for one. Regarding the Mayan Calendar. It never indicated an end date. You did a really great job on this article.

By: hybridrogue1 on December 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Why a Part 2 that is essentially the same lame assumptions as part 1?

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any more sensible.

Dawn, no beams disintegrated in mid air.

Señor is referring to directed energy beam weapons powered by a neutron nuclear power source.

See, for rebuttal:

http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/

. . . . . . .

Have fun with this one Señor, I will leave you alone to speculate as you will here.

\\][//

x41 Señor El Once : Rogue's Rebuttal

2012-12-21

Dear Mr. Rogue,

I'm glad that you posted a link to your so-called "rebuttal." Technically, though, mi partidos uno y dos son rebuttals to your beliefs on the causalities of the WTC destruction.

What you hoist up as your rebuttal? If it don't address all of the points and all of the evidence, that dawg don't hunt.

Moreover, it ought to heed your own words: "Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any more sensible."

Partido 2 is neither the same as Partido 1 nor lame. Nunca partido is an "assumption." They happen to provide information (or truth) that Dr. Jones failed to mention.

John Maynard Keynes question is now directed at you:

"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"

Dear Ms. Dawnatilla,

You said that you weren't sure if I was referring to "Energy Weapons or not." Well, it isn't an energy weapon that you would plug into a nuclear reactor or into "free energy from space." The energy comes from nuclear sources (explosive devices) with a twist from how they have been heretofor discussed and framed in their PR tours.

Imagine going to a large food distributor, opening up every bulk-size can of restaurant (-- name of food --) in stock, consuming only a teaspoon total for your purposes, and then dumping the rest of the food from these large, open, bulk cans into the compost pile. (Such a waste, but you needed only a teaspoon.)

This is essentially what a neutron bomb does when deployed in a tactical situation and how it differs from other fission-triggered-fusion nuclear weapons. Instead of having the highly energetic neutrons bouncing around the nuclear material causing chain reactions leading to highly energetic blast and heat waves, these neutrons are allowed to escape and are directed upwards through the towers and into "the great compost pile of the sky." The "teaspoon" of nuclear energy that remains (per nuclear device) to fuel the blast and heat wave is sufficient to decimate the towers.

In the above sense, an ERW (enhanced radiation weapon) is an energy weapon and demonstrates considerably high levels compared to conventional chemical weapons.

You made the statement:

"Not much else (other than "energy weapons" would have steel beams disintegrate in mid air, for one."

I assume that you make this statement after reviewing some of Dr. Wood's work. I recall the specific example of the "spire" that she claims was "dustified." As far as I can tell, she bases this claim on one perspective of the spire's decimation. When other views are taken into consideration (which I don't think Dr. Wood did), the steel of the spire is shown (to my humble satisfaction) to be falling, albeit amidst concrete and "gluing" elements of the skeletal structure seeming turning to dust. The seeming dustification of steel in the spire is more of an optical illusion from that one particular viewing point.

This being said, a certain measure of steel "transformation" did occur near the ignition points of the neutron nuclear devices.

Recall that Dr. Harrit did some calculations based on the percentage of tiny iron spheres contained in the dust that was collected in neighboring buildings. His calculations were meant to explain how much nano-thermite would be required to react with steel to obtain such iron sphere by-products. The initial amount wasn't trivial, and helps exclude nano-thermite from being the primary destructive mechanism.

Spherical nuggets of iron truth remain to be explained.

The steel wasn't dustified or vaporized, but significant amounts of it were heated to extremely high temperatures, composite elements of the steel were separated (or burned off), and then these iron spheres were ejected large distances.

Here's my description of the neutron nuclear DEW distruction.

Up close to the ignition point, a blast wave with a limited radius (i.e., < 50m) and heat wave of intense heat and limited radius turn neighboring steel columns into tiny spheres of iron. As you get further away, the heat is still sufficiently hot to heat a steel beam end-to-end right to its core to a point where it can be easily bent and twisted.

The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) of such a tactical ERW ignited within the steel towers would be largely mitigated with respect to damage to things outside the towers. (Exceptions: Window slits and the chaos of demolition may have opened the path to explaining much of the anomalous vehicle damage.) Within the towers, the EMP effects are present but are overshadowed by other nuclear effects.

Recall that molecules and atoms are comprised mostly of space, and that neutrons do not carry an electric charge, unlike the protons (+) in the nucleus or the electrons (-) orbiting in clouds about the nucleus. Therefore, when additional numbers of neutral neutrals are aimed at a substance, the neutrons travel mostly through those vast amounts of atomic space, relatively speaking, and don't hit anything.

However in a nuclear situation when massive amounts of neutrons are aimed at a material at close range, occasionally those bombarding neutrons will act as overly energetic pool cue balls smacking against a nucleus rack of protons and neutrons, knocking them about, and possibly even launching things right off the pool table (e.g., out of their normal subatomic positions and orbits in the atom.) Chemically speaking, that molecule or atom could be "knocked into being" an electrically charged variant of a completely different element on the periodic table, while the dislodged protons and neutrons fly about and at some point maybe combine in the nucleus of other atoms, turning them as well into an electrically charged variant of completely different elements on the periodic table.

The amount of "energetic neutron cue ball" effects depends on the distance from the nuclear ignition as well as the atomic composition of the material. To our human visual perceptions, a neutron radiated steel beam might retain the appearances of that, although on molecular levels it displays embrittlement and highly localized micro fractures. In the periodic table of elements, iron is considered a rather stable element. The ingredients in concrete and drywall are other elements entirely whose cohesiveness at a construction material could be significantly and noticably compromised (into dust) when enough neighboring molecules get knocked into being other periodic elements.

So when Dr. Wood's writes about "disassociation" and "dustify" and when pictures show chucks of exterior walls falling with streaming trails of smoke and dust, they could be referencing the after-effects of highly energetic neutrons bombardment on those building's construction materials.

[By the way, this also explains why neutron radiation directed at living creatures is so deadly but not always immediately. When molecules of living tissue are altered in such a way, they introduce weaknesses or gaps in the body's natural barriers against disease and infection -- or even against bodily fluids from organs and waste products. The body poisons itself, but death isn't always quick.]

//

x42 hybridrogue1 : no basis for the assertion

2012-12-23

By: hybridrogue1 on December 23, 2012 at 7:33 pm

And I would explain that there is simply no basis for the assertion for an "unexplained" amount of of radiation in the aftermath of WTC.

http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911/

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 23, 2012 at 8:18 pm

Let me just make one central point here to do with the assertion that there is a nuclear aspect to 9/11 WTC.

The very first item to be addressed is PROOF, of inexplicable amounts of radiation. There simply are no such proofs offered.
Because of the ubiquitous nature of the substances offered, any small amounts over standard levels are simply not proofs of the nuclear aspect. A more readily available and rational answer for such minuscule amounts can be said to be the leakage from landfills in all of the US, this problem is epidemic because of lack of enforcement of environmental laws do to the political power of the industries that produce, use, and illegally dispose of such substances.

Any further hypothetical speculation based on the idea that it has already been proven that there are unaccountable amounts of radiation is then, simply hyperbole.

\\][//

x43 Señor El Once : Arrange the 9/11 evidence in a Soduku column differently

2012-12-25

I've been playing the Soduku that appear in my daily newspaper. Briefly for those unfamiliar with the 9-by-9 boxes, (a) every column of 9, (b) every row of 9, and (c) every grouping of 9 squares needs to have unrepeated the numbers 1-9. Seed numbers provided in certain cells help constrain the numbers that could appear in other cells of a given column, row, or 9-cell grouping.

Mr. Rogue's 9/11 comments reminds me of a Soduku game in-progress. The 9/11 Soduku seed numbers have been provided by many sources. The ordering of numbers in one "theory" column that Mr. Rogue champions are based on some assumptions that are fatal to ordering the numbers in other "evidence" rows.

I do not fault Mr. Rogue for having neither read nor comprehended my book-length postings word-for-word. However, contained therein is the explanation of those fatal assumptions: (1) the study of tritium and (2) Dr. Jones no-nukes paper that relied on the tritium study.

In a nutshell, the purpose of the study of tritium was (a) to document the seeming benign levels of tritium draining off of the WTC complex at limited points and (b) to speculate about potential consumer sources for those tritium levels. It never had any focus on completely documenting what the tritium levels at certain more critical locations within the WTC were. Once its purposes were achieved, the study stops. Aside from having errors in its mathematical models, it makes assumptions regarding contents of the aircraft as well as the number of damaged weapons and timepieces within the WTC.

So, in a very "garbage in, garbage out" sort of a way, Dr. Jones used this flawed study on tritium to support his contention of 9/11 not having any nuclear component. Both he and the study mischaracterize the measured elevated levels as being "trace" and "background." Then Dr. Jones pens a blatant logic error in his "no-nukes-whatsoever" conclusions.

And another 9/11 Soduku columns has Dr. Jones research into super nano-thermite, yet its proposed arrangement outright stymies two different rows having to do with pulverization amounts and amounts required to account for hot-spot duration. The 9/11TM is expected to swallow and champion that the true 9/11 conspirators, having deep pockets and access to every nookie-and-crany in the arsensals of the world, would not be tempted to deploy exotic means (e.g., neu nookiedoo, just a handful per structure), but would instead suffer the logistics hurdle of ginormously massive quantities of brissanty chemical explosives and incendiaries.

Owing to the fatal Soduku assumptions, Mr. Rogue is incorrect when he writes:
"The very first item to be addressed is PROOF, of inexplicable amounts of radiation. There simply are no such proofs offered.
Because of the ubiquitous nature of the substances offered, any small amounts over standard levels are simply not proofs of the nuclear aspect."

Radiation was indeed present, but owing to the design of the neu nookiedoo devices as well as how the energy was directed, the types and amounts of lingering radiation would have dissipated quickly and then would have been (and proved to be) minimal.

By the way, the aforementioned study on tritium at the WTC has nothing in its mathematical models to account for the tritium leakage from landfills. So, your guess is as good as mine from where Mr. Rogue pulled the following:

"A more readily available and rational answer for such minuscule amounts (of radiation) can be said to be the leakage from landfills in all of the US, this problem is epidemic because of lack of enforcement of environmental laws do to the political power of the industries that produce, use, and illegally dispose of such substances."

At this point, I need to thank Mr. Rogue for playing the "Dean Martin" straight-man to my whacky "Jerry Lewis," like when he writes:

"And I would explain that there is simply no basis for the assertion for an "unexplained" amount of of radiation in the aftermath of WTC. ... Any further hypothetical speculation based on the idea that it has already been proven that there are unaccountable amounts of radiation is then, simply hyperbole."

Look into the speculative techniques by which those papers tried to "account" for the "amounts of radiation," and astute thinkers will discover one of the major ways in which we and the 9/11TM were played into misguided beliefs of no-nukes. Arrange the 9/11 evidence in a Soduku column differently, and the mechanisms of future events might more readily come into focus.

Neutron Nuclear DEW Part 1: http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/

Neutron Nuclear DEW Part 2:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2

Hohoho! Merry Christmas!

//

x44 Señor El Once : Mr. Rogue's linked article is lacking

2012-12-25

The analysis in Mr. Rogue's linked article is lacking that definitely proves nano-thermites primary role in the WTC destruction. Sure, we can lend it credibility in being present and involved on 9/11.

Instead, the 9/11 Soduku numbers arrange themselves tighter with...

Neutron Nuclear DEW Part 1:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/

Neutron Nuclear DEW Part 2:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2

Hohoho! Merry Christmas!

//

x45 Señor El Once : what your expert "grokking" misses

2012-12-25

2012-12-25
2012-12-25

I will have no problems with convincing evidence and analysis knocked me off of my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse, but the latest entry into your support documentation -- "9/11: The World Trade Center Collapses" -- doesn't do it.

I am surprised at what your expert "grokking" misses. Just because your support documentation has nifty temperature charts relating to thermite and puts them within a few page-scrolls of images of bent pieces of 9/11 steel does ~not~ prove "cause-and-effect."

Let us be fair and objective about this. Make your case for how any amount of thermite mixed or not with RDX could sufficiently heat those ~adjacent~ steel beams so quickly and thorough to result in horseshoes and arches (and not blow them apart or leave other explosive marks.)

You see, your mixture is typically deployed in a fashion that is secured right on a steel beam in order to cut it in pieces or blast it to smithereens. I'm good with that. However, the bent beams in question were not wired for demolition; no marks of such are on them. If we stay within the story of thermite, those steel beams were most likely in the vacinity of such. While those colorful charts of temperatures that thermite et al can reach are appropriate for the "burning/cutting edge," their hot temperature decreases with distance from that edge. The arches themselves needed to be thoroughly heated outside-in, end-to-end to give us what resulted.

Show me the math and science on how thermite can heat steel beams one or more steel beams over, outside-in, end-to-end to make such smooth arches possible. And while you are at it, include calculations -- from Dr. Jones perhaps -- regarding how much would be required and how long it would take. Put it into a spreadsheet as a function of distance. Not a wild-goose chase or busy work, I assure you. You champion it? You own it; you defend it appropriately with math and science. That link? It doesn't. It just provides innuendo.

On the other hand, if the source of the heat is a nuclear reaction from a neutron bomb and with its ignition temperature levels reaching several orders of magnitude hotter than those colorful charts, its ability to make hefty steel beams pliable and bendable is much easier to believe. That's where I'm at.

//

x46 Señor El Once : "Inexplicable?!!!" El-Oh-El !!!

2012-12-26
2012-12-26

With lots of vin and vigor comes the PR assertion from Mr. Rogue:

"I don't need to do math or sort numbers to address your faulty assumptions Señor."

Yes, he does.

What he calls "assumptions" is evidence that theories of super-duper nano-thermite (and RDX) do not adequately address. Case in point, pay attention to the phrase "like a foundry" in the following:

"To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being "like a foundry" down in that mess."

What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures? Let me guess. I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling, just a few of the many deployed. The alternative theories based on chemical-based explosive and incendiary materials? How long is that imaginary garden hose in which they are packed for their known brissanty burn-rates to account the many-week duration of hot-spots?

Readers of the forum should note the skillful PR hypnotic suggestion:

"But most important you have no proof of inexplicable radiation. You have no basis thereof to argue that case."

"Inexplicable?!!!" El-Oh-El !!! In other words, if an explanation is provided by the government for the tritium radiation, no matter how lame it is revealed to be from deeper investigation in terms of being able to address comprehensively something other than its "bent scope" of plausible consumer RL devices -- that it hasn't proven and still speculates --, the very fact that it is an explanation means "inexplicable radiation" can be skewered, eh? Most clever and deceitful wordsmithery.

Pay attention to the radiation signature of a neutron nuclear device, technically a fission-triggered-fusion device that allows its neutrons to escape in a directed fashion (upwards). What sort of lingering radiation does it leave?

Let's put it this way. The closer to the time and place of ignition that measurements are taken, the better, because signature alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation will be greatly dissipated within 48-72 hours. And tritiated water gets diluted, particularly through the actions of firemen and heavy rain storms. Tritium, tritium, tritium. Even in miniscule quantities that are proven to be greater than trace levels, it supports nuclear themes.

"The study on tritium" meets the objectives of its "bent scope" admirably, but when properly understood, it also completely undermines the foundation of Dr. Jones no-nukes article that tries to use it to say "there wasn't much radiation or tritium. Period." The "bent scope" didn't require timely samples taken from relevant locations that included close to hot-spots.

In addition as a blatant omission, Dr. Jones' analysis of the dust reveal nano-thermite flakes but not correlations of elements proving that fission occurred; neither he nor AE911Truth tested for other explosive residue (e.g., RDX) in the dust. WTF is up with that?

Upon what does the 911TM build its no-nukes beliefs?

Geez, and I call myself the duped useful idiot. ... If my belief foundation is proven faulty, I change my beliefs. So,...

//

x47 Señor El Once : pulling this "industrial dumping" out of your ass

2012-12-26
2012-12-26

Dear Mr. Rogue wrote:

As I have pointed out in the commentary section of my post [1], the minuscule quantities of tritium are hardly inexplicable.

It don't mean shit that the tritium was minuscule, Mr. Rogue. In fact, you are letting this dupe you just because the levels measured at far flung places and days later were below EPA levels, so were christened "safe for humans."

What matters is that the tritium measured was significantly greater than would be expected. And you would already know this if you had bothered to read my postings on your prologue before having deleted them out of spite, not for their foul language or ad hominem.

Please provide the sources for this:

All it proves is that industrial pollution is at epidemic levels in criminal industrial dumping at landfills.

As far as I can tell, you are pulling this "industrial dumping" out of your ass. Link me to the official 9/11 report that says that industrial dumping at landfills had leakage ~back~ to the WTC to explain their elevated tritium levels on 9/11.

Fool. The tritium ticket was one-way, draining from the WTC complex into various water ways. The tritium was not leaching back from industrial dumping "far, far, away." And the perpetrators of 9/11 knew this, which is why they bent the scope on the study of tritium and brainstormed tritium sources at the WTC such as airplane exit signs, weapons gun sights, and timepieces... And still had problems with errors in the mathematical modeling as well as evidence. Speculation at its finest!

I think you don't know squat and haven't reviewed the "study on tritium" (or my review) to fully appreciate its "bent scope". The surprise is that this report supports neither Dr. Jones in his no-nukes analysis nor you in your claims of industrial pollution being the source of the tritium.

I appreciate your sentiments of "fuck it" when dealing with me and wish that you would get there sooner.

//

x48 Señor El Once : attempted character assassination

Now I will move on and dispense with your latest posting. Jeff Prager wrote:

Dr. Jones is a fraud.

Mr. Rogue has written on multiple occassions:

And this is the real motive behind Prager's efforts.... It is the attempted character assassination of Prof. Jones.

No, character assassination is what you do quite well, Mr. Rogue.

What is the difference? The failings, errors, omissions, and faulty assumptions of Dr. Jones' ~work~ have been brought to light also on many occassions.

I could cut you some slack in not defending Dr. Jones errors, but instead you do the sneaky thing of not even acknowledging the blatant errors in his ~work~. You play the game of getting bent out of shape and ~falsely~ accusing others of "Dr. Jones bashing."

Where do you get off, Mr. Rogue, in your efforts to defend the character of Dr. Jones when his ~work~ is ligitimately disected and attacked? Why do you always pull the "personal" card? It seems rather hypocritical of you to defend Dr. Jones while attacking Dr. Wood, whose book you have not mined for nuggets of truth.

What is really sad is that the more I dive into Dr. Jones ~work~ on 9/11 themes, the more I'm in agreement with Mr. Prager's statement "Dr. Jones is a fraud." This isn't to say that Dr. Jones never earned a PhD, never taught nuclear physics at BYU, never was a real person, etc. No, no, no.

Because I am so naive and gullible, you'll have to tell me when a person's dishonest actions, skew, and "bent scoped" ~work~ on the 9/11 theme tips them over the edge of getting their life summed up as being a "fraud."

BTW, the smoking gun quotation you think is being buried? Au contraire! Been there, done that... on 2012-12-05, to be exact, which you deleted. You obviously didn't remember it, that's assuming you read it before purging it, because your arguments are so weak, challenges to their hynotic authority must be deleted. Here was my response on that particular point:

I can embrace the quoted passage from Dr. Jones in its entirety as being valid. The issue is that the "unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust" is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well. Do the math and run the number (or have Dr. Jones do it.)

What does Dr. Jones have to say on the matter? He and Mr. Ryan suspect that the "unspent aluminothermic explosives" account for six or so spikes in the gaseous output of the smoldering WTC pile. But at the end of September (2012), Dr. Jones was saying "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)." Mr. Rogue should enlighten us exactly what was that "something" that "maintained those high temperatures."

In summary, Mr. Rogue tried the clever ploy of labeling criticism of the ~work~ of Dr. Jones as being an attempted character assassination of Dr. Jones. Two points, because it attempts to character assassinate the critics. And then while side-stepping the criticism, Mr. Rogue brings up a point -- a quotation -- that was already addressed on his home court, but Mr. Rogue deleted it.

//

x49 Señor El Once : Fizzle is not fission

If it wasn't nuclear fizzle, what was it? How were the temperatures maintained between energetic spikes, spikes that by themselves were attributed by Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan to energetic materials?

Your clueless understudy must be making your postings now.

Yes, fission is radioactive. Fission-triggered-fusion in the neutron bomb.

Fizzle is not fission. What it releases in radioactivity could be easily contained in the PR sense when the official reports on such can so easily be assigned "bent scopes." (You make up the fifth column in those media efforts, it seems.)

//

x50 Señor El Once : Nice lie about your motives

By: hybridrogue1 on December 26, 2012 at 10:10 pm

Listen you prick, you know very well that the reason I deleted you on my Prologue thread is because of your hysterical bullshit about me "puppeting" A Wright. Don't pretend you don't remember.

Oh poor poor Señor El Once, didn't say any "ad hominems – why oh why does that mean Willy delete my 2000 word comments???"

Fuck you Señor El Once.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: Señor El Once on December 27, 2012 at 12:45 am

Mr. Rogue, son of a Mrs. [x]. A. Wright, ...

Nice lie about your motives for deletion, but it don't fly.

First, you have demonstrated your skills at editing my postings in your threads. You could have edited out any personally offending sentences, while leaving the other statements in place. Nope. You didn't, because your case doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Second, your reactions deviate from the topic so that you can play the victim, instigate a flame war, and stay off-topic: neu nookiedoo.

Third, you forgot to mention the casting of agency aspirations onto you as supposedly grounds for giving me the "silent treatment." Alas, this, too, is something you could edit out if you found offensive.

Fourth, you're the one getting all hysterical and re-animating the coincidence that I simply pointed out, that I haven't been milking, and that wouldn't be damning if you wouldn't engage Mr. A. Wright in nonsense, no less. Kick that sleeping dog, why don't you, Mr. Rogue?

You have a very telling guilty reaction, Mr. Rogue. In your ego-manical stupidity, what are the consequences, if true, of you sticking your hand up the butt of an internet sock-puppet? It wasn't as if you were tag-teaming them and gang-banging faux concensus on a topic in a thread... (Were you?) It wasn't as if you were banned and resurrecting yourself. All good stories need both a protagonist and an antagonist, so, if true, you were simply penning both sides to get conflict and attract reader interest, like all great authors do. If true, your biggest crime might be operating both handles of the pincer attack to steer Mr. McKee's forum.

Yep, lots of "if true's" there to underscore that I don't know anything except that your over-reactions over-play your hand and add more life to the charge.

Fifth, the COTO Rules of Engagement:

Personal attacks are not allowed, and will be deleted. ... The first offense will result in a warning. The second offense will result in moderation. The third offense will result in removal from the site.

In other words, Mr. Rogue, I do not have to tolerate your foul language directed at me on my threads or on yours. Don't get yourself removed from your home COTO court on a technicality... listed, dated, and linked to make the admin's judgment call a no-brainer.

Too bad I have real-life plans for 2013 completely different from the funny cyber game of getting you to foul yourself out. Avoid comments like your last one, and you'll easily outlast me.

//

x51 Señor El Once : COTO Rules of Engagement

Mr. Rogue writes so eloquently on the day after Christmas:
"I take that back Senor, fuck you. Fuck you twice to make up for it."

Twice it is. Refer to the COTO Rules of Engagement:
"Personal attacks are not allowed, and will be deleted. ... The first offense will result in a warning. The second offense will result in moderation. The third offense will result in removal from the site."

x52 hybridrogue1 : a cesspool swirling without a mind

2012-12-27

>"What is really sad is that the more I dive into Dr. Jones ~work~ on 9/11 themes, the more I'm in agreement with Mr. Prager's statement "Dr. Jones is a fraud." This isn't to say that Dr. Jones never earned a PhD, never taught nuclear physics at BYU, never was a real person, etc. No, no, no.

Because I am so naive and gullible, you'll have to tell me when a person's dishonest actions, skew, and "bent scoped" ~work~ on the 9/11 theme tips them over the edge of getting their life summed up as being a "fraud."

BTW, the smoking gun quotation you think is being buried? Au contraire! Been there, done that… on 2012-12-05, to be exact, which you deleted. You obviously didn't remember it, that's assuming you read it before purging it, because your arguments are so weak, challenges to their hynotic authority must be deleted. Here was my response on that particular point:

I can embrace the quoted passage from Dr. Jones in its entirety as being valid. The issue is that the "unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust" is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well. Do the math and run the number (or have Dr. Jones do it.)"~Max Bridges on DECEMBER 26, 2012 – 8:48 PM
At:

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/exploring-the-darker-mechanisms-of-reality-prologue-to-new-911-book-hits-home/
. . . . . . . . . . . .

Señor is a liar when he says:
"is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well."

Jones has insisted over and again that he sees the thermate as only one of a variety of explosives used to bring down the WTC complex. And you know this perfectly well Señor.

And Señor is a liar to complain that he does not defame Jones, yet in the very same post calls him a fraud.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-28

>"Nice lie about your motives for deletion, but it don't fly."~Señor el Prick,

12/27/2012 {on his second article on nookeedoodoo on C1}

On the contrary, it is Señor el Once aka Maxwell Bridges {both masks for an anonymous phantom}, who is the liar.
As is posted above on this very thread, I explained my reason for disallowing this traitor from posting on this thread. See:

> November 29, 2012 at 1:50 pm
> again on November 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm
> and yet again, November 30, 2012 at 1:34 pm

He is also a pig {a cop} and a PR man for the same cabal of 9/11 movement infiltrators that brought us Judy Woowoo; The Morgan Reynolds-Jim Fetzer Gang, which includes Jeff Prager and numerous other shills.

Bridges has attempted to frame me by projecting his MO onto me from the very first moment that I began posting on the blog, Truth and Shadows more than a year and a half ago now.

The entire thrust of this shill campaign is to defame Professor Steven Jones.
As Bridges admits above in reference to Jones; "…tips them over the edge of getting their life summed up as being a "fraud."

He tries to suggest this is something new, that perhaps just recently he came to this conclusion. However this is rhetorical innuendo, he has been bashing Jones with false allegations for this entire year and a half that I have had the misfortune of dealing with this disingenuous, lying piece of fecal matter.

Yes, I ACCUSE; the PR person known as Maxwell Bridges, of being an "industrial strength" stooge for the system, who is purposely spreading disinformation to confuse and disrupt the actual findings of truth in the forensic studies of the 9/11 event.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-28

Rather than use the "Pons Fleishman Ploy," a scandalous defamation by Wood and Reynolds early on in this attack on the reputation of Dr. Jones, Bridges uses a long, complex fraudulent deconstruction of the works of Jones; building a twisted tower of Newspeak rhetoric to befuddle those who cannot follow a technical argument. It is an appeal to a lower common denominator. His arguments may seem plausible at a glance, but if one thinks them through they are nothing but pure air, puffed up with nothing but speculation. In admitting that there is not ample radiation, he appeals to "special radiation" of ther neutron bomb type, which doesn't last long. Yes, it is plausible, but it is more reasonable when all the facts are taken into account that there is no radiation because there was none to begin with.

He discounts the most simple and reasonable explanation for the presence of tritium in ever so slightly higher counts than advisable by the EPA, instead claiming this is "Proof" of the use of a nuclear device at WTC on 9/11.

Bridges hasn't spoken much to the fraudulent assertions of "radiation sickness" in the first responders, but that twaddle is well dispensed with as well, just by close attention to actual data.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-28
I now amend the second to last paragraph of the post just above.

I now reject this anonymous stooge known as, Señor El Once and aka Maxwell Bridges. I do not consider him to be a legitimate member of COTO, but an intruder.

He is a stranger in our house.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 27, 2012 at 6:47 pm

2012-12-28

I wouldn't be surprised if YOU'RE the one doing the A Wright postings on T+S el Ouncy Bouncy…you think like a cop. You project your trip on others. You are a skunkwalker Maxifartius. The stench is unmistakable.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm

To the tune of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow":

Sometiem ober da Reignbauhaus You vill find
yourself in a cesspool swirling without a mind

\\][//

x53 Señor El Once : Personal attacks are not allowed

2012-12-27

I did not establish the rules to which all participants agreed that say in part:

"Personal attacks are not allowed, and will be deleted. ... The first offense will result in a warning. The second offense will result in moderation. The third offense will result in removal from the site."

However, rules aren't exclusively meant as a constraint on our actions. Those same rules offer protection, the same measure to all, both when adhered to and when fairly applied. Actions-and-consequences.

So quickly does the Christmas spirit evaporate from Mr. Rogue's demeanor and merits being POLICED. Here's the running tally since then of Mr. Rogue's personal attacks against me.

(2012-12-26) "You prick... [Anglo Saxon] you."
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-38307

(2012-12-27) "Yea yea Sashadick..."
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-38315

(2012-12-27) "[Anglo Saxon] you. [Anglo Saxon] you twice to make up for it."
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/time-to-get-away-from-the-dregs-put-up-something-that-you-enjoy/#comment-38317

(2012-12-27) "Maxifartimus"
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/21008/#comment-38316

(2012-12-27) "You think like a cop... You are a skunkwalker Maxifartius."
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/sandy-hooked-the-best-whodunnit-of-2012#comment-38328

(2012-12-28) "Señor el Prick... is the liar... traitor... He is also a pig {a cop} and a PR man for the same cabal of 9/11 movement infiltrators that brought us Judy Woowoo... this disingenuous, lying piece of fecal matter. ... an "industrial strength" stooge for the system."
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-38377

(2012-12-28) "reject this anonymous stooge known as, Señor El Once"
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/prologue-new-wave-911#comment-38382

x54 hybridrogue1 : no valid replacement

- "Fizzling" is a bullshit term? (2012-03-14)

2012-12-26
hybridrogue1
December 26, 2012 – 9:55 pm

And you know why I delete you there Señor, because of something aside from this banter about nookeedoodoo.

"Dr. Jones was saying "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."

Yes you cling to this passing phrase as if it is gold, while dismissing everything else the man has said. THAT is bias Señor, that is why I deplore your entire thrust of argumentation.

I advised that you read that article I posted to Mr McKee because if you did read and grok what was therein, you would realize that the witness testimony alone verifies many small and large explosions throughout the entire sequence that simply cannot be accounting for anything nuclear. There is NOTHING in the profile of the event to suggest nukes, there is nothing in the aftermath that indicates nukes, no matter how you rave.

You can dispense with nothing phantom jet, as you have no valid replacement.

Enough, I have had enough of you Señor, your thinking is assbackwards. Your speculation does not jive with the actual data. You are thumping a dead hobby horse.
It's taking you NOWHERE.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-28
hybridrogue1
December 28, 2012 – 1:38 am

Señor is a liar when he says on the 26th at 2012 – 8:48 PM:

>"{Thermate} is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well."

Jones has insisted over and again that he sees the thermate as only one of a variety of explosives used to bring down the WTC complex. And Señor knows this perfectly well.

And Señor is a liar to complain that he does not defame Jones, yet in the very same post calls him a fraud.

\\][//

x55 Señor El Once : There is no spoon

2012-12-29

2012-12-29 December 29, 2012 – 7:03 pm
2012-12-29 December 29, 2012 at 7:03 pm

For the benefit of Mr. Rogue and lurker readers,

I do not dispute the validity of pointing out the hyperbole of my statement:

"The 'unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust' is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well."

My thinking was actually:

"Chemical explosives and incendiaries are being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well."

Dr. Jones certainly has been saying that his nano-thermite (NT) does not account for everything in the destruction of the towers or the maintenance of under-rubble hot-spot temperatures; NT had help. To account for pulverization, Dr. Jones has suggested RDX for its brissance. Too bad that at the other end in accounting for the maintenance & duration of under-rubble temperatures, RDX's burn-rate (or that of slower nano-thermite) mathematically implies massive amounts of such chemical explosives and incendiaries that were ~unspent~ from their original pulverizing purpose.

Dr. Jones said in September 2012:

"Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."

So what was that something? Dr. Jones is careful not to say it was RDX, because that doesn't help explain the evidence, it confounds it. What does Mr. Rogue say the something was?

Mr. Rogue accuses me:

Yes you cling to this passing phrase as if it is gold, while dismissing everything else the man has said. THAT is bias Señor, that is why I deplore your entire thrust of argumentation.

Before explaining why I cling to that passing phrase of Dr. Jones, I refer fact-checking readers to my posting from December 26, 2012 – 8:48 pm, where the third noted quotation is coincidently my own words that say:

"I can embrace the quoted passage from Dr. Jones in its entirety as being valid."

Thus, the accusation of me "dismissing ~everything~ else the man [Dr. Jones] has said" is easily shot-down, while at the same time demonstrating a failed hynotic assertion, one of many that fills Mr. Rogue's work.

High school writing classes teach students ~not~ to use over-generalizations in their persuasive papers, phrases with "all", "every", "always", "none", "never", "NOTHING" etc. An opponent merely has to find a single exception to discredit the assertion.

So curious readers of this discussion [on Truth & Shadows and COTO] might ask themselves: why did Mr. Rogue fall into this very sophomoric trap of setting his own argumentation up for defeat in the following quote?

The answer is that his hypnotic writing had another purpose in "dubiously persuading" readers.

... the witness testimony alone verifies many small and large explosions throughout the entire sequence that simply cannot be accounting for anything nuclear. There is NOTHING in the profile of the event to suggest nukes, there is nothing in the aftermath that indicates nukes, no matter how you rave. You can dispense with nothing phantom jet, as you have no valid replacement.

[*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

Mr. Rogue is welcome to twist and spin the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks to fit into his holy theory stack: chemical explosives and incendiaries supposedly being the primary WTC destructive mechanism. However, mostly Mr. Rogue's words right back at him:

There is SOMETHING in the profile of the event to suggest nukes, there is something in the aftermath that indicates nukes, no matter how [Mr. Rogue raves. He] can dispense with nothing phantom jet, as [he has] no valid replacement.

To be exact, multiple fission-triggered-fusion neutron directed energy weapons. Neu Nookiedoo Eins und Neu Nookiedoo Zwei. We are probably safe in assuming that this 2012-12-28 posting reflects Mr. Rogue's opinion.

[Señor El Once] uses a long, complex fraudulent deconstruction of the works of Jones; building a twisted tower of Newspeak rhetoric to befuddle those who cannot follow a technical argument. It is an appeal to a lower common denominator. His arguments may seem plausible at a glance, but if one thinks them through they are nothing but pure air, puffed up with nothing but speculation.

[*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

Mr. Rogue also mentioned:

I advised that you read that article I posted to Mr McKee because if you did read and grok what was therein, you would realize that the witness testimony alone verifies many small and large explosions throughout the entire sequence that simply cannot be accounting for anything nuclear.

The same witness testimony of small and large explosions throughout can account for something nuclear, because the nookiedoo speculation is (a) that multiple such devices were deployed throughout the WTC, (b) that a neutron bomb's audio signature from its very design that limits its blast wave could be what witnesses heard, and (c) that nookiedoo is not mutually exclusive with anything due to the thoroughness and redundancies to assure the success of the operation.

It appears that I grok the article better than Mr. Rogue does. Nobody including myself is disputing super-duper nano-thermite's involvement, which the article makes a good case for. The controversy is when we assume this Wunderwaffe played a primary role. Moreover, the article does ~not~ define the configuration of said super-duper nano-thermite that can account for horse-shoes and arches, despite their pretty pictures nearby. Something else was involved.

[*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

So quickly does the Christmas spirit evaporate from Mr. Rogue's demeanor and merits being "POLICED" even by moderators of his COTO home court.

(2012-12-26): Enough, I have had enough of you Señor, your thinking is assbackwards. Your speculation does not jive with the actual data. You are thumping a dead hobby horse. It's taking you NOWHERE.

(2012-12-28): I now reject this anonymous stooge known as, Señor El Once... I do not consider him to be a legitimate member of COTO, but an intruder. He is a stranger in our house.

And that is not all. Here's the running tally since then of Mr. Rogue's personal attacks against me.

(2012-12-26): "You prick... Fuck you."

(2012-12-27): "Yea yea Sashadick..."

(2012-12-27): "Fuck you. Fuck you twice to make up for it."

(2012-12-27): "Maxifartimus"

(2012-12-27): "You think like a cop... You are a skunkwalker Maxifartius."

(2012-12-28): "Señor el Prick... is the liar... traitor... He is also a pig {a cop} and a PR man for the same cabal of 9/11 movement infiltrators that brought us Judy Woowoo... this disingenuous, lying piece of fecal matter. ... an "industrial strength" stooge for the system."

Rules, such as those of forums regarding personal attacks against its members, aren't exclusively meant as a constraint on our actions. Those same rules offer protection, the same measure to all, both when adhered to and when fairly applied.

Here's a great quote from Mr. Rogue 2012-12-28:

[Señor El Once] has attempted to frame me by projecting his MO onto me from the very first moment that I began posting on the blog, Truth and Shadows more than a year and a half ago now. ... [Señor El Once] has been bashing Jones with false allegations for this entire year and a half that I have had the misfortune of dealing with this disingenuous, lying piece of fecal matter.

Ooops, Mr. Rogue, son of Mrs. [x.] A. Wright! Technically a year-and-a-half ago (July 2011), Mr. McGee and I were having stilted discussions with a T&S participant A.Wright. The alias hybridrogue1 did not enter the T&S forums until late Janaury 2012. So, I do not dispute Mr. Rogue's memory on this or his claim of battling me back in the A.Wright-only days, but do dispute who is projecting whose MO onto whom.

(2012-12-28): I wouldn't be surprised [Señor El Once] if YOU'RE the one doing the A Wright postings on T+S el Ouncy Bouncy…you think like a cop. You project your trip on others. You are a skunkwalker Maxifartius. The stench is unmistakable.

(2012-12-28): [Señor El Once] is also a pig {a cop} and a PR man for the same cabal of 9/11 movement infiltrators that brought us Judy Woowoo; The Morgan Reynolds-Jim Fetzer Gang, which includes Jeff Prager and numerous other shills. ... The entire thrust of this shill campaign is to defame Professor Steven Jones.

El-Oh-El !!! *Clap* *clap* *clap* !!! Bravo! You almost had me believing it, too.

Yes, I ACCUSE; the PR person known as [Señor El Once], of being an "industrial strength" stooge for the system, who is purposely spreading disinformation to confuse and disrupt the actual findings of truth in the forensic studies of the 9/11 event.

El-Oh-El !!! *Clap* *clap* *clap* !!! Bravo!

[*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

You are thumping a dead hobby horse.
It's taking you NOWHERE.

[*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

Kicking the alledged dead hobby horse, "neu nookiedoo", into a trott.

There is no spoon.

// El-Oh-El

x56 hybridrogue1 : you're the cops

2012-12-28

2012-12-28

By: hybridrogue1 on December 28, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Rather than use the "Pons Fleishman Ploy," a scandalous defamation by Wood and Reynolds early on in this attack on the reputation of Dr. Jones, Bridges uses a long, complex fraudulent deconstruction of the works of Jones; building a twisted tower of Newspeak rhetoric to befuddle those who cannot follow a technical argument. It is an appeal to a lower common denominator. His arguments may seem plausible at a glance, but if one thinks them through they are nothing but pure air, puffed up with nothing but speculation. In admitting that there is not ample radiation, he appeals to "special radiation" of ther neutron bomb type, which doesn't last long. Yes, it is plausible, but it is more reasonable when all the facts are taken into account that there is no radiation because there was none to begin with.

He discounts the most simple and reasonable explanation for the presence of tritium in ever so slightly higher counts than advisable by the EPA, instead claiming this is "Proof" of the use of a nuclear device at WTC on 9/11.

Bridges hasn't spoken much to the fraudulent assertions of "radiation sickness" in the first responders, but that twaddle is well dispensed with as well, just by close attention to actual data.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-29
By: hybridrogue1 on December 29, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letters, November 2012
The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham
By Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman

After evaluation of the Pentagon events, we conclude that Wyndham's paper has several flaws that undermine his argument and conclusions, which we discuss in detail below.

Negating his own professed standard, Wyndham fails to consider evidence that conflicts with or undermines the plausibility of his own theory. His paper therefore appears to suffer from "advocacy-based thinking," in which his theory is promoted without objective consideration of the full range of relevant evidence.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012NovemberFletcherEastman.pdf

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-29
By: hybridrogue1 on December 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm

"Inexplicable" – Meaning, no explicit explanation, or no rational argument or proofs.

I have argued herein that there are no inexplicable amounts of radiation found in the aftermath of the WTC destruction. The use of this word has been seized by Mr Bridges and called a rhetorical "hypnotic" suggestion, and claiming it is false and "tricky" argument.

It is however a FACT that the levels of radiation recorded at the WTC are minuscule and in fact ubiquitous in the postmodern industrial world. In other words there is indeed an explicit explanation and rational argument for the presence of the substances at the levels found, and these explanations are far more rational than speculation of a nuclear cause for the destruction of the towers.

I have mentioned that the EPA has posted that tritium is a special problem at landfills because the leachiate systems now used do not prevent the leaking of tritium into the environment and water-table. This information from the EPA is not in anyway connected to the events of 9/11. It is also a fact that corporate industry continues illegal dumping of all manner of toxic substances despite the EPA guidelines, and this is due to the impunity derived by the political power of such corporations.

Elsewhere I have gone through a discussion of each of the "suspect" substances that are offered by the argument for nuclear 9/11, and shown what they are used for by industry and how industrial pollution can account for their presence – not only at the WTC aftermath, but as an ongoing hazard on it's own.

All of this that I have covered is now hand-waved by Bridges as something I have "pulled from my own ass" {to paraphrase}. As I said above, Bridges "projects" his own PR techniques upon me as a ploy to shield the fact that it is HIS game to make speculation up out of whole cloth spinning convoluted yarns that are in reality a vast series of non sequiturs.

I have come to the firm conclusion that Mr Bridges is doing this by design, that he is too smart to be making such obvious logical errors. This combined with his history of attempting to frame me as an "agent" leads me to conclude that it is in fact he that is the agent in this situation. Again, it is revealed in his "projections" directed at myself.

It is obvious that Bridges has only one agenda, and that was his only impetus for joining COTO, and that was to set up a kiosk to sell his nukeedoodoo PR product. His half hearted attempts to join in on conversations beyond this subject are obviously feeble and trivial.

He says that his "real life" will soon draw him away from the subject and his activities on COTO – let us hope this is true, that his contract has run out on this trip and he has a new assignment.

Let us then, bid him Audoodoo.

By: hybridrogue1 on January 1, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Source as per my third paragraph above:

"A recently documented source of tritium in the environment is tritium exit signs that have been illegally disposed of in municipal landfills. Water, which seeps through the landfill, is contaminated with tritium from broken signs and can pass into water ways, carrying the tritium with it. Current treatment of landfill leachates do not remove tritium."

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.html

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 29, 2012 at 9:00 pm

THE PRAGER PSYOP

>"The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance "~Prager

Bullshit, Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The "fission pathway" is nothing but it's natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.~ww

>"Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm."~Prager

"Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm … Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm…Yttrium is used in the production of a large variety of synthetic garnets,[51] and yttria is used to make yttrium iron garnets (Y3Fe5O12 or YIG), which are very effective microwave filters.[4] Yttrium, iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3(Fe,Al)5O12 and Y3(Fe,Ga)5O12) have important magnetic properties.[4] YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer.[52] Yttrium aluminium garnet (Y3Al5O12 or YAG) has a hardness of 8.5 and is also used as a gemstone in jewelry (simulated diamond).[4] Cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals are used as phosphors to make white LEDs.
Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount.[40] With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations.[40]

The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs.[5] Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium

The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission.*
Ferrite magnets and refining zinc.[2]
Strontium titanate has an extremely high refractive index and an optical dispersion greater than that of diamond, making it useful in a variety of optics applications. This quality has also led to its being cut into gemstones, in particular as a diamond simulant. However, it is very soft and easily scratches so it is rarely used.[2]
Strontium carbonate, strontium nitrate, and strontium sulfate are commonly used in fireworks for red color, and sometimes for other colors too.
Strontium aluminate is used as a bright phosphor with long persistence of phosphorescence.
Strontium chloride is sometimes used in toothpastes for sensitive teeth. One popular brand includes 10% total strontium chloride hexahydrate by weight.
Strontium oxide is sometimes used to improve the quality of some pottery glazes.
Strontium ranelate is used in the treatment of osteoporosis. It is a prescription drug in the EU, but not in the USA.
Strontium barium niobate can be used in outdoors holographic 3D displays as a "screen".[40]
Strontium phosphide is an inorganic compound with the formula Sr3P2 and is used as a laboratory reagent and in the manufacture of chemically reactive devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

*In 2001 most personal computers were still using CRT displays {same as TVs}. It wasn't until 2003 that the price of flat screens became compatible with the CRT. I was still using a CTR at work all the way until 2008.

All of the substances found it the WTC dust are in fact ubiquitous with modern industrial uses, and are also a major portion of the contaminants at municipal landfills.

\\][//

+++++++++
By: hybridrogue1 on December 29, 2012 at 9:09 pm

THERMOBARIC WEAPONS

Perhaps thermobaric aerosols were the grand disintegration final explosions. But we must also take into account the prepping cutter charges, likely nano-RDX, and incendiaries of likely Thermite Plasma Arc devices, plus the real likelihood that the so-called fireproofing was sprayed on thermite. By 9/11 the towers were probably loaded to the gills with sundry sol-gel products of varying natures for a variety of jobs. One of which was for a good amount to survive the blasts and end up in the aftermath pile to continue melting the metal and burning as much evidence as possible.
. . . . . .

A Further Note on the Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust Due To Its Nano-Particulate Nature:

RJ Lee report:

"Additionally, WTC Dust can be differentiated from other building dust on the basis of its unique composition and morphology. WTC Dust Markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have undergone high stress and high temperature. *Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in "typical" indoor dusts."

Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-29
hybridrogue1
December 29, 2012 – 9:31 pm

Keeeyriced on a Krakker – I am sure that the Nookeedodod Buckaroo will appreciate that I am sick of his frickin' carousel…Let the blathering bla bla bla stand for what it is, a delusional trot fest. There are no spurs.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-29
By: hybridrogue1 on December 29, 2012 at 11:56 pm

You're the cops Max, as sure as if you had flashed a badge.
That is no hobby horse, it is a piebald cruiser with lights on top.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-30
By: hybridrogue1 on December 30, 2012 at 12:03 pm

You're the cops Max, as sure as if you had flashed a badge.
That is no hobby horse, it is a piebald cruiser with lights on top.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-30
2012-12-30

By: hybridrogue1 on December 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm

"High school writing classes teach students ~not~ to use over-generalizations in their persuasive papers, phrases with "all", "every", "always", "none", "never", "NOTHING" etc. An opponent merely has to find a single exception to discredit the assertion."~Señor El Once

"When I look back on all the CRAP I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all."~Simon and Garfunkel – 'Kodachrome'

This is epistemic bullshit. These "over-generalizations" are well recognized in common speech to be amended as "practically speaking", that in a "practical" sense, the use of such terms can only be attacked by rhetorical disingenuous arguments that will claim that a singe item can pull down an entire argument for the casual use of everyday language.

We do not speak here in a formal debating club. And reaching to such hyperbole bullshit as being spewed by Señor El Once is just another fucked up game that this guy plays. This runs along side of his pretense of frailty in the face of the use of Anglo-Saxon. Just more disingenuous crap from a PR stooge.

\\][//

+++++++++
2012-12-31
By: hybridrogue1 on December 31, 2012 at 11:35 pm

Note, Maxifartius is right about one detail, the earliest posting I can find on Truth and Shadows by me is January of 2012…so it is just about a year that I have been active on Craig's blog.

By: hybridrogue1 on December 31, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Every time you are reprimanded for saying "fuck", remember that you are still answering to the rules put upon the Anglo-Saxons by the Roman Empire.

\\][//

x57 Señor El Once : two classes of offense

2012-12-30

What goes around, comes around.

In the case of our beloved Mr. Rogue, we are seeing choices he made in his teenage years (JFK era) come back to haunt him in the form of high school math, science, ~and~ English classes that he either did ~not~ take or learn anything from, because (a) he was a Genius Artist with other focuses and (b) he was, is, and forever will be an "Autodictat", which translated into "common speech" means either "self-taught" or "nobody can teach this stubborn fool squat."

Contrary to Mr. Rogue's attempts at re-framing the discussion into "common speech," this very forum is written communication and not "common speech." Moreover, the discussion topics center around scientific papers such as "The Study of Tritium" and Dr. Jones "Hard Evidence Repudiates Nukes." Over generalizations have no place in those technical papers, nor in reviews and discussions of those papers.

It is one class of offense to not know this, which we can attribute to Mr. Rogue's ancient educational path. However, it is quite another offense for Mr. Rogue to bluster into "epistemic bullshit" in order to PR con us into believing that his faulty over-generalized arguments on scientific matters are correct, "practically speaking." The fact of the matter is, honest participants should endeavor to be accurate in their writing, and not all hand-wavey as if wielding a Warhol paint brush or a Pollack paint can.

x58 Señor El Once : load of sequential sharts

2013-01-08

I should have posted this last year, but I have a life.

I suppose that it is now time for me to put in my last word on a thread I own.

What goes around, comes around.

In the case of our beloved Mr. Rogue, we are seeing choices he made in his teenage years (JFK era) come back to haunt him in the form of high school math, science, ~and~ English classes that he either did ~not~ take or learn anything from, because (a) he was a Genius Artist with other focuses and (b) he was, is, and forever will be an "Autodictat", which translated into "common speech" means either "self-taught" or "nobody can teach this stubborn fool squat."

Contrary to Mr. Rogue's attempts at re-framing the discussion into "common speech," this very forum is written communication and not "common speech." Moreover, the discussion topics center around scientific papers such as "The Study of Tritium" and Dr. Jones "Hard Evidence Repudiates Nukes." Over generalizations have no place in those technical papers, nor in reviews and discussions of those papers.

It is one class of offense to not know this, which we can attribute to Mr. Rogue's ancient educational path. However, it is quite another offense for Mr. Rogue to bluster into "epistemic bullshit" in order to PR con us into believing that his faulty over-generalized arguments on scientific matters are correct, "practically speaking." The fact of the matter is, honest participants should endeavor to be accurate in their writing, and not all hand-wavey as if wielding a Warhol paint brush or a Pollack paint can.

On another subject, Mr. Rogue accuses me of being the cops.

I wrote to Mr. Rogue in a 7:11 pm posting on "The Sandy Hook Massacre":

"... if you persist with your copper game, (a) you'll have to provide lots of specifics and (b) you'll have to avoid the cop-traits listed for me coming back around and being a better reflection of you."

++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:58 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 8:36 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 9:10 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Of course, after dropping his load of sequential sharts with no specifics, he flicks his Bic not at his stone pipe but at his behind and explodes with:

"Let's drop it [Señor El Once], let it lay. I don't want any more of this carousel ride."

"... just another fucked up game that this guy plays."

My new year's resolutions aren't finalized yet. If employment doesn't necessitate sitting on the bench of the games despite my being a religous fanatic, then other factors probably will, burn-out topping the list. A lesson learned from living overseas: the machinery of bureaucracies have more patience than individuals ever will.

//

x59 Señor El Once : weasel-move in the alias-ASS-ociating name dropping games he plays

2013-01-08

Mr. Rogue noted:

"He signs his posts, // [...] Señor El Once, an anonymous person of unknown persuasion. ... You forgot your – // – [Señor El Once], which you were posting until this little spat began. Why did you suddenly drop your slashes [Señor El Once]?"

Actually, I sign my posts "Señor El Once" with a date and time stamp. When I remember that "Señor El Once" is akin to "Señor El Zorro" with his sword-slashing Z's, I add a slash-slash "//" for entertainment value. But only when I remember.

Of course, the // is a weasel-move for Mr. Rogue in the alias-ASS-ociating name dropping games he plays.

Let's do the recent numbers [from "The Sandy Hook Massacre"]:

++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 6:01 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:06 pm

++ Señor El Once on January 7, 2013 at 7:11 pm
++ Señor El Once on January 7, 2013 at 7:24 pm
++ Señor El Once on January 7, 2013 at 7:31 pm

++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:58 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 8:36 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 9:10 pm
++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 pm

I wrote to Mr. Rogue in the 7:11 pm posting:

"... if you persist with your copper game, (a) you'll have to provide lots of specifics and (b) you'll have to avoid the cop-traits listed for me coming back around and being a better reflection of you."

Of course, after dropping his load of sequential sharts, he flicks his Bic at his behind and explodes with:

"Let's drop it [Señor El Once], let it lay. I don't want any more of this carousel ride."

Wise decision, although the air is still aglow with his inner essence, not just here but in his faux debates with OneBornFree and A.Wright on Truth & Shadows [1] and [2]. Neither of those opponents provides much substance, so Mr. Rogue feels obligated to engage them with a flaming tizzy carousel ride of his own anyway again & again.

P.S. To Mr. Veritable1:

Please go re-read the rules of engagement on this forum specifically as they pertain to personal attacks. It would be a pity to see you (and Mr. Rogue) bumped from your home court on an insulting technicality.

Yep, "That's what happens when one's overplayed their hand."

Not to worry. The time suck of the COTO forum may not appear on my unfinished resolutions for the new year going forward. The kicker is probably Mr. Veritable1's wise words:

"Nothing's ever going to change that no matter how he tries."

Exactly.

//

x60 Señor El Once : pathological liar

2013-01-09

Dear Mr. OneBornFree, you wrote:

The fact of the matter is that because of their initial behavior towards myself, the pathological liar HB1, SenorEO, RA,Adam S. were all told months ago that I would not be responding to them and would mostly ignore them from then on. This they brought on themselves via their initial comments to myself. ... And let's not forget there are 4 or 5 of "them" spewing their disingenuous childish filth, but only 1 of me. ... To be clear : I refuse to debate those who continually name call, which has been my experience with every one of the posters listed here.

I will ignore that that adjectival phrase "pathological liar" might be intended to modify as well "SenorEO", aimed therefore at me, Señor El Once.

Please provide the links and extracts to all instances where I called you names. If proven, I would like an opportunity to apologize.

Here's some help:
2012-03-08
2012-03-13
2012-03-23
2012-03-28
2012-03-30
2012-04-04
2012-04-18
2012-04-18
2012-04-18

Given that my habit, which requires constant care and practice, is to take the high-road in my postings, I fear you will come up empty handed in your charge. As such, my version of our history will be fortified.

The last 2012-04-18 link and its context are a particularly good place to start, because it is my response to your proclamation:

Let me make myself perfectly clear... I have NO intention of conversing with yourself, or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude], about anything relating to what I believe did or [more importantly, could not have] happened at NYC, the Pentagon, or in PA on 9/11. After this post, your posts will be studiously ignored by me.

You see, you never even attempted the test of your objectivity from that posting.

- What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe?

- What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation?

- Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle of the Clues Forums and September Clues?

And now, it seems, others have offered another test for you in explaining how the alleged smoke screen would have worked on 9/11 and what exactly they would have been hiding and why.

P.S. Clap! Clap! Clap! Bravo! Brav-oh! Loved your witty response!

//

x61 Señor El Once : Quid pro quo, Mr. Rogue?

2013-01-09

Quid pro quo, Mr. Rogue? Maybe your wish for my non-participation on COTO will be granted in exchange for the same from you on Truth & Shadows.

Oooo. That would hurt, wouldn't it? Maybe a compromise is in order. Cut down your frequency in postings; post an impression or thought on an article, and then wait for a rise or response to trigger your next posting. Save 'em up if you have to for book-length shart like mine. In other words, keep your posting activity "circumscribed within due bounds."

I love your theatrics, Mr. Rogue, and others find enjoyment in your old-man curmudgeon bickering at me. You are indeed the very natural extension of an emotionally-charged artistic genius who, like a pit-bull clamping its jaws on its prey and not letting go, has your emotional thoughts so clamp down on hating me for things that you provoke, that it lets me push an agency button even though you ought not have one. Your best form was about month "el once" ago or so when you simply embraced it and had fun with it.

"I will remind him every time he crosses my path that I consider [Señor El Once] a troll and a cop."

Such a "cop out". I asked for specifics. How so am I a cop? Another of your hynotic PR assertions given without substantiation but written in an authoritative manner, aye?

As for being a troll? Takes one to know one, aye?

Be that as it may, I am most certainly a cop... in the sense of being religiously fanatical about TRUTH. My agenda has nessitated rescuing nuggets of truth from blatant dis.info sources and assembling a rational frame to put them in as I heed the higher calling of "feed my sheep."

"Chase you around the web?" Shart! You are the one regularly posting links to COTO on my Truth & Shadows haunts, and now you act as if you didn't expect that some would not ony follow those links, but also find COTO as a whole worthy of following. Oh ye of little faith of thy own handiwork!

"Force a debate on you?" Clever framing, Mr. Rogue, but you were the one who signed up for it in acceptance of a gift. I am fine with you welching on the deal, Mr. Rogue, and even with your childish deletion of my postings under your threads. My higher goals were achieved nonetheless.

The agenda was all about "convince me or let me convince you", with properly applied math & science, no less, and more importantly objective consideration of all the evidence and miscellaneous nuggets of truth coming from dis.info sources. But stubborn old curmudgeon of the auto-dictat school that you are, ain't nobody who can school you on nothing, and this itself becomes hay to be harvested in the process of "feeding the sheep."

"Agent for the system?" Just a button you let get pushed. Not really my belief on the topic, but a "&^%$#$ $#D@#$ stubborn old curmudgeon as well as contradictory and hypocritical... which ends up being out of character for the supposedly objective, open-minded wonk who waxes philosophical on things, when not igniting flame wars" is.

"Puppeting another gravitar?" Whether or not true, it ain't a crime, and deployment in this instance wasn't in an unethical way, such as in building false concensus on a topic. In fact, it was used in a more Plato-esque or Helgian Dialectic manner, your very own counter-pincer-movement and very much in character of someone well versed in Hollywood's protagonistic-antagonist development to compell the driving of a story. So you over-play your hand in your mock offense-taking and in stirring that pot. Whether or not the sock-puppet in question is yours, but particularly if not yours, you ought to reflect upon your style of engagement with a "less is more" attitude leaning towards "ignore." I can't call you on being a puppet-master for a sock-puppet named after your dear old mum if you don't engage him; and we both know that this actually does you a favor. Moreover, you ought to consider it a compliment that your skills and ample time are deemed sufficiently superb for the alleged alias-ASS-ociation to be plausible and wouldn't even be conceivable without a coincidental alias-naming tidbit discovered entirely by accident but dropped by your hand.

At this point, allow me to express my gratitude to one and all COTO regulars for tolerating me. Although Mr. Rogue is entitled to frame the following as "getting a different cops assignment," the truth of the matter is priorities in life and career. If you all don't mention me (in a bad light) here [Mr. Rogue] and don't engage me in this, my swan song, [and if curmudgeon Mr. Rogue "circumscribes his passions" a bit more on Truth & Shadows quid pro quo], then my yet-to-be finished New Year's resolutions for 2013 [aka "cop agenda"] might have my COTO participation rapidly enter the ether of the internet and quickly be forgotten.

Adieu.

P.S. Mr. Veritable1, I know you will enjoy this tidbit. Allow me to demonstrate the difference between an ad hominem and a truth. The feminine hygiene product with which you regularly address me instead of with the preferred and respectful "Señor El Once"? That is an example of ad hominem or personal attack. However, through your repetition of what you admit is a bad name, you become "Mr. Veritable1, the man with a proven fettish for feminine hygiene products", a truth and not a personal attack despite potentially being insulting. Must be from personal experience: something to physically block the sharts, aye?

//

x62 Señor El Once : buzz off

2013-01-09

Dearest Mr. Rogue,

The timing of Mr. OneBornFree's activities on T&S is rather unforuntate.

Take it from this cop, the only way to stop the loopity-doo is to demonstrate with goto links (as I have done) from the police archives how it is such. Alas, your organizational skills are a bit wanting in this regard owing to you being a highly emotional genius artist [and to the fact that maybe your words aren't worthy of preserving and indexing for retrieval].

Your approach to him is all wrong. More irrational and emotional pit-bull antics on your part... When it doesn't come across as another pincer-movement with a different foil. [If I didn't suspect Mr. OneBornFree was Mr. Shack himself, I'd be adding that sock-puppet to your theater as well.] Ms. JersyG's ignore advice regarding me is even more apropo there.

"Stop posting [on Truth & Shadows]" was not the request. "Circumscription of your activities within due bounds" was. Yeah, and you can leave your ridicule and making fun here, because they really aren't the strongest argument. They might be your strongest argument and your strong suit, but that doesn't make them appropriate.

Mr. Rogue writes about me:

I advise that he buzz off... I would rather he simply keep his ass out of here. ... Take a fucking hike...

Shart! All this time I had my agenda all wrong! I apologize to the forum.

When it comes right down to it, maybe my entire agenda on COTO all along has been to get me to this point and to Mr. Rogue's very wise words re-used against him with respect to his participation on Truth & Shadows:

I advise that [Mr. Rogue] buzz off... I would rather he simply keep his ass out of [T&S]. ... Take a fucking hike...

Quid pro quo. Rest assured, Mr. OneBornFree will be handled appropriately by those remaining on Truth & Shadows.

If you feel so inclined to respond to Mr. OneBornFree, you are a valued participant here on COTO with the ability to make your own postings that you can fill with whatever clever ad hominem and ridicule you want. Take advantage of it, and spare Mr. McKee's forum your squatdiddle.

You instill me with new vigor and purpose and possibly a New Year's Resolution line item that hadn't occurred to me before!

You keep your squatdiddle circumscribed within due bounds on T&S, or I'll make it my police agenda item and personal mission to be "you're number one fan" here on COTO e-v-e-r-y where. Let's face it; it don't take many paragraphs from me to get you all emotionally unhinged and serving up Anglo-Saxon! Don't you just luv it! I'll be your own personal A.Wright, OneBornFree, and Albury Smith all rolled into one! Man, you gotta like that thought!

Quid pro quo. Don't fuck with me, and I'll do the same with you.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with tongue in cheek...

To Sheriff Puddy Dunne:

SEE !!! Mr. Rogue did it again: instigating highly personal attacks by associating me with feminine hygiene products. And with ladies present, no less.

The r.o.e. are clear regarding personal attacks and their consequences.

This is at least the 2nd offense. I'll be happy to reference my cop's database with more exact quotes and links that amply prove Mr. Rogue is not only in flaggrant violation of those r.o.e., but in effect thumbing his nose at Y-O-U and the other esteemed participants here.

Justice! I demand justice!

Slap his hands, Sheriff Puddy Dunne! Spank his fanny! Use an actual feminine hygiene product on his orifices! [Same goes for his little buddy, the inveritable Mr. Veritable1!]

Oh, the emotional pain I suffer from the COTO teasing at Mr. Rogue's hand! It taint right.

//

x63 Señor El Once : 9/11 Tretris

2013-01-11

Dear Mr. Kayge,

Thank you for highlighting this passage from Mr. AdamRuff:

One of the biggest issues with the DEW theory is that no matter how you slice it a DEW fires essentially a beam. It could be a particle beam, a laser beam, a pure energy beam, or whatever kind of beam. The reason that is important to think about is because a DEW beam must have a path of destruction consistent with a beam.

This passage puts some framing to DEW -- directed energy weapons -- that is appropriate for some devices classified as such, but not for all. DEW can also be implemented, like with Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 1 and Part 2) such that its energy is more-or-less cone shaped.

Mr. Kayge writes:

The Hutchison Effect describes a field, not a beam. Judy Wood postulates that a directed energy weapon which demonstrates results similar to the Hutchison Effect was used on 9/11. She's talking about field effects — again, NOT a beam, of any sort. Seriously, please, familiarize yourself with the research you're critiquing.

Indeed, because a Neutron Nuclear DEW is a specialized version of a fission-triggered-fusion device designed to allow neutrons to escape (rather than bang about to create a large chain reaction), it would exhibit many of the side-effects of a nuclear bomb, including a muted EMP. (It is muted because it happens more or less within the confines of the steel framed towers.)

9/11 Tretris: I believe that the targeted neutron energy (directed upwards) together with EMP from multiple Neutron Nuclear DEW with the WTC is essentially in agreement with Dr. Wood's larger point about evidence of field effects.

Hutchison Effects? Well, from what is presented in Dr. Wood's textbook (that I have and have read cover-to-cover) and from what is available on the internet (that I have researched), so far Dr. Wood and Hutchison have not made a convincing case in my mind to believe exists, much less how it would have been weaponized and deployed on 9/11. If I'm convinced of anything, it might be that "Hutchison Effects" is the very bat-shit crazy that Dr. Wood inserted into her publications as a "get-out-of-assassination" card. Seems like a reasonable unsubstantiated speculation into the matter that also relates to the piss-pour manner in which Dr. Wood does (or really, does ~not~) do nuclear. She didn't take nuclear research very far, accepts unchallenged certain govt reports on hot-spots, and misinterprets some evidence (some of which may be due to tainted imagery). Her dismal of anything nuclear was lame even before the holes were discovered.

Don't get me wrong! I highly recommend Dr. Wood's textbook for the evidence that she presents -- NUGGETS OF TRUTH --, but her analysis has some things inserted that I find to be dis.info including the Hutchison Effects. It would be a grave sin to discard her publications without first rescuing those nuggets of truth from the dis.info.

//

x64 Señor El Once : lingering questions from an old discussion

2013-01-11

Dear Mr. McKee,

I am glad to hear that you're deciding which questions are "fair and non-insulting" for Mr. OBF.

I do not dispute some degree of imagery tainting. I dispute the extensive degree that Mr. OBF allows it to dominate his thinking and arguments, thereby dismissing other factors. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the media manipulation is/was at Mr. OBF's imagined levels. Mr. OBF leaves us with a massive void in need of an explanation regarding the mechanisms of distruction.

Given that a huge foundation in Mr. OBF's imagery tainting mantra comes from September Clues, could you please prod Mr. OBF into answering these lingering questions from an old discussion.

- Do you believe/trust the whole of the Clues Forums and September Clues? [Rhetorical. All other questions are non-rhetorical.]

- What elements of the analysis performed by Clues Forums and/or September Clues do you NOT believe, hasn't convinced you, and/or is weak in its premise and execution?

- What elements of the analysis performed by the Clues Forums and September Clues do you consider to be disinformation?

- From Mr. Al Whitesands, Mr. Rogue, and me: How does the WTC smoke screen work?

- Assuming Mr. OBF's imagined levels of imagery manipulation, why did the videos of the destruction show a collapse through the path of greatest resistance at near free-fall speeds? A Hollywood production could easily have slowed the collapse to make it physics-compliant. Why was this blatant flaw allowed to persist in all versions of their production?

Mr. McKee, because I am on Mr. OBF's ignore-list, you might have to prod him.

I apologize for this detour into imagery manipulation, but at least a couple of these questions test the sincerity and objectivity of Mr. OBF and could be a bit of a trap for him that I will now expose in the interest of fairness.

You see, if Mr. OBF can't admit to any issues with anything from Clues Forum and/or September Clues, then he is not being objective (or honest), which ought to have after this much stilted time in your forums its own consequences going forward. [And to cut Mr. OBF off at the pass, Mr. Rogue has a clumsy summary here skimming the surface of issues with Shackian Analysis.] Like I say, "Nearly all sources of 9/11 info have dis.info, so we've have to mine the nuggets of truth from the dross of dis.info."

If Mr. OBF is able to point to certain things in the gospel of clues that have issues, aren't convincing, and/or don't go far enough to make the grand over-arching September Clues case of the extent of the digital manipulation, he might get hit in the head with his favorite bat named "false-in-one, false-in-all." Of course, I'll be yelling for him to "duck!" but his admission could go a long way into establishing reasonable bounds for what was faked, allowing room for genuine depictions of reality in the 9/11 imagery set, and thus modifying stilted conclusions and speculation into means & methods regarding what happened "behind the smoke screen."

//

x65 Señor El Once : Faithful in the small things

2013-01-14

By: Señor El Once on January 14, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Dear Mr. Dunne,

I enjoyed reading the lengthy article except for a couple of minor issues that you can correct.

You have not given attribution for any of the articles: who wrote them and where is their (nearest) home on the internet?

You have borrowed at least 4 articles penned by others; I've read most of it elsewhere on the internet.

//

++++++++++
By: Señor El Once on January 14, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Faithful in the small things...

Mr. Rogue asks me if I know what "key word" searches are and then suggests that I give it a shot. Mr. Rogue, this is ~not~ about ~me~ or my ability to find information on the internet.

It is about plagarism. Without proper attribution on those four articles, readers (and googler's) could assume they came from Mr. Dunne's pen. I know that at least two of those articles encourage netizens to re-publish them freely, but I recall them making a point to give the original author credit, which I don't see.

Without proper attribution, "fair-use" of the text "for education, discussion, and critique" gets buried under the charge of theft. I do not think that this was Mr. Dunne's intent. Good thing that the wonders of WordPress allows him to edit his posting above, fix the attribution problem, re-publish it, and new readers won't be the wiser. No Problem-o.

What ~is~ it about? Honesty and credibility.

Mr. Dunne should note Mr. Rogue's actions. Did Mr. Rogue ask Mr. Dunne if he knew about key word searches? Did Mr. Rogue provide assistance to Mr. Dunne in this matter?

Given how much Mr. Rogue knows about key word searches and that he is a true friend and loyal comrad, he probably could have researched the matter for Mr. Dunne and posted the results as a comment.

Nope, he didn't. Instead, Mr. Rogue leaves Mr. Dunne and COTO exposed to get dinged by plagarism complaints. So faithful is Mr. Rogue in the small things...

//

++++++++++
2013-01-14
By: Señor El Once on January 14, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Dear Mr. BoomerangComesBack,

Now you have me confused. Am I the cop or the librarian? You wrote:

I actually laughed at your petty "offended" petulance!

Good, because I laughted when I wrote it.

But rules are rules. Worse. They are ~your~ rules, which I gather apply to everyone else but "the COTO regulars."

Meanwhile, your words of wisdom would be wiser if you followed them yourself:

If you've got something MORE than nitpicking, then offer it up.

Seeing how I am posting, I might as well make it worthwhile. And guess what it ties together?

(a) Two of the embedded articles 25 Rules of Disinformation & 8 Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney, which were included above but without attribution.

(b) The MORE that you request.

(c) The MORE that Mr. Rogue's hoped for in his great introduction:

Yes, more bla bla bla from the cop.

Shart, Mr. Rogue. If you're going to call me a cop, at least provide some substantiation, as I did with you. [Be careful of what you wish for...]

- lead the readers in circles (2012-03-04)

A trait of a disinformation agent is to lead the readers in circles. Other traits include asking their opponents to perform research or calculations whose results the agent will then promptly ignore.

Mr. HybridRogue1, I detest calling participants "disinfo agents" unless their action and demeanor set them up to be such. Your four postings to my one sets you up as such. The content of your postings, as already exhibited above, proves it.

- long time since taking anything you have to say as worthy of consideration (2012-04-30)

hybridrogue1 says: 227 ± 5 (30%)
Jim Fetzer says: 166 ± 5 (22%)
Craig McKee says: 67 ± 3 (8.9%)
OneSliceShort says: 64 ± 3 (8.5%)
keenanroberts says: 47 ± 3 (6%)
onebornfree says: 43 (5.7%)
Señor El Once says: 30 (4%)

- no obligation to handle me (2012-05-17)

Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: ignore me. In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther.

I find agreeable your overall contributions to the forum but with these three exceptions.

[1] Your frequency of posting, sometimes with multiple postings one-after-the-other with nary a soul engaging you to merit the 2nd or nth additional posting. Obviously, you're too hasty with your replies and not providing enough contemplative thought to your responses if you must constantly come back with additional postings of the nature: "And one more thing I forgot, Señor..." It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to flood the forum and become your personal playground.

[2] Your reply postings that are not made close to the source and are instead top-level. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to screw up the readability of the discussion and to make it difficult for lurker readers, particularly when the subject matter is important [like addressing appropriately the energy questions of 9/11].

[3] The vast majority of your postings to me, which refuse to acknowledge nuggets of truth and instead are sweeping "bla bla bla bla bla…" infinitum dismal carousels. It isn't your place to dismiss me either. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to steer the lurker truth seekers from seeking it beyond.

- "Touchy Agent Rogue" (2012-06-26)

Because a blatant agent trick of Sr. Rogue is to mess up the comments sections to Truth & Shadows.

- "Nuggets of Truth: That's my central calling." (2012-07-16)

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. ... 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...

x67 Señor El Once : hero worship status

2013-02-25

Dear Mr. Syed,

Interesting history report. You wrote:

Ryan apparently deserves hero worship status because he's the courageous employee who disputed his bosses at Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and got fired for it. Chandler apparently deserves hero worship because he's the Joe Schmoe who got NIST to admit freefall. And of course, Richard Gage selflessly risks his life every single day to spread truth, so don't you dare say one critical word about him!

You continued:

Nobody should be elevated to godhood, but discovering the NoC flight path is surely far more qualifying for such elevation than anything David Chandler has done.

On one side of the scale, Mr. David Chandler's (video) work at analyzing the free-fall stages in various WTC building destructions is being woefully underestimated by your statements. They alone could have, should have, would have (with a fair media) turned the understanding of the nation and world. On the other side of the scale, the same Mr. Chandler lent his name to some pretty sketchy "research papers" with Dr. Legge associated with the Pentagon. And more telling to me, his analysis of free-fall pulverization purposely stops short of hinting at the energy sources that could accomplish the deed (e.g., neutron nuclear DEWs) and dogs around conventional chemical explosives as being the primary mechanisms of destruction.

Which brings me around to the complaints I have against Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, both of whom have two sides to their balancing scales. They worked really hard on the PR tour at convincing the world of the involvement of highly energic materials. Proof of their involvement alone could have, should have, would have (with a fair media) turned the understanding of the nation and world. But on the scale's other side, these two have glazed over what mathematics reveals of their physics and logistics with respect to quantities of highly energic materials [with any combination of conventional chemical explosives] required to meet the diametrically opposed goals [e.g., observed outcomes] of (a) sudden and rapid pulverization and (b) long duration of under-rubble hot-spots. All of their PR takes a further beating (a) by the faulty assumptions and stilted nature of Dr. Jones' "no 9/11 nukes" work and (b) by Prager's analysis of the dust [that Dr. Jones did not do] proving fission ala a fission triggered fusion device, which a neutron nuclear DEW essentially is; the neutron device(s) would not have copious amounts of lingering radiation -- except for the proven elevated tritium levels.

I am grateful for the research efforts of all mentioned 9/11 truthers. But to follow any single individual's beliefs to their wacky limits without question is to get yourself led around by the nose. Nuggets of truth must be mined, refined, and re-purposed.

//

x68 Señor El Once : can't be taught nuthin' by nobody

2013-02-25

Dear Mr. Rogue,

You did not read my posting closely enough (as is typical), because I went after Kevin Ryan ~and~ Dr. Jones for the farce they pulled individually and together with their nano-thermitic work. (The entire work isn't a farce, but the gaps and the leaping to conclusions are.)

And if you weren't of such an advanced age and autodictat mindset that can't be taught nuthin' by nobody, you would have acknowledged a lot sooner the purposeful skew and spinning by Dr. Jones in his no-nukes & nano-thermitic work.

But amaze me you do, Mr. Rogue, in your ability to sing and dance around the issues in Dr. Jones 9/11 papers, which high school math, physics, and chemistry clearly expose -- but those subjects were bumped from your academic schedule from the JFK era in favor of art.

Gee, the theme of several posts was the PR tours that various 9/11 leaders took before pulling a Fonzie and "jumping the shark." You'll be hard pressed to name a single 9/11 truther in the limelight who hasn't been towed and manipulated to their own shark jumping area. And this goes for Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones (and Dr. Wood.)

If your postings were cowbells (ala "The Blue Oyster Cult" meets SNL), Christopher Walken (acting as record producer) would be telling you (acted by Will Farrell): "We need less of your cowbells."

// Less cowbells

x69 Señor El Once : object to your objection

2013-02-25

And something else about your cowbells, Mr. Rogue, you beat out the following old canard-ic rythm:

Again I must object to your defamation of Professor Jones.

I must object to your objection because it is unfounded.

I did not defame Dr. Jones, but I did legitimately criticize Dr. Jones' work. And I am defaming you, Mr. fookin' no-nookin' a$$hole Rogue.

My, my, Mr. Rogue. To what do we owe the repetition of your "defamation" ploy? Smokin' sum of that whacky-tabackie in your Cigs so that you don't remember getting thrashed in the past for the exact SAME offense: your inability to distinguish between legitimate criticism of someone's work and criticism of someone? Or maybe, genius artist that you are, your skin is a bit too thin and any criticism of YOUR WORK is equated in your feeble old mind to be a criticism of YOU, and this you've inappropriately extrapolated to everyone else?

Maybe you, Mr. Rogue, should use this opportunity to set up an appointment with your doctor... Early detection of diminished mental faculties probably won't improve anything that is diminishing with each COWBELL POST, but it may give you time to put your affairs in order before the clacker falls out of your cowbell and you're sent to the pasture at the Soylent Green factory.

For the benefit of lurker readers, Mr. Rogue's coughed up hairballs about me "defaming Dr. Jones" won't be found on this thread or any other. He knows this (in his more lucid moments.) If he continues with this spurious dinning cowbell charge, he better have a clacker in the form of URL links.

Or he better STFU in lieu of being sounding brass, tickling cymbals... the very cowbell this forum could use LESS of.

//

x70 Señor El Once : defamation charges (again... ho-hum.)

2013-02-26

Dear Mr. Rogue,

Yes, I did bring up neu nookiedoo, the one-trick pony that remains for me to ride as I try to circumscribe my passions and limit the internet time-suck that has distracted me from for-profit endeavors.

And neutron nuclear DEW was brought up legitimately as per the context and provides much needed perspective on the scope of those involved in managing our perceptions.

After all this time, all my repetition, and all the valid chinks exposed in Dr. Jones' work, it is noteworthy that all your rusty cowbell clacker could ring up was unfounded and unsubstantiated defamation charges (again... ho-hum.)

If you want to be fair to Truth, then you can't go brushing aside the faulty assumptions, numerous misdirections, and the analysis not performed (e.g., of the dust) that are mixed into the foundation of your hero's work.

At this point in time, I am hard-pressed to name a single outspoken leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement who hasn't in some ways compromised their ideals, or been manipulated, or been marginalized, or been forced to "jump the shark", or been conned into limiting the scope of their inquiry for the sake of "concensus" and not offending. They've been played; we've been played.

//

x71 Señor El Once : criticism of work casts a bad light

2013-02-27

Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

Let me make this very simple: Your attempt to prove that the WTC was a nuclear event — BECAUSE there was so little radiation detected, is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever read.

Your efforts to make things "simple" involves you not using your rational mind.

Chapter and verse has been provided under what conditions nuclear mechanism(s) could be deployed that (a) would not release large amounts of lingering radiation, (b) would release radiation in altered forms that deviate substantially from the Jones framing of fission or fusion thermonuclear devices, (c) would have the benefit of coordinated agencies to keep out independent researchers with measuring equipment and to scope-limit reports on measurements in a disingenuous manner.

And yes, you have had need to defame Jones in putting together your bullshit chowder.

Let me put this in a form that your simple mind will understand: Fuck you, Mr. Rogue, and your bullshit chowder about defamation of Dr. Jones.

It could very well be that your definition of "defamation" differs from my definition. If criticism of Dr. Jones' work casts him into a bad light, so be it, but it isn't as if I'm calling him names or incompetent. In my opinion, the criticism I've had of his work could have been rectified and apologized for, in which event the bad light would have been no more.

For lurker readers (and not for Mr. Rogue who ignores these facts in his bellahoo to dominate this forum):

When Dr. Jones wrote his paper that (to the scientifically challenged) "reputiated" the use of nuclear weapons, he relied on a tritium report from a private agency working for the government, a report that had its own (valid) limited-scope, assumptions, bent, and skew. [It should be noted that Dr. Jones later laments about the slow-walking, incompleteness, and even blatant errors in other government reports, yet this tritium report is accepted by Dr. Jones unchallenged in any way.]

The issue is that the bent & skew from this scope-limited tritium report makes it unsuitable to be used as by-near the sole authority regarding no 9/11 nukes. If you read & grok that report, their tritium measurements (a) were performed a few days to over a week later [after much delution from fire hoses and rain], (b) only measured from certain drainage points off of the WTC, (c) did not measure tritium at any of the hot-spots in a timely or systematic fashion, (d) stopped their already haphazard measurement of tritium when values were coming in at miniscule levels. A bent & skew there is that miniscule levels with respect to adverse health effects is one thing, but it is a completely other thing when those miniscule levels were at far-flung drainage measuring places 55 times greater than was expected and that even the hoop-jumping of the scope-limited tritium report could not explain in its wild-ass speculation about airplane exit signs, watches, and sites from weapons stored in certain buildings.

At this point, we already have some fodder to defame Dr. Jones, because his reference to this tritium report ignored the context and blatant limitations of that report. For shame, for shame. But it doesn't stop there.

Nuclear physicist Dr. Jones did not analyze the dust or even tabulate the published measurements from others (like Mr. Jeff Prager did). Had Dr. Jones performed this fundamental task, as any nuclear physicists worth their salt (or not trying to be sneaky) would have, various elements found in correlated quantities would have been screaming that a fission reaction happened (ala fission-triggered fusion device.)

And that is not all, Dr. Jones did not do; that is not all. Dr. Jones "discovers" energetic materials in his dust: nano-thermite (NT). Alas, the chemical properties of NT make it alone unsuitable to account for the brissance required for sudden pulverization. So Dr. Jones says much later that NT was likely used in combination with something like RDX. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones did not test the dust for OTHER things, like RDX... Neither did A&E for 9/11 Truth. [I suspect that whether or not tests were performed, the results would have been largely negative and thus leaving 9/11 neu nookiedoo still on the table.]

Moving forward in Dr. Jones (and Mr. Ryan's) propping up of NT, they write a paper that strongly suggests it may have accounted for certain spikes in the temperature and release of certain gases from the rubble pile. Unfortunately, NT (used in any combination with conventional explosives, like RDX) cannot explain the energy/fuel source that maintained the under-rubble hot-spots (between those spikes) for as long as they burned without resulting in absolutely ridiculous and obscene quantities of such chemical weapons being installed. Just this last October 2012, Dr. Jones admits that something else maintained those hot-spots (not just NT), yet no research or even speculation into what that something was.

If this analysis of Dr. Jones' work has further defaming elements, they might just be found in the slight of hand in the framing of Dr. Jones no-nukes argument. He uses incomplete and stilted radiation/tritium reports while at the same time writing about large thermonuclear devices. Surely Dr. Jones has heard of both "tactical nukes" (1960 Davey Crocket) and "neutron bombs" (1961 Big Ivan) [and all nuclear advancements since then to 2001], yet any verbiage that would lead a reader to contemplate such nuclear variants is blatantly missing from his work.

We can bet that Mr. Rogue's response is going to key off the fact that I call him "simple-minded" with respect to nukes and write "fuck you, Mr. Rogue" (because I know him so well.)

However, if Mr. Rogue was applying the same critical thought to 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW as he does to the big powers-that-be conspiracy that is pawning us into a police state among other bad Agenda-21 side-effects (which is admittedly a gross over-simplification of Mr. Rogue's words here and on COTO), he would grok that this fits the trend line, as does employing the services of a BYU nuclear physicist in 9/11 damage control.

It is rather noteworthy that Mr. Rogue has issues with Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood (and others) being to Truth less-than- genuine, and then gives Dr. Jones not just a free pass for the proven instances of Dr. Jones being less-than-genuine in his stilted work, but also a rousing defense that ignores the issues and tries to frame the criticism of Dr. Jones' work as a personal or defamation attack on the man.

Honest evaluation of Dr. Jones' 9/11 work does more to smear the man than anything I could or would write. Dr. Jones' never having corrected the record while allowing misconceptions and misapplications of his work to propagate is what allows the defamation to raise its hydra-head.

//

x72 Señor El Once : joined this infamous cabal of knucklefuk krakerjax

2013-02-28

Dear Mr. Rogue,

I suggest that you stick with areas that you have a genuine aptitude for, like art. As for science, your ability seems to be limited to what you can copy-and-paste from others. It clearly lacks personal understanding, otherwise you would grasp "applicability" (or lack thereof) to what you post.

Case in point, you quote from the EPA:

"A recently documented source of tritium in the environment is tritium exit signs that have been illegally disposed of in municipal landfills. Water, which seeps through the landfill, is contaminated with tritium from broken signs and can pass into water ways, carrying the tritium with it. Current treatment of landfill leachates do not remove tritium."

Whereas the above may be valid, it does ~not~ equate to items "illegally disposed of in municipal landfills" leaching back directly to the WTC on or after 9/11 and accounting for the published tritium measurements. In fact, the tritium was measured in drainage ~from~ the WTC, not ~to~ the WTC. (So you fail, Mr. Rogue, with the implications you make with this inapplicable quote.)

Moreover, when that famed but stilted tritium report was trying to account for the potential sources for tritium at the WTC, they speculated that the sources were (a) the exit signs in aircraft that hit the towers, (b) sites of weapons stored at the WTC, and (c)_ watches and time pieces. They never once speculated about tritium leaching back from landfills. It should be noted that they, by their own admission, failed in their speculative efforts. But this was okay for them and their scope-limited efforts, because their concern was for tritium levels sufficient to impact human health. When their spotty and haphazard measurements were recording miniscule levels, they easily threw up their hands and said: "No need to measure any further, cuz these levels are so tiny and won't make even a mouse sick."

Mr. Rogue goes on with his red herring argument:

When I was researching all of the products and that Prager was pissing about, I found that all of them are a natural part of the environment. The balance of the natural arrangements have been dangerously altered by industrial pollution however.

The WTC was not a Uranium mine. So even though Uranium is found in nature and the environment (e.g., Uranium mines), why was it -- among other elements -- found in the WTC dust?

Of course, the real issue isn't that a whole laundry list of "strange" elements (or industrial pollutants) were measured in the dust. The issue is that they were found in CORRELATED QUANTITIES.

Mr. Rogue want to frame the discussion as: "Element A and element B are a natural part of the environment, so it should be no surprise when they are measured there." However, when the analysis of the measurements always finds, say, "3 parts element A for every one part element B" and when the natural environment does not produce them in such correlated quantities, then the conclusion is that (a) something unnatural (or man-made) brought them together as such and (b) their combination had something to do with the destruction. Worse, the correlations take on a recipe, one used for nuclear devices.

Mr. Rogue tries valiently to conflate points (tritium measurements with dust samples), such as contamination of the environment and what wind & rain & human activity would do. When collecting the dust samples, extra effort was made to locate pristine samples; their sampling methodology is all documented very well in the reports. As an example, they would skim off dust from an otherwise untouched window sill. Therefore, all of Mr. Rogue's "La La Land" talk of contamination and leaching industrial pollution DOES NOT APPLY to the dust samples.

Mr. Rogue writes:

It is Ed Ward, Prager, Anonymous Physicist, Fetzer's gang, including Morgan Reynolds and Wood; who are the frauds and charlatans in this instance...

I do not disagree. Every single one of them has had issues in some part of their analysis, as would be expected for their PR tour. For example, Dr. Ward to this day keeps promoting "deep underground nukes", when clearly the destructive devices were above ground in the towers. Dr. Wood keeps promoting "free energy from space" when "energy from nukes" would have been more relatively cheap and easy to come by, but she discounts. This is in addition to "the Hutchison Effect" that she gives too much PR. Dr. Fetzer has his unproven holograms. The Anonymous Physicist has many great points, but failed to make the leap to neutron bombs which is required to explain the quickly dissipating radiation levels.

But every single one of these "frauds and charlatans" has had nuggets of truth that supported their case. Extract those and re-combine, and the story changes.

As 9/11 Truthers, we can all laugh at the ludicrous nature of what 19 alleged Muslim-extremist hijackers did with mere box-cutters. Yeah, well, to those with some understanding of physics and logistics, any explanation of the decimation of the WTC that relies on exotic chemical explosives as the primary destructive means is just as ludicrous, because they cannot account for what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots (among other things like tritium and correlated elements in the dust.)

Because Mr. Rogue is too scattered to complete a thought in a single posting, a second one tries to introduce the lie:

The Tritium at WTC ground zero wasn't from the towers in any large part, it is already in the groundwater.

Okay, "lie" is a bit harsh. Indeed, Tritium is already in the groundwater and as Mr. Rogue later writes: "Postmodern industrial pollution has turned the whole planet into a cesspool." I'll even agree that "tritium wasn't from the towers' (content) in any large part" despite the song and dance from the original tritium report that tried to spin it as such.

The "lies" from Mr. Rogue are (a) that the tritium measured after 9/11 was ALREADY at those measured levels and (b) that NO TRITIUM came from the towers, or more correctly, from the mechanisms within the towers that were involved in their decimation. Although Dr. Ward is a bit crazy, his comments about "measured tritium being 55 times greater" than it should have been is a proven fact. Neutron nuclear DEW can explain it. Nano-thermite, not so much.

Mr. Rogue charges:

... you—yourself, who have joined in with this infamous cabal of knucklefuk krakerjax...

Nice inappropriate guilt-by-association smear, Mr. Rogue! Kudos! Your best argument yet! (Not.)

Alas, you are the one that this forum should be worried about and the faulty PR that you spew in overbearing quantities from your limited understanding.

Your hatred of me appears to be outmatched only by your hatred of being proven wrong. You've spent many months on a carousel of your making trying to brush off the copious amounts of evidence -- data point after data point -- that says 9/11 was nuclear. And if you were being truthful to yourself in seeing where this neutron nuclear DEW data point aligns with the trend line created by EVERYTHING ELSE you write on COTO & here about "the true nature of things", then WTF? You're not just being a clueless idiot; you're being a purposeful a$$hole whose motives we'll need to question for why you are here... in overbearing quantities.

You ought to just let me make my sparse one-trick-pony comments without engaging me and while STFU-ing. When you engage me with re-hashed weak arguments (e.g., about industrial pollutants leaching back from far-away landfills to account for correlated quantities of elements that together spell "nuclear hijinx"), you lose and make the leap easier to make into suspecting your bullying dominance in this forum as something less than genuine "from a retired genius autodictat artist.".

And because you were the one who introduced this forum to "pincer attacks" and "controlled opposition", your carousel engagement of Mr. AWright (a loving namesake for you, I know) begins to look more and more staged and fake. He, too, deserves the STFU treatment from you.

//

x73 Señor El Once : whether 1 penny or 55 pennies, you can't buy shit

2013-03-01

Mr. Rogue writes:

It would probably benefit the readership to understand the truly minuscule amount of radiation that a Becquerel is Señor el Ploptart. Would you like to make that presentation, or shall I?

"Relative," Mr. Rogue. It is all "relative," and that is where the emphasis should be.

Becquerel is indeed tiny. Tritium in such amounts is determined by the EPA to be well below their thresholds of what is considered a health risk. This is why those who produced the 9/11 tritium report STOPPED taking more measurements when what they were measuring was consistently coming up at benign levels to human health. This is also a tact used by Dr. Jones to dismiss tritium measurements. "Oh, so teeney tiny small; a flea wouldn't get sick from it."

Here's an analogy. Imagine that your daily habit was to walk down the street with your head down looking for stray lucky pennies, and on regular days you'd find one, which fit neatly in your Levi's watch pocket. Then 9/11 happened and when you went looking for your stray lucky penny, instead of one, you found 55 in a pile.

The argument that Mr. Rogue, Dr. Jones, and the authors of the tritium report make is that, whether 1 penny or 55 pennies, you can't buy shit. It won't get you a cup of coffee, a candy bar, or a can of pop. It was hardly worth your time to stop and pick them up. Forget about them. They are insignificant when contemplating what can be purchased.

Given that your daily habit tasks you with finding your lucky penny, the counter-argument is that finding 55 pennies in a pile instead of 1 is life-changing. They no longer fit into your Levi's watch pocket. They consume the whole front pocket of your jeans. They weigh you down a little bit and jangle so much when you walk, your thigh feels bruised. They are significant regardless of what can or cannot be purchased with them.

More importantly, where did those extra 54 pennies come from?

In conclusion, I find Mr. Rogue's closing arguments so profound, so meaningful, so succinct, and so convincing (not), I just had to highlight them again.

Aw poor Señor Mini-Zorro is upset and dumped his diaper..Lol ..there is no "debate" Señor, I simply point out your butt-cheese coated delirium, so spit on it and sin. Becquerel Crackers and cheese anyone?

x74 Señor El Once : a liar, a cheat, and an agent

2013-03-03

Here we see Mr. Rogue three-to-one spinning his wheels and flooding this forum:

March 1, 2013 – 3:27 pm
March 1, 2013 – 3:53 pm
March 2, 2013 – 6:25 pm

Mr. Rogue claims that the following passage from me is an example of me being able to read minds:

This is why those who produced the 9/11 tritium report STOPPED taking more measurements when what they were measuring was consistently coming up at benign levels to human health.

In actual fact, the above is an example of me "being able to read THE REPORT (and understand it and remember it)", while at the same time demonstrating that Mr. Rogue did ~not~ do the same.

Mr. Rogue then tries to make hay out of the word "benign", that I correctly understood and applied. He gets all bent out of shape with "A TRILLIONTH!!!" He is purposely placing emphasis where it does not belong when putting the 9/11 evidence into context.

My analogy with the pennies from March 1, 2013 – 12:59 pm evidently didn't make things clear to Mr. Rogue, nor when I said the important point is "relative", as in:

Relative to what they expected to measure (1 penny) for background tritium, they measured 55 times that amount (55 pennies.) These enhanced levels are benign with respect to human health (neither 1 penny nor 55 pennies are going to buy you a can of Coke), yet still they require an explanation and source.

The tritium report admitted failure in its speculation as to the source, because their mathematical models did not match historical trends, and were based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding potential sources (e.g., air craft exit signs, gun weapon sites, time pieces) and their original distribution in the towers that could lead to the measured outcome.

Mr. Rogue, in his ignorance and stupidity, tries to do that report one better by postulating that tritium from far-off landfills leached back into the WTC and account for the elevated levels. [In my previous postings, I purposely neglected to mention that elevated tritium levels were measured downwind from the towers and were taken from plant samples that would have absorbed it from the fallout from the WTC dust clouds.]

What was important for the PR produced for public consumption regardless of whether or not the agency (or Mr. Rogue) could account for the tritium source was that these enhanced levels were still benign to human health.

But what is important when trying to determine the primary mechanisms of WTC destruction is that elevated tritium levels is a data point that cannot and should not be brushed away, as Mr. Rogue attempts with this:

Pointing to the Tritium level as a smoky gun for a nuclear powered event at the WTC is in fact grotesquely preposterous. One might as well postulate that the towers were blown-up by Voodoo.

Mr. Rogue is welcome to postulate that "the towers were blown-up by Voodoo."

You see, other valid data points to a nuclear powered event at the WTC include:

- Analysis of the dust proving fission.
- The energetic nature of the destruction.
- The duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- The draconian secrecy that swept over the WTC that punished all unauthorized photography or measurements.
- Likely configuration of such nuclear devices (neutron bombs).
- UNLIKELY implementation by chemical explosive means due to the massive logistics task that would have been undertaken in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a holiday prior to 9/11. Also, that such chemical explosive cannot explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- First Responder Ailments resembling that of Hiroshima.
- The song-and-dance by agencies to spin the evidence.
- The song-and-dance by Professor Jones to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement.
- ...

I encourage Mr. Rogue not to engage me in this discussion any more, or rather any more, period. He is proves himself a liar, a cheat, and an agent by being unwilling or unable to acknowledge true cause-and-effect as he continues to provide lip-service to prevent revelation of means-and-methods: the great shocker that the US military has tactical nukes that do not produce large amounts of lingering radiation. Mr. Rogue sullies the other words of wisdom with which he floods this forum with.

//

x75 hybridrogue1 : kicking a dead horse and flappin' his yapper

2013-03-03

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

hybridrogue1
March 3, 2013 – 1:31 am

O' some may say I am kicking a dead horse. This is not so. Sinyor's hobby horse was never alive to begin with. It is all in his imagination, a delusion of delirious suppositions, and preposterous stirrings of yacky oinks from charlatan party clowns in drag. Nothing but potato peals slick and turning black in an old trash bag.
The mighty steed "Tritium" turned out to be a plastic horse head on a stick. Putting his full weight on it, the stick broke and Sinyor's ass hit the tiles.
He wants a pass? He wants me to shut the fuck up? Maybe a spin on his uranium pony this time? No dice, the funeral procession for "high'o'tritium" has moved beyond the graveyard into the twilight. We set a stone with no epitaph. Let the prince of braggarts weep alone.

\\][//

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

hybridrogue1
March 3, 2013 – 1:34 pm

"The tritium report admitted failure in its speculation as to the source, because their mathematical models did not match historical trends, and were based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding potential sources (e.g., air craft exit signs, gun weapon sites, time pieces) and their original distribution in the towers that could lead to the measured outcome."~Sinyor el yocto-brain
. . . . . . .
Sinyor claims that the report "admitted failure" and then has the gall to use the word "unsubstantiated" while feathering his cock-pit with preposterous and truly unsubstantiated claims.

From Said Report:
"It was determined by the Federal Aviation Administration, that Boeing 767 Serial Number 21873, operated by the United Airlines, Tail Number 767-222 N612UA, was delivered in February, 1983 with 43{.2} Ci of tritium in emergency EXIT signs and handles (Sabatini, 2002). The 43{.2} Ci of tritium is contained in 4 emergency EXIT signs (10 Ci each) and 4 emergency slide/raft handles (0.8 Ci each). The same activity of tritium was present upon April, 1987 delivery of a second Boeing 767 Serial number 22322, Tail Number 767-223ER N334AA, operated by the American Airlines. Since neither of these aircraft were modified after their delivery (Sabatini, 2002; Cashdollar, 2002), the total activity from the aircraft was 34{.3} Ci at the time of attack, accounting for [the]radioactive decay of tritium [was accounted for].
Weaponry was another likely source of tritium. As described in Section 1, several federal and state law enforcement agencies were housed at WTC, in buildings 6 and 7. ATF had two vaults filled with tactical weapons and guns (Miller, 2001; WPVI, 2001; Gardiner and Hurtado, 2001; note: the ATF vaults were in WTC 6, where our sequences 6,7 were measured).
It would take only 20 weapons destroyed to obtain approximately 1 Ci of tritium (Section 4)."
. . . . .
And as a note of FACT, I did indeed read and understand the report itself as well as applicable information surrounding the issue. The report actually says:

"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."~Paul Lioy et al.

These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC.

I have also studied the charts and product amounts in this report that are conflated groundlessly by Prager, Deagle, Ward, and others to suggest substances such as strontium were isotopic, when they were not. The nuclear assertion as to the destruction of WTC is in fact manufactured entirely out of unsubstantiated twisting of the actual data.
. . . . .
Having gone through this futile routine with Sinyor el Fruitcake over and again for more than a year now. I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now. And I encourage Sinyor Slapshtick to continue his raving mad dialogs, as I agree with Ted Nugent who said:

"I don't mind it when stupid people say stupid things. Stupid people should be encouraged to say stupid things, that way we always know who the stupid people are."

So go on flappin' your yapper Sinyor, be my guest.

\\][//

+++++++++
March 3, 2013 – 1:58 pm

I do have one more comment for the readership of this forum concerning Señor El Once,

As I began this exchange with him saying, that he is indeed: Arguing that Lack of appropriate radiation is Proof of a nuclear device used at WTC. And I point out that this is grotesquely preposterous ie: 'Lack of proof is proof'.

TRITIUM STANDARD
United States: 740 Bq/L or 20,000 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) (Safe Drinking Water Act)
>Ed Ward*
*55 x 740 = 40,700 Bq = 0.000000001 Ci a ten millionth of a Curie.
An astronomically minuscule amount of radiation.

\\]i[//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 1, 2013 – 3:41 pm

Analogies:

Say you are on an Internet blog faced with an overwhelming argument against a case that you are too stupid to give up…???

What is the answer to get out of that bind?

Why, an ANALOGY!
It matters not whether it makes any sense, it is a made-up story to fit the needs of a rhetorical moment. This is why Fetzer was so fond of analogies…until one took him down in flames.

So say, you find a penny in a knapsack carried by a migrant riding a camel in Pasadena, and the cops stop you for speeding – do you walk to school or carry a lunch? Maybe just complain about bruised thighs and return them to the Colonel…

\\][//

x76 Señor El Once : go to the graveyard and resurrect the dead uranium pony

2013-03-03

Oh goodie. Mr. Rogue has lost so badly, he has upped his responses from three-to-one to four-to-one.

March 1, 2013 – 3:41 pm
March 3, 2013 – 1:31 am
March 3, 2013 – 1:34 pm
March 3, 2013 – 1:58 pm

The time stamps do not tell the whole story, because they were not published until after my March 3, 2013 – 11:06 am, but they demonstrate an absolute eifer on the part of Agent Rogue to not only kick up shit but to get in the last word, and to control the discussion, the forum, and the PR.

The second one (@1:31 am) is such is such a gem in proving himself a cheat by not addressing anything specific but attempting to frame me as crazy while also poking fun at my name. Too funny! After proclaiming:

He wants ... Maybe a spin on his uranium pony this time? No dice, the funeral procession for "high'o'tritium" has moved beyond the graveyard into the twilight.

Twelve hours and three minutes after penning such a wonderful eulogy, Mr. Rogue becomes a liar with his subsequent March 3 postings that go to the graveyard and resurrect the dead uranium pony.

I called Mr. Rogue a liar, a cheat, and agent, and I stand by that assessment.

Here's another great example of Mr. Rogue being all three. In the pincer discussions with Dr. Fetzer who argued that only holograms could have flown the speeds of the WTC planes, Mr. Rogue legitimately countered that the aircraft were not the alleged commercial aircraft, because they were souped-up models with obvious enhancements to their engines, wings, and computer-controlled accuracy which would then enable them to achieve some of the feats that Dr. Fetzer claimed was impossible of the alledged commercial aircraft. [I called them "drone missiles with the lipstick of commercial plane," but let's not go there.]

The point is that here Mr. Rogue was, arguing as if his life dependent on it in a very overbearing and obnoxious manner with Dr. Fetzer, and stating that the WTC planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft. But now when it comes to the tritium discussion, he backpeddles and is using a [faulty] government report that states how much tritium is in the exit signs of the alleged commercial aircraft. Hello-ooooo! Drones pilots don't need to stinkin' exit signs, Mr. Rogue!

And even when we entertain that the aircraft were souped-up Boeing 767 that left the exit signs in tact, the authors of the tritium report admitted failure in their mathematical models to explain how that tritium would disperse and be account for -- not at the towers' craters -- but at drainage points from the WTC. Thus, they reached for other speculative sources (weapons and time pieces) without specifics on where those weapons were at the time of decimation and how they could account for the distribution of tritium. The whole tritium report started with a hypothesis regarding speculating what could have causes elevated tritium levels. They failed to answer that hypothesis but concluded it didn't matter, "cuz the tritium levels were so small, anyway. If it don't impact health, who freakin' cares?"

I stand by my statement:

The tritium report admitted failure in its speculation as to the source, because their mathematical models did not match historical trends, and were based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding potential sources (e.g., air craft exit signs, gun weapon sites, time pieces) and their original distribution in the towers that could lead to the measured outcome.

Mr. Rogue continues with cutting-and-pasting of inapplicable passages (from unreliable government sources) to support his mere "belief" in no-nookie. (Having passed through a second round of chemtrail enduced ailments and fever in two weeks) I'm too lazy today to post the links to my exact words elsewhere in this forum that address Mr. Rogue's lame-ass re-hash. Suffice it to say, neutron nuclear DEW explains why radiation of all forms would be low. Still, Mr. Rogue boldly states:

These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC.

Neutron nuclear DEW, neu nookiedoo, Mr. Rogue. It doesn't rule them out. And you would know this if you paid attention to what Dr. Jones did ~not~ address in even the slightest fashion in his no-nukes paper. Talk about an omission of gigantic proportions!

Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate, he gives us this PR tour:

The nuclear assertion as to the destruction of WTC is in fact manufactured entirely out of unsubstantiated twisting of the actual data.

The only problem with this is that if neu nookiedoo didn't do the WTC, the alternative explanation that Mr. Rogue champions -- Nano-thermite with RDX and lots of other chemical explosives -- completely boggles the mind with respect to the logistics just to get pulverization, let alone several weaks of under-rubble hot-spots. Don't make no Occam Razor sense!

Liar, cheat, and Agent that Mr. Rogue is, he has to come back with:

Arguing that Lack of appropriate radiation is Proof of a nuclear device used at WTC. And I point out that this is grotesquely preposterous ie: 'Lack of proof is proof'.

Such a fine example of those three traits in Mr. Rogue. "Lack of appropriate radiation" implies "no radiation." This has never been my argument. And as for "appropriate radiation", one needs to understand nuclear weapons to then make the call for what is appropriate or not. Mr. Rogue is always grasping at LARGE fission devices and LARGE fusion devices (and ignoring fission-triggered fusion devices configured as neutron devices and SMALL.) Were he not a liar, a cheat, and an agent, Mr. Rogue would have seen the light a long time ago.

An analogy was given for when a quantity of something insignificant (pennies) becomes significant (55 of them in your front pocket) despite the purchasing power of such remaining insignificant. So it is with tritium radiation; the measured amounts were insignificant for human health impacts but remain significant compared to where they should have been and when understanding what destroyed the WTC.

Agent Rogue, where's your little pincer buddy Mr. AWright? You need him to rescue you about now in some pointless discussion to validate your truther credentials.

Please keep with your already broken promise:

I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now.

x77 Señor El Once : demonstrating lying cheat

2013-03-04

I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent... each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is.

Here's his latest lie. Agent Rogue attributes to me a quote & a broken-promise that is his very own: "I will indeed get off his Crank Carousel now." Actually, it is sort of a double lie. The first is that he would attribute it to me when my usage of it clearly shows it belonging to Agent Rogue, and he was too stupid to recognize his own words nicely formatted as a quote with a gentle introduction of it being his words. The second lie is him continuing to break the promise of those very words of his; he has yet to get off the carousel.

As for the "agent bullshit," Mr. Rogue should do some beancounting to find out what his tally out of 142 (so far) is. Seventy-Five (~53% of all postings). Overwhelming. And flooding, bullying, and dominance has been consistent for the agent since he entered these forums in late January 2012.

Or we could look at my nine postings (not including this one) and tally how many responses Agent Rogue made: eighteen.

Or we could look at the nature of his two-for-one response ratio. The first posting is almost always a shoot-from-the-hip personal attack (e.g., "vile snake venom"), which is always a good indication that the agent has nothing substantial to reply with -- until he's had time to confer with superiors and then re-post some quote that inspection & understanding reveal is inapplicable and him trying to cheat readers with a misdirection.

I've been calling Agent Rogue an agent for a l-o-n-g time. It started as he played the cheat and tried to give repeatedly his "good, bad, and ugly" book review of Dr. Wood's textbook from the lofty position of not owning, not borrowing, not otherwise having the book, let alone cracking its cover. Out of my own pocket, I helped him overcome this handicap. He's had the book since June and still hasn't read it cover-to-cover to give a chapter-by-chapter "good, bad, and ugly" review, as was the agreement that he has thoroughly welched on. [With 20/20 hindsight, it is no surprise that the liar agent Rogue would cheat on this agreement.] It is not a question of the book containing some bad and ugly; it is more of a question of Agent Rogue failing an integrity test, because each chapter for sure has some amount of "good" that Agent Rogue is too stubborn, proud, and stupid to admit exists. Although Dr. Wood's words do their own PR tour to lead readers astray, the evidence is still neatly collected that points towards neutron nuclear DEW.

Mr. Rogue continues playing the agent to suppress nuclear means-&-methods by spouting the lie:

[T]here was not radiation TO SPEAK OF in the aftermath...

We've been speaking of tritium, so... FAIL.

That Mr. Rogue would use such bombastic and imprecise language is just him demonstrating what a lying cheat he is.

Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are dependent on the device(s)' design. Notice how Agent Rogue refuses to talk about neutron radiation? It is because he doesn't understand it nor do his supervisors (or heroes) feed him with anything to help with his deficit. It, too, wouldn't have been measured in any great quantities because it was directed upwards and into the sky, but it is key for why other forms of radiation were suppressed in the nuclear design as well.

Lying, cheating agent Rogue wants to keep framing things as minuscule and "a trillionth" and to steer readers into believing it means "nothing" and is equivalent to "zero." In the sense of Newtonian Calculus limits that agent Rogue never studied, I find it apropo that "a trillionth" approaches zero but isn't zero. And its non-zero value and the fact that it is 55 times greater than it should have been, combined with correlated quantities of other trace fission elements in the dust, screw with Agent Rogue's agenda to steer this forum away from neutron nuclear DEW.

Agent Rogue suggests that I my posting tally of nine was me "simply spitting vile venom like a cornered snake." Nope. Liar and cheat that Agent Rogue is, he conflates my 9 postings with half of his 18 responses to me, thus demonstrating who is the cornered snake.

Agent Rogue tries to conclude his one-up-manship with the oxymoron "... as there is nothing to be said..." I agree there was nothing for the agent to have said, but he went ahead and said nothing anyway. Next time he should STFU while saying his nothing and spare us any posting whatsoever.

//

x78 Señor El Once : novel uses for the technology

2013-03-04

Agent Rogue does not disappoint us with a further example of his lying and cheating ways.

To be fair, his Wiki quotes are accurate about neutron bombs and how scientists had ~publicly~ envisioned using them from the 1960's through 1980's with the hay-day of the Strategic Defense Initiative. The quotes he provided are ones that I've even fed him myself in some of our earlier exchanges not all that long ago. How quickly that cheat forgets?

Alas, just because the inventors of such devices ~publicly~ envisioned neutron bombs as LARGE thermonuclear devices that were detonated in the atmosphere such that their neutron radiation would penetrate fortified defenses (e.g., armored tanks) while also spreading other forms of radiation, this DOES ~NOT~ EQUATE to newer and more novel uses of the devices.

[History is littered with lots of inventions that found novel uses in ways never envisioned by their creators. As an example, just recently I read on Facebook that good old Coca-cola is a great solvent to remove rust from bicycle handlebars. Or how about the EMT trick of using a Bic pen as the tube for a trachaestomy? Or brown paper bags to help green tomatoes ripen? Or, or, or... ]

Agent Rogue knows that I've been talking about novel uses for the technology, because the carousel has brought these lessons up for his edification many times. [In fact, he was PWNed twice in a major way on his home court on this very topic: 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2012-11-22) and 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2) (2012-12-21).] But because he is an agent with an agenda to PREVENT knowledge of nuclear means-&-methods, he goes on with his merry, cheating, lying ways to mislead this forum. [I am a bit tired of it.]

So what are the differences in implementation that Agent Rogue purposely leaves out with the cheating games he plays?

The first is that these (newer) neutron nuclear DEW devices are not battlefield instruments. Their purpose is not to knock out fortified defenses and armored infantry. Their purpose is not to lay waste to large arrays of battlefield troops or create "Lebensraum" in lands occupied by genetically inferior enemies. Instead, their purpose is of a tactical nature.

Thus, the second difference is that these 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW devices are significantly smaller in yield.

The third difference is that they were configured to direct the escaping neutron radiation in a useful manner. Rather than having it spread radially and indeed killing life forms within that radius, the neutron radiation was directed toward the sky.

This serves two useful purposes: (1) significant yield down-scaling of the blast and heat wave and (2) massive reduction of lingering radiation of "traditional forms."

Specifically, fission devices are way too large and would have leveled significant chunks of Manhattan with their blast & heat waves; the same is true for (fission-triggered) fusion devices. Tactical size nukes are extremely difficult to design, implement, and carry out: the smaller the yield, the greater the probability of the device "nuclear fizzling" or otherwise not meeting its expected design yield. Moreover, the probability of nuclear fizzle increases when devices are used in tandem, as the nuclear radioactive (alpha, beta, gamma) yield of one can cause fracticide in neighboring nukes before they are detonated, thereby failing their objective. And even should the tandem devices meet their design criteria, fission and to a certain degree fusion produce unacceptable levels of lingering radiation whose duration in cases would be measured at the detonation point in centuries. [And of course, this is the song-and-dance that Dr. Jones enlightens us with to "prove" that fission or fusion nukes weren't used. This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to.]

Fusion devices generate their large energy yields by having an encasement that reflects neutron radiation back into the nuclear process to keep a chain reaction going and to get explosive yield to expand.

A neutron device is similar to a fusion device ~except~ that its encasement does not reflect neutron radiation back into the chain reaction; instead neutron radiation is allowed to escape. Because the chain nuclear reaction is prevented, its explosive yield is significantly reduced. When the neutron radiation is focused and channeled via the materials of the device, control over the debilitating effects of neutron radiation can be achieved. The application goals -- kill life forms or spare life forms -- dictates then how the design & implementation are tweaked to allow the neutron radiation to escape in a tactical manner.

In the case of 9/11, the escaping neutrons were directed skyward. The devices detonated in the towers top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fracticide of nukes lower in the tower.

Here's another analogy.

A fusion device is like a tire. When the nuclear reaction starts, the tire suddenly expands and expands with air until it explodes in all directions.

A neutron device is that same tire, but with one or more nail holes in it. When the nuclear reaction starts, the pressurized air takes the path of least resistance and blows primarily through the nail holes ripping them into much larger holes. Sure, the sudden influx of pressurized air does cause the tire to fail in all directions, but not as violently or massively or broadly, because the air is primarily directed through the preconfigured nail holes.

The "nail hole" is the twist to the fission-triggered-fusion application that (a) allows the radially explosive yield to be significantly reduced to a tactical level, (b) allows explosive energy to be channeled in a useful direction, (c) allows escaping neutron radiation to decrease (or increase) casualties to life, and (d) prevents tandem neutron devices from knocking each other into nuclear fizzle.

The Wiki quote from Agent Rogue is a touch inapplicable, because it is still framing matters as LARGE nuclear devices.

And as expected, here is a "fucking lie" from Agent Rogue

So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.

The reason it is a "fucking lie" is that Agent Rogue -- owing to his cheating ways -- does not clarify what that "enhanced radiation" is. He wants to scare the readership with the boogey-man phrase "enhanced radiation, oh me, oh my!!!".

The two questions to be asked are: (1) What type of "enhanced radiation" is produced? (2) How lingering is it?

The answer to both questions is dependent upon the neutron bomb's design and application. You see, in a battlefield configuration, bombarding neutron radiation -- which itself is "enhanced radiation" that is not lingering -- can induce more or less alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in impacted materials. But in other designs and applications (such was 9/11) when the neutron radiation is directed elsewhere [and when evidence is carted off without inspection], it no longer holds true that alpha, beta, and gamma radiation achive any significant magnitude, nor for very long.

Gloating Agent Rogue, as is true to his lying and cheating ways, isn't patient enough to wait for a response from me (above) and wants to solidify his bullying dominance in this forum. Before I could even finish this, he posts an ad hominem second posting that adds absolutely nothing to his argument. In fact, guess what it does to his argument when the above proves the lie and cheat of his efforts? Guess who deserves to have his modified words rammed back into his mouth?

Butt-cheese Sinyor Beanstein [Rogue], you serve nothing but butt-cheese and becquerel-krackers, served on a plate of exaggerated self-opinion. [Lack of understanding is NOT understanding.] No matter how you twist and wring the data, there ~was~ radiation to speak of: The radiation ~is~ consequential in the context of a nuclear device.

Oh, and two more things: (1) Banker's Trust and (2) Embrittlement.

Banker's Trust Building was across from the WTC and had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, they decided to tear it down. Why? Embrittlement, perhaps?

Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. ... Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.

It ain't as cheatin', lyin' Agent Rogue frames it: "Lack of Proof is NOT Proof." The proof is there. Neutron radiation isn't lingering, but embrittlement would be.

Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too.

Lest there be any doubt, I'm a religious zealot, so therefore have some carousel parallels, but the difference is I'm religiously fanatical about TRUTH. As such, I'm open-minded enough to consider the counter-argument and will even concede a point or stop promoting a position when TRUTH is revealed elsewhere. I've changed my tune on lots of things, the extent of 9/11 video fakery and NPT being just two of them.

When an agent is paid to promote an agenda, he can never admit fault or error; he can never give an inch; he can never allow his target (e.g., me) the last word on the agenda topic; he has to dominate the forum; he will pull out every nasty trick in the book in order to hold the line given by the agenda...

And let me tell you, approximately every other posting from Mr. Rogue to me has been some crafty ad hominem which did not address the subject but instead attacked me personally. Mr. Rogue's libel against me has been consistent, substantial, and not reciprocated except in a few rare personal breeches in decorum. Mr. Rogue has done little to demonstrate an open-mind on this theme. Mr. Rogue has in fact grasped unwaiveringly at tainted sources refusing to even acknowledge the blatant issues those sources have at being "the whole truth." Mr. Rogue isn't free to think for himself or to consider drawing different trend lines through the data points that are present. Agents never tire of going through the same merry-go-round points over-and-over, which Mr. Rogue has done not just with me, but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc.

I stand by my assessment that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent, as well as being an asshole. I'm sorry. The luster of having an agent as a sounding board has wore off; Mr. Rogue belongs back on this COTO crew-cut home court.

//

x79 hybridrogue1 : Sinyor el yocto, Sinyor Grande Plops, Sinyor Sheetfarts

2013-03-04

++++++++++

hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 6:04 pm

"…because it was directed upwards and into the sky…"~Sinyor el yocto

Hahahahaha…yeaaaah that's it…shuuuurr…they beamed it up to Scotty in the Enterprise and he scuttled it into deep space via warpdrive…and we now discover it was the fukkin Klingons who actually did 9/11.

Great work yocto…one. two, three little posties – four, five, six little posties…all for mr plop-tart's game.

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 6:23 pm

I think it is really unfair, and I am going to write my mom a long email to complain, because Sinyor Twatspeak did not inform us he was writing the script to a new Star Trek film:
KLINGON 9/11.

I wonder if it is going to be with the original cast, done as digital actors in their prime like the original TV series? If so, I would suggest Humphrey Bogart, as Osama bin Klingon. He is one of my favorite actors of all time. Maybe Peter Lori as George Bush Jr…??

[gotta keep that 53% ya nose]

Hohohohehehehahaha

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 7:10 pm

But seriously folks…if I can maintain 'serious' for any length of time after the latest from el Sinyor Grande Plops…ahem.

Okay, the actual truth of the matter is I told Sinyor I would send his stupid book back to him. Sinyor refused. I supposed at the time that it had to do with his paranoia, that he didn't want me to know his address.

Well, the shelf life of even this offer has expired. I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird's cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.

Speaking of papers…shouldn't you be grading your student's work rather than making up stupid bullshit here on the forum Sinyor Sheetfarts?

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 8:31 pm

And alas, after all of this, Sinyor still has NO RADIATION and continues to claim that this lack of proof is proof.

Here he is describing some weapon he has designed in his own imagination and passing it off as though it was real.

And I agree the luster has certainly worn off, in an assay of his 'nuggets' we find all are nothing but turds wrapped in gold colored foil.

Tell ya what ploptart, you 'shut the fuck up', and I won't make fun of your stupid bullshit anymore. Otherwise, I got all the time in the world.

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 8:45 pm

"And let me tell you, approximately every other posting from Mr. Rogue to me has been some crafty ad hominem which did not address the subject but instead attacked me personally. Mr. Rogue's libel against me has been consistent, substantial…"~Sinyor

Yes indeed, this is so, because I think you are a total crackpot and butt-cheese wrangler.
There is no "debating" crazy, there is only pointing to it and saying, "Yup, he's crazy"

Yup, your crazy Sinyor.

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 9:28 pm

> "Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too."~Sinyor FlippedFarts

Another wad of butt-cheese direct from the pooter-extruder.
It would be funny if it wasn't so STUPID.

I'll tell ya Sinyor el yocto, you got a lot of gall to call me 'scientifically challenged' when you are the one dancing naked in the moonlit night around a cauldron of boiling bat wings, frog eyes and dragon teeth. You are one crazy sonuvabitch mutter forking dingus. And arguing with you is like trying to make sense with an escapee from a looney-bin.

> "But before the building could be occupied, they decided to tear it down. Why? Embrittlement, perhaps?"~Sinyor

Yea, "perhaps", "maybe" – supposition, guesses, presumptions; secret weapons made up in his own fevered imagination, nonexistent radiation…all the bla bla blatherings of a yocto brained monkeyboy floating sky-high in a tritium daydream.

\\[3]//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 4, 2013 – 11:25 pm

> "I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent"~Señor El Once

Yes you have Señor, and that is why you will get no quarter from me.

I shall not allow a single turd of your bullshit pass – count on it.

\\]i[//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 5, 2013 – 9:30 am

Señor El Once again repeats these scurrilous and unfounded charges:
> "This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to." on MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM
. . . . . .
I repudiate these charges. And I feel no need to comment as they are utterly without foundation regardless of any tales told by this anonymous shank-wielding stutterfuk.

But I do have more to say about his bullshit sales pitch…

So now Señor El Topo (the mole) who has no radiation as proof of his imaginary weapon, is seriously trying to convince us that, the weapon was built to generate all of this energy so that they could turn around and vent the majority of this radioactive energy "into the sky".

This is a 'Kings New Clothes' scam – as blatant as it can be put. It is hard to tell if Señor is really this stupid, or if he just takes the rest of us as that stupid.

But then he argues that there were "Hiroshima like" ailments in the first responders…who I guess we are now to believe, simply didn't get the memo that the radiation had been vented "to the sky".
This "now you see it – now you don't" biz is the hallmark of shysters and bullshitters such as this anonymous twat calling himself Señor El Once; who claims there are "special" nuclear weapons, and their 'shit don't stink' (ie; they leave no radiation).

All of this smoke and mirrors rather than accept that the Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:

"*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in "typical" indoor dusts."
~RJ Lee report

This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

\\][//

x80 Señor El Once : precious little is worthy of being addressed

Don't I feel special with Agent Rogue's eight postings to my one? Amazing how precious little of his collected unhinged verbiage is worthy of being addressed.

March 4, 2013 – 6:04 pm
March 4, 2013 – 6:23 pm
March 4, 2013 – 7:10 pm
March 4, 2013 – 8:31 pm
March 4, 2013 – 8:45 pm
March 4, 2013 – 9:28 pm
March 4, 2013 – 11:25 pm
March 5, 2013 – 9:30 am

None of them take anything way from the real prospect of neutron nuclear devices being deployed on 9/11, despite the exhuberance of Agent Rogue's ridicule. If anything, his postings prove what a cheat Agent Rogue remains with his mischaracterization of the nuclear concepts that my postings make clear.

Also, none of his eight dispell my charge that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent. Quite the contrary.

A great example is Mr. Rogue's re-writing of history with regards to Dr. Wood's textbook.

The lying cheating Mr. Rogue was (and still is) offering book reviews here without having (read) the book. I called his bluff and secured permission to send him his own copy in exchange for an objective and thorough review: chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly. He agreed to the terms but has been skipping out on the deal ever since without as much as a single chapter review. Weasel, weasel, weasel! My, does Agent Rogue squirm!

Lack of integrity is to be expected from the lying cheat, but I had to go through the motions with Agent Rogue in order to get him to thoroughly discredit himself, which he does gloriously.

I find it totally funny that I have discovered many issues with Dr. Wood's book, so it isn't like I would have been defending every point to the death if Agent Rogue would have flagged those same issues. But no! Evidently despite the issues, the nuggets of truth contained therein that he would have been obligated into preserving are so damning, Agent Rogue could not risk even the tiniest acknowledgment of their validity. Even today, Agent Rogue can't give an inch in his all-or-nothing mantra sans-substantiation, writing to one of his COTO Crew-Cuts: "Judy Wood is simply bullshit. Junk PR, not science. She's an utter charlatan."

As the story continued, Agent Rogue received several figurative bloody noses from his very own copy of the book for his reluctance to give good, bad, and ugly details of his assessment, so the lying cheat tries to change the deal by claiming he's in the poor house and proposed sending the book back to me. [What a fucking genius! If he was so cash-strapped, mailing the book back to me would not help his wallet, nor the 9/11 discussion.]

However, a deal is a deal, and I was more than satisfied with the conditions and the ongoing outcome.

And before I forget, here's another example of Agent Rogue's fucking "genius" (not). First of all, Agent Rogue was informed IN ADVANCE of accepting the offer what I was going to do (e.g., postings like this) until I received that which I commissioned: good, bad, and ugly reviews. He walked right into it, and continues to step in it and track neu nookiedoo all over the place from the treads of his black jack boots.

Second, the deal obligated him into paying-it-forward or passing-it-on to someone else depending on the merit found therein. When he made contact with Dr. Jones, that would have been the ideal opportunity to get rid of the hot-potato. But no...

Agent Rogue proves that he was lying about being a "genius" in any subject at any point in his life.

By golly, the gift of Dr. Wood's textbook was one of my best 9/11 investments of all time and pays dividends to this day in proving what a lying fucking cheat Agent Rogue is!

Agent Rogue wrote yesterday:

I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book and use them in the bottom of my bird's cages.

My money is betting that the above is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, so for today let's assume that it's true.

It really says a lot about the character and integrity of Agent Rogue that he would violently pull the thick & heavy pages out of Dr. Wood's hardcover book in lieu of properly understanding the good, bad, and ugly that were depicted therein (or in lieu of passing-it-along to an appreciative human audience.)

It says a lot about Agent Rogue that rather than appreciating the high quality collection of images of WTC destruction and their correlation to map positions (which truly is Dr. Wood's book REDEEMING VIRTUE and one that he praised upon receipt of the book), Agent Rogue defaces the book for the benefit of his bird.

True, true, true, this thread shouldn't be about Dr. Wood's book. The discussion should be about (... errr, ... maybe 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW?)

However, Dr. Wood's book stands like a beacon of light that no useful or productive discussion on any subject will be forecoming when lying, cheating participants of Agent Rogue's character are allowed to bully and dominate. Mr. Rogue, you are and have been T&S's govt infiltration, no doubt.

[*Ear-to-ear grin with middle-fingers raised in an appreciative salute to Agent Rogue*]

Time for you to get a new assignment.

//

x81 Señor El Once : more mileage out of innuendo, false accusations, and libel

Agent Rogue demonstrates that he is a convincing liar and cheat, because if he were being truthful, he would have taken his time and posted a detail report with original passages from Dr. Jones and the corresponding analysis from me (with URLs) that demonstrates where I:

(a) mischaracterize, (b) misframe and (c)_ ignore portions of Jones' work by (d) disingenuous cherry-picking.

Nope, it ain't there. It's all shoot-from-the-hip conjecture.

And the reason it ain't there is that Agent Rogue gets more mileage out of innuendo, false accusations, and libel than he would out of any form of accurate re-publication of Dr. Jones' work side-by-side with my criticism that point out its weaknesses. Ooooo, can't have that!

If Mr. Rogue wants to continue with his games, the onus is on him to fucking prove his contentions... with URLs, with appropriate passages, with correct analysis.

Until then, his posting is just another fucking cowbell without a clacker and a fitting underscore to Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and an agent.

Meanwhile, we have to ask the question: "Why is Agent Rogue defending Dr. Jones so viciously?"

Why must Agent Rogue always frame any criticism of Dr. Jones' work as being a "personal defamation?"

The answer is that by shifting the terms of debate into being about "personal defamation" [and by dishing out copious amounts of his own], Agent Rogue can avoid the specifics from Dr. Jones' work that truly highlight its errors and omissions and prove it unfitting to serve as the final word about there allegedly being no-nukes and about there allegedly being combinations of super-duper-nano-thermite and RDX (?) that can account for the evidence.

//

x82 hybridrogue1 : theater of the absurd

hybridrogue1
March 5, 2013 – 11:12 am

So let us revisit where this latest round on Señor's dipshit carousel began on this thread…

On FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 1:36 PM, I said the following:
'Again I must object to your defamation of Professor Jones.'

And Señor claimed [FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM]:
>"I did not defame Dr. Jones, but I did legitimately criticize Dr. Jones' work."
. . . . .
But this is a lie!
Señor does NOT "legitimately criticize Dr. Jones' work." – but in fact mischaracterizes, misframes and ignores portions of Jones' work by disingenuous cherry-picking. That is willful defamation and dishonest argumentation.
. . . . .
Recently:
"The song-and-dance by Professor Jones to steer the 9/11 Truth Movement."
. . . . .
Accusing Jones of steering the movement is a slur and defamation regardless of Señor's rhetorical 'song-and-dance'.

Again on -FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM
>"proven instances of Dr. Jones being less-than-genuine in his stilted work, but also a rousing defense that ignores the issues and tries to frame the criticism of Dr. Jones' work as a personal or defamation attack on the man."

>"Honest evaluation of Dr. Jones' 9/11 work does more to smear the man than anything I could or would write. Dr. Jones' never having corrected the record while allowing misconceptions and misapplications of his work to propagate is what allows the defamation to raise its hydra-head."
. . . . .
If one reads these stanzas by Señor Beanstein, we see clearly that he is defaming Jones all the while, and denying defaming Jones as he denies it. Quite the twisted twatspeak from this…what? Liar? Cheat? Agent? Simpleton idiot?
Take your pick, whatever it is, his lack of intelligence, his burning ego, or his pay ration; he is singing putrid songs of bullshit and defaming Dr Jones.

\\][//

+++++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 5, 2013 – 3:23 pm

And this goes back a year and more now. Within the very first exchanges on T+S Sinyor was calling me a "NSA 'Q Team' Agent"…

Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean.
I looked it up on the web one day out of curiosity. The only thing I found was a bowling team for NSA called Q-Team or Team-Q…something like that.
The point was obvious from the start. Max is a cop, and he is out to spot bloggers who are well informed and capable of lucid argumentation.

He's got some very deep games. He can be very convincing to the uninformed.

The defamation of Jones lies in Sinyor's false assertions that he has proven Jones wrong, and then claiming that Jones is culpable for not mending his ways. Sinyor has proven nothing but that he himself is utterly full of shit, and that Jones has nothing to mend or apologize for. Like Prager the charlatan claiming Jones is a fraud; it is ludicrous considering the source. Prager is one of the culprits setting the stage for Sinyor's mad dancing, and Prager has nothing more than Sinyor other than the preposterous DEW aspect, which is Sinyor's delusional brainchild.

The whole thing hangs on the fact that there simply was no appreciable radiation. Assertions that there were are proven poppycock. The excuse that the neutrons were beamed into the sky is utter bullshit. There is no evidence of such an effect during the event, none. There is no evidence in the aftermath, just rhetorical kaleidoscopes and fan dancing.

I will say this as many times as it needs to be repeated, because the facts concerning tritium are well established in my arguments above. Regardless of his posturing Sinyor has not made a successful challenge to those facts.

And if "Hiroshima" was successfully beamed to the sky, the ailments of the first responders being blamed on the radiation that wasn't there is another indicator of the circular aspect of Sinyor sales pitch.

Arguing with him is like being on the stage of a play of the theater of the absurd, something written by Samuel Beckett…

"Zero zero zero" – END GAME.

\\][//

x83 hybridrogue1 : obfuscate solid, "Best Evidence"

hybridrogue1
March 5, 2013 – 4:55 pm

Again Señor has zero but a grin for his mirror and a count of beans.

"Zero zero zero" – END GAME.

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 5, 2013 – 5:14 pm

So now that Señor is left grinning holding his last flimsy card, the "Agent/Liar" gambit, which is no less a zero than the rest of his squattle, let's look at the other so-called "radioactive elements" found in the WTC Dust:

THE PRAGER PSYOP

>"The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance "~Prager

Bullshit, Uranium is a naturally occurring substance in the environment in the trace levels found in the WTC Dust. The "fission pathway" is nothing but it's natural breakdown as goes on in the Earth environment day in day out everywhere. There simply was no unusual radiation whatsoever in the WTC aftermath.~ww

>"Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm."~Prager

"Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm … Yttrium is found in soil in concentrations between 10 and 150 ppm…Yttrium is used in the production of a large variety of synthetic garnets,[51] and yttria is used to make yttrium iron garnets (Y3Fe5O12 or YIG), which are very effective microwave filters.[4] Yttrium, iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3(Fe,Al)5O12 and Y3(Fe,Ga)5O12) have important magnetic properties.[4] YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer.[52] Yttrium aluminium garnet (Y3Al5O12 or YAG) has a hardness of 8.5 and is also used as a gemstone in jewelry (simulated diamond).[4] Cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals are used as phosphors to make white LEDs.
Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount.[40] With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations.[40]

The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs.[5] Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium

The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission.*
Ferrite magnets and refining zinc.[2]
Strontium titanate has an extremely high refractive index and an optical dispersion greater than that of diamond, making it useful in a variety of optics applications. This quality has also led to its being cut into gemstones, in particular as a diamond simulant. However, it is very soft and easily scratches so it is rarely used.[2]
Strontium carbonate, strontium nitrate, and strontium sulfate are commonly used in fireworks for red color, and sometimes for other colors too.
Strontium aluminate is used as a bright phosphor with long persistence of phosphorescence.
Strontium chloride is sometimes used in toothpastes for sensitive teeth. One popular brand includes 10% total strontium chloride hexahydrate by weight.
Strontium oxide is sometimes used to improve the quality of some pottery glazes.
Strontium ranelate is used in the treatment of osteoporosis. It is a prescription drug in the EU, but not in the USA.
Strontium barium niobate can be used in outdoors holographic 3D displays as a "screen".[40]
Strontium phosphide is an inorganic compound with the formula Sr3P2 and is used as a laboratory reagent and in the manufacture of chemically reactive devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

*In 2001 most personal computers were still using CRT displays {same as TVs}. It wasn't until 2003 that the price of flat screens became compatible with the CRT. I was still using a CTR at work all the way until 2008.

All of the substances found it the WTC dust are in fact ubiquitous with modern industrial uses, and are also a major portion of the contaminants at municipal landfills.

\\][//

+++++++++
hybridrogue1
March 5, 2013 – 5:29 pm

And now just this short dismissal of Judy Wood, as it is obvious that anyone with the slightest grasp of the sciences realize; she is a cheap charlatan of pseudoscience.

Her DEW "theory" is and has been utterly debunked__and long before her stupid book came out, as there was nothing at all in that book that wasn't already available on her website. It is false advertising to claim otherwise.

As all of these New Wave 9/11 theories, the hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex.

"Why were military-grade explosive chips found in the towers' dust throughout Lower Manhattan?"

This is the the question that is become the 'Smoking Gun', physical 'hard evidence' that fits as the keystone to the arch of all the other evidence that this event was a systemic military-industrial state operation.

Now the question arises, why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact 'Best Evidence' such as this?

\\][//

x84 Señor El Once : Ten-to-One