It slipped through the cracks that this re-purpose didn't happen. Useful to see how much effort Mr. Rogue put into side-lining nuclear considerations with lies, cheats, and weasel energy.
x102 Señor El Once : Late to the Party
Dear Mr. Ditchner,
You mention that you are late to the party, yet you post early as if you know you are the one who brings the beer and re-animates the party.
I suggest that you read until the end before posting anything further, because I have hopes that you will learn something. I am, after all, Dr. Judy Wood´s biggest supporter here in this forum, even though I do it in left-handed and even back-handed manner. Unlike almost all other, I have read her book cover-to-cover and am probably most qualified in stating what is valid and what might be disinformation. Brain-dead support of her work won´t fly here, even though I think she is closest in much of her description than others. Still, until she comes up with version 2 of her textbook, I consider her wrong.
Why? She doesn´t connect any of the (valid) concepts that she introduces, let alone connect any of them with 9-11. Worse, she doesn´t validate the sources of energy as compared to nuclear sources, and gives nuclear sources very short shrift and a bums rush.
My views are clearly stated below, although they do morph a bit as I learn more. My true beliefs to date are stated at the following link.
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/neutron-nuclear-dew/
Should you desire to pursue this discussion, the requirements are that (a) you read all comments here, (b) you read my part 1 and part 2 available at the link above, and (c) you post at the BOTTOM of this disuscussion. (When you post near the top, you do a disservice to lurker readers and unfairly put your ignorant spin on things for them too early in their assessment.)
Indeed I believe that Dr. Wood has many nuggets of truth for honest truth seekers to digest, but also, she is not the lady madonna or holy grail. Be man enough to admit the disinfo that was purposely implanted in her work, yet preserve the nuggets of truth, and you will do well grass hopper.
Further responses from me, due to a vacation out of the country, might be delayed until next week. But rest assured, I might have something to say.
//
x103 Señor El Once : Directed Energy Weapon, indeed. The energy came from a nuclear source
Dear Mr. Juan Ditchner,
If you are still following this discussion, this is a more detailed response to your March 22, 2013 – 3:53 am posting. Although I responded on March 22, 2013 – 8:00 pm, I was on vacation out of the country with limited access to the internet.
You wrote:
I didn't know about Dr. Judy Wood until Jan 2013 when I came across some of her video presentations, then her websites, and, of course, her book. From my fresh eyes it appears that the 911 Truth establishment has purposely ignored Dr. Wood's evidence and, instead, attacked the messenger applying bully tactics, much like some posters on this page.
Agreed in part. Dr. Wood has many nuggets of truth that the 9/11 Truth establishment has purposely ignored. Indeed, the strategy often taken is to attack the messenger with bully tactics. They prefer trying to leverage the weak areas of her work -- areas that I could even agree ~are~ disinformation -- so that all nuggets of truth contained therein could be swept off of the table via guilt-by-association.
Where I disagree I've already alluded to above. Her work does have weak areas -- even disinformation -- that is worthy of a critical eye and rational discussion to be exposed.
You wrote:
Mini nukes without radiation (or sound)?
The nature of the mini-nuke determines both immediate and long-term lingering radiation. To cut to the chase, a neutron nuclear device is configured such that the immediate radiation would not be as expected (e.g., primarily emitted neutrons directed skywards), and the lingering radiation would quickly dissipate (within 48-72 hours). It would appear as if the 9/11 mini-nukes were "without radiation" if the measuring came late and was stilted through govt sponsored reports (and compared against public-perceptions of radiation from mini-nukes). Point of fact is that the 9/11 nukes did have radiation, which is why the Tritium Report was commissioned.
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
Sound does not come from the nuclear reaction, but from changes in air pressure such as from the blast wave. If the (neutron) nuclear device was configured for minimal blast wave that was in part directed (upwards) with a small radius of destruction, then loud deafening explosions would not necessarily be expected, because air wasn't being pushed around.
While on this subject of sound, I believe the smaller sound signature also disproves thermite used in any combination with brissanty explosives, like RDX. You see, thermite alone has insufficient burn-rate to account for the pulverization. As such, Dr. Jones later suggested that thermite was used in combination with other chemical explosives, such as RDX. The problem with these, their burn-rates, and their more brissanty nature is that these obtain their destructiveness by massive changes in air pressure, which in turn would have been heard as deafening explosions. Although Dr. Sunder of NIST misdirected like a lying SOB, he wasn't necessarily lying when he said they ruled out chemical explosives due to the observed small decibel signatures.
You wrote:
Thermite without blinding light or tremendous heat?
As you allude to, thermite does have problems. Not sure about the blinding light aspect, because we are talking about detonation within the towers and probably the core area with efforts to contain it. As for tremendous heat, the horse-shoe beams and arches are another disqualifying piece of evidence for thermite, because they would not have had the "umpth" to decimate their target beam while heating end-to-end neighboring beams and supports to accomplish this bending. Neutron nukes are a different story.
To date I have not seen any viable theories of any known technologies that could produce the type and extent of damage as we saw at the WTC.
Please research neutron nuclear devices, links given above.
The lack of rubble is, indeed, troubling.
There is no lack of rubble. (Dr. Wood gets into trouble for "vaporization" and "dustification" mostly because she applies it to the steel, yet steel is abundant in the rubble. Moreover, "vaporization" of even one column requires a huge amount of energy, for which Dr. Wood's proposed energy sources come up a bit short.)
If you spend a couple of hours watching large buildings being imploded on youtube there is always a multi story rubble pile adjacent. Can anybody produce a photo or video of such a pile for WTC1 or WTC2? Based on the videos I would have expected a pile of 10 stories or so.
Again, there is no lack of rubble. What is troubling is its pulverization and the energy required to accomplish that.
Can you find another example of a giant skyscraper being destroyed from the top down?
This argument is a red-herring. A building can be decimated bottom-up, top-down, middle-up-and-down, or any which way, depending on goals.
However, Dr. Wood is correct in calling our attention to the pulverization early in the process and how energetically it was spewed... in some cases up like a fountain. (I say it was neutron nuclear DEW aimed upwards.) Dr. Wood, however, gets into trouble, because the destruction clearly started at or around the alleged aircraft impact points and space-based DEW would have been tippy-top-down, which is wasn't. Dr. Wood also gets into trouble, because DEW devices within the tower (if not nuclear) lack an energy source, and she has not connected her DEW in a practical sense to any Tesla energy from space or hurricane energy.
Can you explain the picture at the top of this page? Is that not solid material pouring out of the top of the building? Can you explain the complete destruction of the entire contents of both towers including all office material, furnishings, decorations, personal electronics, toilets, sinks, mirrors, or people? What happened to the main body of WTC4? Will you deny the evidence or will you provide a viable hypothesis to explain it? As I have arrived here so tardy I already have the answer to that question. Evidence is being denied. Viable hypotheses are not forthcoming.
Indeed, neutron nuclear DEW can explain it, I believe. Again for your convenience.
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
Directed Energy Weapon, indeed. The missing links are that the energy came from a nuclear source and was configured as a neutron device, because this further limited the yield of the heat/blast wave while making the lingering radiation very short-lived.
Dear Mr. McKee,
While returning from my vacation, my aircraft allowed the guilty-pleasure of watching movies that I would not ordinarily see. I finally got to see most of the Batman Movie, "The Dark Knight Returns" that has been propped up for its Sandy Hook references (that I either haven't gotten to yet or missed). You will find it interesting that the fusion device that Bane threatens Gotham with is explicitly called a neutron bomb.
//
x104 Señor El Once : "Red Herring" assessment
{Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
Dear Mr. Ditchner,
I stand by my "Red Herring" assessment of your question that tries to make hay out of a top-down demolition. I repeat, "a building can be decimated bottom-up, top-down, middle-up-and-down, or any which way, depending on goals."
The fact that scant few (approaching zero) examples of "a giant skyscraper being destroyed from the top down before or after 911" exist [except WTC-1 and WTC-2] doesn't speak to any technical inability but it does speak to the "depending on goals" portion. What are the goals of most demolitions? An incomplete list would include reduction of collaterial damage to neighboring structures, facilitation of post-demolition clean-up efforts, and efficient ($) use of the energy sources deployed in the demolition. [Las Vegas and Hollywood demolitions might add the goal of "spectacular" to make a good show.]
The two main reasons why top-down demolitions are not favored are that (1) debris is scattered more which, if it doesn't damage neighboring structures, may spread out clean-up over a larger area, and (2) it inefficiently uses the energy sources. Traditional demolitions always use the mass of a certain amount of upper floors combined with gravity as a demolition energy source to destroy a certain amount of lower floors, thus requiring fewer explosives to get the structure into small pieces for final removal from the site. In an untraditional top-down demolition, extra energy is expended to decimate upper floors that in fractured form can not take full advantage of mass and gravity to decimate lower floors.
One of the plus points of Dr. Wood's book is it sheds light on the pulverization energy deployed in the upper floors and that such pulverized material (much of it spilling over the sides of the towers) was no longer available to serve as a gravity-driven pile-driver to destroy lower portions. Further, she speculates on why this might have been a demolition goal (beyond "shock-and-awe, baby!"): to preserve the bathtub which kept Hudson water from flooding the basement levels of the WTC as well as many neighboring buildings and via the subway tunnels. Pulverized content falling from great heights would not damage infrastructure as much as more large chunks of cohesive content would.
Moreover, because the overall demolition time was between 11 and 15 seconds (depending on who is observing yet still way to close to free-fall time), energy was continually added to take resistive infrastructure out of the way by pulverizing it. The significance of this is that it represents a level of "overkill" that defrauds the desired premise of "gravity driven pile driver" while at the same time unmasking that their energy sources were great and maybe could not be scaled any smaller.
You wrote:
Your failure to address the issue posed and to change the discussion...
I had no failure in my address; the failure was with issue posed: top-down destruction supposedly being evidence of DEW.
You wrote:
By the way, it was a reply and if the site webmaster had not wanted readers to reply to others' comments then they should have deactivated the option. I view your objection to my reply as a bully tactic.
I didn't object to your reply. I objected to when and where you made your reply. You made your reply ~before~ having read the entire thread. You made your reply near the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. And in my opinion, your reply had little to do with the direction of the discussion that you tried to "bully" your way into so late to the party with your skew. Aside from being highly discourteous to those who participated (and are still interested in participating), I view that as a tactic to derail the discussion after the fact for latter-day lurker readers.
You wrote:
And, if you use the term 'nuggets' one more time, I think I go crazy.
Great! Have a crazy field day compliments of my "nuggets."
You take the position "there is no lack of rubble".
Correctly stated, my position is that the rubble (e.g., non-steel) was pulverized, and therefore fit into a smaller volume as observed. An optical illusion in the relatively shallow rubble pile is the amount of rubble that filled basement levels under the towers. My position is also that even though pulverization is a massive energy sink, it is still many orders of magnitude less energy than vaporization of steel.
Whereas it does not hurt us to contemplate that some level of vaporization occurred, what hurts Dr. Wood is not correctly speculating what the energy source of such would be. All she has is lingering innuendo that Hurricane Erin or Tesla energy from space could accomplish it.
You taunted:
You claim that all the steel is accounted for. Could you please place a link to your source?
I leave wiggle room that the basis for my claim may have been infected with disinformation. As one source, here are pictures and page numbers from Dr. Wood's book.
Figure 113 pg 117
Figure 158 pg 172
Figure 190 pg 197
Figure 196 pg 201
... There are more, but you get the picture.
Dr. Wood is the one planting the lingering innuendo of the vaporization of steel, but when you look at those pictures, you'll see massive amounts of steel attributed to the towers are present. They weren't vaporized.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine how many truckloads of steel were taken to barges and shipped to China. While researching that, you'll find the sources you request regarding on-site workers testimony about accounting for steel. Nobody accounted for 100% of the structural steel, so we can leave the door open for some level of vaporization... just not the levels that Dr. Wood tries to hint at.
Let me remind you that the title of Dr. Wood's book is "Where Did the Towers Go?" Dr. Wood spends a great deal of time in the book, on her website(s), and in her presentations presenting evidence to the contrary.
Your "reminder" only turns the spot-light upon her book as being a "disinformation vehicle" that I still recommend.
Dr. Wood did not make a convincing case for the remains being vaporized and going into space. In fact, thanks to the sister disinformation vehicle of September Clues, the very satellite image that Dr. Wood uses to say "content went into the atmosphere" is suspected of being tainted. (Figure 101 from page 108.) Thanks to the images in Dr. Wood's book, we learn that copious amounts of steel are very much present in the pile and weren't vaporized.
Worse, when we follow her presentations (videos, website, or book) of the "spire" supposedly getting vaporized, our study into other sources reveals a glaring omission that exists to this day: namely that of two other view points on video that clearly show the "spire" telescoping and falling over. Dr. Wood has never acknowledged this evidence.
Thanks to Dr. Jenkins we learn of the energy requirements to vaporize steel, particularly to the ludicrous extreme hinted at by Dr. Wood's lingering innuendo.
Allow me to put it into layman's terms: The wick of a candle gets "vaporized" by the candle flame. The wax in a circular radius around the candle flame (melts and then gets sucked into the wick where it) vaporizes, too. When you scale the combustible properties of the candle's wick to that of a piece of steel to achieve its vaporization, you'll discover that (a) it requires a massive amount of energy and (b) the required heat level exceeds the radius of the candle (e.g., towers)... to the tune of probably several city blocks. This was not observed on 9/11, and the very images sited from Dr. Wood's book also dispute this.
Please explain how all that steel came crashing down around those 14 firemen in the stairwell yet not a single one got hit by as much as a paperclip. They heard a loud noise, they experienced choking dust, then they saw the sky above them. No mention of tons and tons of steel crashing down around them. I find that odd and supportive of Dr. Wood's opinion that the steel was, in fact, dustified.
The stairwell's proximity to where the DEW devices were (a) placed and (b) aimed help explain it. My premise is that multiple nuclear neutron devices were deployed that aimed not just the escaping neutrons upwards but also most of their blast and heat waves. Yes, content above the stairwell was pulverized. Given that I say they were tactical neutron nuclear devices, they had close to the needed energy to really do a number on the steel in the direct vacinity and direct line of fire. But as you yourself write, the "steel came crashing down around ... the stairwell."
Please specifically address the issues I have raised in this reply without using the term "nuggets" or by changing the subject and discussing DEW or Proton Nukes.
DEW (directed energy weapon) is in the title of Dr. Wood's book, so it is not changing the subject.
Also, your quip "Proton Nukes" proves you didn't understand or were too lazy to quote me accurately. "Neutron nuclear DEW" is the proper phrase. The technology is based on neutron bombs, but does a twist on the application goals. "Neutron nuclear DEW" makes no pretense about using the energy efficiently or effectively in a battlefield sense, because it does neither. It essentially vents the escaping highly energetic neutrons upwards such that they aren't even available to kill life-forms (an original stated goal of neutron bombs). The neutron configuration of a fusion bomb reduces the blast and heat waves, however, down to a tactical level that can also be directed to a certain measure. And the radiation signature is both small and quickly dissipated, just as was observed.
This proves another glaring omission by Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones) in their sweeping dismissals of 9/11 nuclear sources.
As I said earlier it would have been a much better strategy had she never postulated a mechanism because it allowed people (like you) to ignore the evidence and attack the hypothesis. "Before you determine how it happened you have to determine what happened" -J Wood
I am most certainly ~not~ ignoring the evidence. I am re-purposing it.
Lest there be no misunderstanding, you and I are in agreement that Dr. Wood presents lots of evidence that need an adequate explanation.
Dr. Wood should have followed her own advice when she went to court, presented lame theories she could not prove, got the case thrown out for lack of standing, and double-jeopardy prevented others from making other cases.
As for attacking Dr. Wood's hypothesis? Ha! Does she even have one in her book? (Have you even read her book cover-to-cover? I have.)
Nothing connects together her snippets of evidence and lingering innuendo. The nuclear omissions and side-stepping are pretty glaring, though, particularly when she was getting her engineering degrees during Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Did she even review what they were talking about doing in the '80's to do a reasonable extrapolation to 20 years later? X-ray lasers (really nuclear bombs that could target those wavelengths) should have come up in her literature review, as well as the characteristics of neutron bombs.
The real question is: why aren't you attacking her hypothesis?
I mean, Dr. Wood talks about the energy requirements whether or not we include steel dustification or vaporization. But she gives neither ballpark estimates nor ~valid~ speculation into the energy source. What's up with that?
And where is her effort in her 2010 textbook to fix the errors that I'm sure she learned were associated with the analysis on her website. Where is her literature review? Case in point is Dr. Jenkin's whose work was from 2007. Although Dr. Jenkins took his calculations to an unreasonable extreme considering energy required to vaporize ~all~ the steel in the towers, to astute readers he did make valid points regarding how much energy is required to vaporize just one steel beam.
Dr. Wood's textbook as well as the work of Dr. Steven Jones (and many others) are disinformation vehicles. There ain't no two-ways about it. But before abandoning all hope, they need to be sent to the recycling center for them damn-naggit nuggets of truth to be reclaimed.
++++++
Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:
I have read this paper from Dr Jenkins and (1) understood it, and (2) it demolishes Dr Wood's thesis totally. (3) Wood is presenting junk science.
Wrong on at least three counts.
Crafty Dr. Wood's has few theses to be demolished: just lots of lingering innuendo that she fails to connect together into a cohesive whole. However, if you want to say that vaporization of steel is one such thesis, the first hurdle is agreeing on how much steel we're talking about. I mean, Dr. Wood has pictures that clearly show tons and tons of steel that were from the towers and obviously were ~not~ vaporized. [I don't want to get into the argument of who -- Dr. Wood or her detractors -- is first or most guilty of misframing it.]
But Dr. Jenkins is no angel either, otherwise he wouldn't have framed his calculations as if ~all~ (or ~most~) of the steel were vaporized, thereby coming up with an obscenely large number for the required energy (the sun). Maybe he should have studied Dr. Wood's collection of pictures, too. As far as my memory recalls, he offered no down-to-earth calculations on the energy required (a) to vaporize even one steel beam [of such-and-such dimensions] or (b) to heat such end-to-end that would permit bending into an arch or horseshoe. Dr. Jenkins was running with his strawman argument, because his agenda -- like that of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood -- was to take serious contemplating into the true sources for WTC destruction off of the table.
Mr. Rogue writes:
Another point, I had the book. I did not read the entire thing. The reason I did not is that I discovered it is false advertising to claim that there is any substantial difference between what is presented on Wood's Internet site and what is in the book. I had already studied that site. My conclusion is that both the book and the site are simply bullshit.
Nice bit of malframing and strawman building, there. Prove where the claims (from me) ever said there was "any substantial difference between what is presented on Wood's Internet site and what is in the book." Other than my glowing reviews of her tables that correlate pictures to map positions that her website doesn't have, you won't find it, because it ain't there. Just the opposite.
But what you will find is statements to the effect that her 2010 book is more recent that her mostly stagnant website (2006), so should be given deference with regards to what is her final word.
Whether or not I agree with your statement about bullshit, what is true is that you come to such a conclusion admitting to ~not~ having read her book cover-to-cover. More importantly, nor have you ever -- in almost 16 months -- coughed up the "good, bad, and ugly" specifics chapter-by-chapter to justify your opinions. [The best you've done is repeat links to Dr. Jenkins, but his work from 2007 pre-dates the 2010 book.]
Mr. McKee in the article wrote:
...
- For Wood's detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
- For Wood's supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?
...
You don't think her science is sound? Tell me why. You think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread? Why do you think so?
Mr. Rogue, your lack of acknowledgement to any "good" [however supposedly few and far between] in her book is glaring, and pegs you as both unobjective and agenda-toting. Aside from you being a proven weasel, cheat, and liar in your discussions with me, Mr. Rogue, a very revealing aspect to your "character" is that precious little of your "bullshit" conclusion has evidence of you thinking for yourself, analyzing things on your own, writing things in your own words. I mean, you quote from others on the subject in a bottish and repetitive way, but rarely have you ever written your own words from your own understanding. You've been following a script; that script doesn't allow you thinking out of the box; that script doesn't permit review of the evidence that doesn't conveniently fit into the super-duper nano-thermite genre; that script doesn't allow you to question Dr. Jones.
I thank you for your past participation here, Mr. Rogue. You've made my arguments more solid. But now that you have the proven integrity of a weasel, my tolerance of you particularly on my hobby-horse topic is wearing thin.
Because I know how buddy-buddy to and Dr. Fetzer are, here's a couple good reading.
Dr. Fetzer:
Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle/
Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/20/judy-wood-and-dews-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
//
[Trying to emulate Mr. Rogue's caboose \\][// in my own Zorro-ish way]
x105 Señor El Once : Doggedly, the weasel continues to champion super-duper nano-thermite by any means possible
{Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
One of these days, I might be tempted to compile "The Complete Set (so far) of Mr. Rogue Throwing-the-Towel-at-Me", which would then for sure include this new diddy:
I am off of this lunatic's endless carousel ride.
Owing to proven integrity flaws in Mr. Rogue, I'm confident that this will unravel to be yet another broken promise.
Were there any truth to that statement, or to this other statement from Mr. Rogue:
I do hope that it is realized that I haven't the slightest interest in what this character has to say.
... then there would have been ~no~ need for a concluding posting that calls me out specifically. Silence would have been golden.
Proving why he's earned the title of weasel, he doesn't even given specifics on what makes my posting "milquetostada nannycanker bullshit," making it just another hypnotic PR assertion.
[*SNAP* of the fingers. The spell is broken.]
Numbers have always been the weasel's failing, like in not being able appreciate how an explosive material's burn-rate determines quantities and configuration and factors into a long-lasting hot-spot in a major way. The faster the burn-rate, the more material required. And no matter how you lay it out, a hot-spot several weeks in duration is going to require obscenely, incredibly, unreasonably massive amounts of said material.
But another area where numbers trip up the weasel can be viewed in his posting frequency. Take this article with ~522 total postings so far. By my rough count, the weasel is ~9 postings shy of an even 200 (e.g., 35% of the total). Lunatic that I am, my milquetoast presence on this, my hobby-horse topic, is still ~30 postings shy of the lowest of triple digits (e.g., a pitying 13% of the total.)
Doggedly, the weasel continues to champion super-duper nano-thermite by any means possible, when other more reasonable energy sources should have been considered, certainly by his doctored scholars.
But also just as doggedly, the weasel avoids even as little as a high school sophomore's "D-" book report on Dr. Wood's textbook: the good, the bad, and the ugly, chapter-by-chapter. Talk about your carousels, the weasel in this very thread tries to give his book report without having the book. Then after a copy is provided with conditions for an objective review, the weasel runs down the clock for months supposedly "reading it." And then when finally cornered over 3/4 of a year later, the weasel says he did ~not~ read it, and in fact with much strength and violence, alledgedly tore up the 500+ page book of heavy, quality paper and abundant use of color to line his bird's cage rather than fulfilling part two of those conditions either to pay-the-book-forward or to pass-the-book-along to someone who would appreciate it.
On at least two occasions of late, the weasel has written:
There is NOTHING remaining between us Señor, fuck off.
True. I've gotten my money's worth out of this 9/11 investment that still pays me dividends in the bloody-noses his bird-cage lining now gives him. I still have lingering curiousity as to what this "autodictat genius artist" would write in an "objective review," but no longer expect such and certainly don't expect honesty, just like I don't expect a weasel to change his spots.
Yes, the test of Mr. Rogue's integrity was administered, and it is neither insult nor ad hominem but a simple statement of fact that he has proven himself a weasel. For what is a real man on the internet but the truth in his summed up words? And when that truth is found lacking, so goeth that man's reputation.
Mr. Rogue is relieved of his book report obligation to me, but at the high cost to his integrity and reputation in these forum.
If any obligation remains for the weasel, it is one owed to his God (Truth), his neighbor (COTO and T&S), and himself (to rebuild his word, his integrity, his reputation into something of value again.)
Meanwhile and until such date, the weasel will have to suffer with being called the label he justified himself on so many levels. Time to give him a much-needed nudge ~not~ just off of "the lunatic's endless carousel ride".
// El-Oh-El... a lunatic's bad business for the weasel
x106 Señor El Once : keep an eye out for that "projection" stuff
{Also re-posted on 2013-03-19 and was not expected to survive, and in fact, did not. Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
This is in reference to a "book-length" posting on 2013-04-13 from Triple-W, a.k.a. "Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][///", who recently called me Carnival Maxifuckanus. How clever. The difference is that "the weasel" title has been earned and is a factual character trait of Triple-W. And each time when he was called "a liar and a cheat", substantiation was given in the form of explaining the lie or exposing the cheat.
Projection it is said, is the best shield of a spook. ... This anonymous entity is the cops, out to spot bloggers who are well informed and capable of lucid argumentation.
Yeah, let's keep an eye out for that "projection" stuff.
Triple-W and I are in agreement that this forum was infiltrated. We disagree regarding who "is well informed and capable of lucid argumentation." Triple-W has proven many times that he knows how to copy-and-paste from others, but is he capable of independent thought and analysis?
Assume for a moment that I'm the infiltrator as I try to raise awareness and viability of "neu nookiedoo". To what end? If I am successful in my "disinfo", what gains are to be had by the powers-that-be (PTB) and the govt when more people take seriously the message that "the USA nuked itself on 9/11?" And geez, I've said all along that with properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence, I could easily be duped into believing something else and will henceforth issue a heartfelt & public apology for having led others astray.
Now let's assume that Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][/// (Triple-W) is the infiltrator. He comes to us with an impressive resume:
- an "Autodidact Polymath"
- "worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention." (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm)
- ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology." (2009-03-23)
Please re-read that last bullet again, the weasel's own words.
And if readers think about the nuking of America in terms of PR, what PR should be deployed to shut down even rational discussion thereof? ... Doh! *Palm smacking forehead*
Let's see how Triple-W's "doctorates equivalent... in the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology" play out here, starting with his cherry-picked quote from me of MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM as:
I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent
Punctuation is important, like where my elipses were lopped off. So are URLs. Here's more context but with my bolding.
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. [...]
Triple-W quotes me from MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM as:
This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe too.
Too bad for Triple-W that the context for this quote substantiates those conclusions about Triple-W's character flaws.
I must applaud Triple-W for this masterful PR spin:
This [DEW and Nukes] has been the topic of our dispute. Although the entity formerly championed the No-Planes theory for a time, and gave credence to the Video Fakery camp for some time as well. These 'giving ins' are, as I see it, a 'schmooze campaign', a technique of the 'confidence racket'. It lends the sheen of being "open minded," ...
According to Triple-W, "changing your mind particularly in the face of newly acquired evidence and analysis: BAD! Very bad! Don't do it!" Lest there be any doubt, with the above words Triple-W is giving thumbs up for his own "closed-minded" and "ignorant" self. [Mocking quote] "I, Willy Whitten the Weasel, do not change my mind or my (paid) agenda for any reason, not even when high school boojie-woojie science proves that the numbers behind my agenda can't possibly add up." [/Mocking quote]
I charged that Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][/// failed to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories. Triple-W disagrees, claiming:
I have indeed addressed every one of these dozen points in detail and many times over.
I'll give Triple-W points for "attempting to address" each of the dozen bullets, but that doesn't mean that his re-hashed PR spin-and-skew achieves the goal of getting those the 9/11-Tetris evidence blocks to line up under his lame theories. In fact, Triple-W loses points because his out-of-context re-hash does not provide links to where it transpired (2012-09-23) so that his version of the discussion can be vetted. Someone with "doctorates equivalent" would not make such "mistakes" and thus reeks of being a purposeful obscufation "technique of propaganda and perception manipulation".
+++
[1]- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.
+++
Here's the first weasel spin:
There is no "correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission" – no actual correlation has been put forth other than assertions that those elements being present together must mean something, regardless of the fact that they are all ubiquitous in the environment generally.
Because Jeff Prager's presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] has been brought to the weasel's attention several times, this quip about "no actual correlation has been put forth" unravels to be a lie. Of course, reading and grokking "Jeff Jeff Jeff" runs parallel to the weasel's handling of "Judy Judy Judy:" avoided like the pest.
Because I've explained it several times to the weasel, he cannot offer the excuse (in words or actions) that he does not understand what "correlation" means. Example: "N-parts element A for every 1-part element B" signifies a correlation. Doesn't matter what amount of element B was measured in a given dust sample, because element A was always found in proportional quantities.
True to his PR credentials, Triple-W spins about the trace elements being "ubiquitous in the environment generally," but fails to explain how the WTC environment could get these ubiquitous elements in consistently correlated amounts, sample-to-sample.
From Mr. Prager:
We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible.
The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission.
When we find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships – the implications are of the utmost seriousness.
The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to other radionucleide daughter products.
+++
[2]- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.
[3]- the pulverized remains.
+++
"The massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization," "the pulverized remains," both are exaggerated by dismissing the fact of the actual character of the "pulverization," which simply was not as complete to 'dust' as is posited by the parties who promote these exotic weapons.
And then Triple-W quotes from Dr. Jones (who quotes from Lioy):
"the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-?m diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-?m diameter) or coarse (2.5–10-?m diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).
Notice how they build a strawman by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these ?m particles and by framing it as "near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)".
First, they do NOT state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-?m diameter) or coarse (2.5–10-?m diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-?m diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
Second, they make no effort to describe "mini-nuke" correctly for the observed outcomes, such a mini-neutron nuclear devices aimed skywards.
It speaks volumes that the Lioy document would offer disinfo skew, that Dr. Jones would rely on this to further the spin, and that "Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][///" adds no independent thought or analysis to this even to the miminal extent of pointing out the word-smithery.
+++
[4]- the duration of under]-rubble hot]-spots.
+++
I wrote before that numbers are failings of "Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][///", and that is on display in this ignorant quote:
Can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots? Yes. Since these products are capable of melting both concrete and steal, and supply their own oxygen source, I think nano-thermites can explain the hot spots.
What the weasel failed to note is that thermite under-the-rubble would obtain its oxygen from the reaction with steel and leaves iron as a by-product.
Calculate the amount of steel that would be converted to iron by a single WTC hot-spot that burned for four weeks. (There were more than one hot-spot, and some burned longer than four weeks. Even with these blatant simplifications, the ridiculousness of the implied quantities should be evident.)
Calculate the amount of thermite (and other chemical explosives) required to account for the duration of that single hot-spot that burned for four weeks. (Tripping over that several HUNDRED THOUSAND mile imaginary garden hose, I see.)
Contact Dr. Jones and obtain his calculations for the above. [Let it be a bad sign when he doesn't cough it up...]
The purpose of this exercise is to show how ridiculous the belief that "nano-thermites could explain the hot spots."
It is when an explosive material is 'salted' throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not "burn-rate" which is only correct in a continuous 'burn scenario' and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.
I have no problems with the salted mixed salad scenario. In fact, Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomaloies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," they make a good case that such explosive material could account for six or so spikes in the release of dangerous gases. However, they do ~NOT~ make the case that such explosive material maintained the hot-spots. In fact, Dr. Jones admitted on September 30, 2012:
"Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."
Be that as it may. Because the weasel brought up salting, he should defend it.
Calculate the amount of salting and its configuration required to account for the duration of that single hot-spot that burned for four weeks.
Before we go on from here, I should point people to the paper:"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 Grabbe.
The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. ... The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.
Then Triple-W tries to obfuscate the issue further by mixing in his own misunderstanding:
Understand that a 'burn-rate' of a material is not the same as a 'burn case scenario': A "scenario' implies a variety of circumstances, and in the case of the rubble pile a exponentially chaotic and complex theater. A 'rating' defines one single controlled circumstance.
Ah yes, but what fuel (and oxygen) sources exist in Triple-W's "burn case scenario" under-the-rubble that can yield high temperatures over a long period of time primarily ~without~ oxygen from air? If the weasel is going to be stating that office furnishings were the fuel source, can they reach the required temperatures? can they burn without oxygen? what is their effective burn-rate, so we can calculate rough numbers on the quantities of such required to maintain a single hot-spot for several weeks?
This is the point where the weasel should be capitulating and re-thinking that which he has been championing. But owing to his agenda and his "closed-minded" position, ain't gonna happen.
Unspent but fizzling remains of neutron nukes can explain it.
+++
[5]- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.
+++
The weasel gets caught in a cheat and a lie at the same time:
These vehicles were not damaged at these distant points but were towed there to make way for the clean-up crews and dumptrucks.
The weasel is just plain lying to say or imply that the torched vehicles were towed to their positions along Broadway or the caticorner parking lot.
The article from Dr. Jenkins references cars at the bridge, which I agree were towed there and point out as a blatant disinformation stunt by Dr. Wood in her book. But my reference was specifically to a string of vehicles along Broadway as well as clusters of cars in a parking lot.
The weasel is just plain cheating in his argumentation to conflate the cars at the bridge with the cars along Broadway and in front of WTC-5 and WTC-6. Moreover, we have testimony and video evidence that the vehicles in question were torched before WTC-7 was demolished.
EMP from neutron nukes slipping out of window-slits or other gaps in the falling debris can explain this, as well as the sparing of leaves, trees, flags, etc. Can a pyroclastic cloud of hot-spice from the chemical explosives explain the selectivity, much less the distance... a cooling one at that?
+++
[6]- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed".
+++
Is the weasel trying to cheat again by saying:
This is pure supposition and nothing but hypothetical hyperbole.
It is none-of-the-above but a fact that the damage to Banker's Trust was repaired, and then the building was destroyed anyway. Why? What sort of defect remained in its infrastructure that necessitated this?
Neutron nukes explains it easily: Embrittlement.
+++
[7]- the first]-responder ailments.
+++
The weasel huffs on Asbestos and pulverized gypsum dust:
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.
True. But the sudden onset of ailments and their kind is paralleled only by incidences of nuclear mishap.
From Prager Page 52: Part One Conclusions
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
[See: Robert W. Miller, M.D., and William J. Blot, Ph.D., and others, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Japanese National Institute Of Health Of The Ministry Of Health And Welfare, Atomic Radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also see Ionizing Radiation 911, parts 1, 2 and 3 linked on a previous page. Also see: CDC study of K25 workers linked previously]
3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the 'start date,' specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were 'salted' such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn't alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we're seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
8. The following chapters will prove a lot more. The reasoning by Dr. Jones and others used to explain the high levels of tritium are scientific frauds and we prove that here.
+++
[8]- the security around the WTC.
[9]- the rapid destruction of evidence.
+++
This point has no bearing to a "nuclear event" to exclusivity, these policies were to hide the evidence of chemical explosives.
Agreed. The 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks can be twisted and stacked in different ways, but the theory stack with the smallest and fewest gaps has a higher probability of being reality.
+++
[10]- the lack of testing on the evidence.
+++
More cheating and lying from Triple-W:
I presume the entity called 'senor' means the lack of tests for other residues while Jones and his team were testing for Thermite. Jones and his team had already good reason to seek out the thermite as their previous tests indicated that this was what the material was they had detected. Plus it should be noted that Jones did personally check the dust, and also a steel beam he had access to for residual radiation, and found none.
Jones and his teams may have detected thermite, but that same "crack" team should have been more thorough in their testing for other things that they also said were part of the mix (like RDX). They didn't do it when at the beginning, nor did they do it when this lack of testing was pointed out under the ruse "oooh, maybe the shelf-life for detecting these elements has run out, so it'll be used against us if our testing-at-a-late-date comes up with nothing."
Jones and his "crack" team should have performed the very analysis of the dust that Jeff Prager tabulated. Worse, they should have peformed and published the calculations that prove the amazing feats of hot-spot duration.
+++
[11]- the elevated tritium levels.
+++
Tritium has been addressed ad nauseum.
Too bad that neither thermite, RDX, nor building content can adequately explain the results from even the shoddy tritium measurements that were undertaken.
Check out this skew:
There was simply none beyond an astronomically minuscule amount of radiation.
"Minuscule" does not mean "none." In fact, even the EPA levels determining what could be a health risk are in fact also "astronomically minuscule". So what that the measured levels of tritium were below that benchmark? The fact remains that they were significantly above what was expected, and their suppositional dog-and-pony-show to explain them away was vastly incomplete and should not have been practically Dr. Jones' single-source to brush-off the levels that were measured.
Because I lack an appropriate analogy, I will use one that is inappropriate:
[Girlfriend] Your penis is "astronomically minuscule," Willy Whitten.
[HybridRogue1] You might not get an orgasm from it, baby, but knocking-you-up ain't out of the question.
Ergo, "minuscule" is relative to purpose.
+++
[12]- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).
+++
Again, Triple-W gets tripped up with numbers and science, when he states:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from sound recordings.
Not true. When base-line conditions associated with the recording are known, like the dB levels from a controlled sample (e.g., reporter talking into the microphone) and the distance and environmental features to an anomalous sound (e.g., explosion), some valid ball-park estimates can be made.
It isn't a question of what "ear witness" testimony heard: "explosions" "bombs going off" "three loud booms" "bang bang bang" "like when they set off charges around a building for demolition."
The question is whether or not what was heard correlates to chemical explosives, multiple neutron nuclear devices, or both. However, when supposition into the destructive mechanism is limited exclusively to chemical explosives and when the amount of such is calculated to achieve the degree of observed pulverization,...
Let's just say that the "simply hundreds of such testimonials from those near the area, and many from those actually in the towers" comes up vastly short for those victims experiencing severe hearing loss as a result of this event.
This is another one of those examples where chemical explosives can't have it both ways. Cranking up the brissance to achieve pulverization (together with massive amounts) results in debilitating sound levels and deafness in victims. The first example was that cranking up the brissance to achieve pulverization doesn't make rational sense in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
Gee, neutron nuclear devices don't have either problem.
This is why I refer to the tactic this entity uses as a 'carousel' – it goes 'round and 'round and never acknowledges that I have in fact addressed the points.
Who goes round and round and never acknowledges where his theory has problems? Manufactured controversy?
It doesn't matter what Triple-W thinks he addressed, if his premise or facts are wrong or are proven to be malframed, he'll still be wrong.
Worse, it exposes him either as being a totally ignorant, stubborn, dumb-fuk or as belonging to "group or groups of moles that were injected into the 9/11 Truth Movement."
From Triple-W's January 2012 entrance into T&S until this day, his actions have done little to dissuade me from my impressions of the weasel. I could rather quickly change my mind on the matter of his agenthood that will result in a heartfelt & public apology, providing of course that the basis for my suspicions undergoes a shift. Hasn't been happening and didn't happen with his last re-hash.
Triple-W was even nice enough to spell out his agenda:
"I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot." (2012-10-19)
Can't address errors or misconceptions when errors or misconceptions are his basis.
I've been duped in the past by premises I've had to recant: the extent of video fakery, no-planes at the WTC, milli-nukes, space-based DEW, spire-based DEW, super-duper nano-thermite, etc. Whereas I would love to recant neu nookiedoo, not only has the no-nookie argumentation been exceptionally weak, but the alternative chemical/exotic explosives/incendiaries with which Triple-W wants to fill the explanation void also has to fill an imaginary garden hose that is hundreds (of thousands) miles long and ain't very Occam Razor from a logistics perspective.
//
x107 Señor El Once : decibels and recordings is a bit of circus ring & strawman
{Also re-posted on 2013-04-22.}
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers. ~Thomas Pynchon
Mr. Rogue's statements of what is "IMPOSSIBLE" with regards to decibels and recordings is a bit of circus ring & strawman to distract from the salient point: "The WTC destruction would have been significantly louder if the primary mechanisms were chemical explosives (e.g., super-duper nano-thermite mixed with RDX.)"
Now if Mr. Rogue had studied science or engineering instead of "doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology", maybe he would have learned to use more precise language instead of his hypnotic assertions:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from sound recordings.
Jumping into his tiny circus ring for brief moment, Mr. Rogue's language is too expansive, too over-generalized, and too extreme. All it takes is one exception to this "IMPOSSIBLE" for his authority on the subject matter to be undermined. In this regard, he was provided with the narrow range of conditions (e.g., equipment, environment, known factors) where the "IMPOSSIBLE" is possible. IN GENERAL, though, one has to agree that from MOST sound recordings, it is very difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to calculate decibels.
Alas, sound recording is the fatal assumption on which Mr. Rogue builds his strawman. He assumes that if sound recording from numerous cameras cannot be reliably used to determine how loud (or relatively soft) the 9/11 WTC explosives were, then the argument about the destruction "not being loud enough to match the known characteristics of chemical explosives" can be brushed aside.
Not so fast with the broom.
Are sound recordings the only evidence that would lead to this conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia)?
The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.
Before I answer my rhetorical question, let's put some perspective on the meaning of 130-140 decibels. One can refer to this link and this one, and the following quote:
The pain threshold for humans is 120-130 Decibels. Any sound above 85 dB can cause hearing loss, and the loss is related both to the power of the sound as well as the length of exposure.
Because Dr. Jones found energetic flakes in his dust samples, the assumption was that the towers were brought down by thermite. After it is pointed out that thermite doesn't have the brissance to achieve pulverization of even the super-course dust particles, the Dr. Jones party-line becomes "something like RDX was added to the mix." When the pesky duration of under-rubble fires can't be brushed off by the analysis of six spikes being attributed to a thermite mixture, Dr. Jones says (September 2012): "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."
But I'm jumping ahead of myself.
Where are the published calculations on the quantities of this chemical mixture with the brissance to achieve the observed pulverization? Dr. Jones has never provided them -- on purpose --, and Mr. Rogue is incapable of calculating them on his own. Ignoring those pesky hot-spots and considering only pulverization into super-course dust particles, the amount of chemical explosives is still massive. Owing to their brissance nature, their detonation would have been very loud, but owing to the massive quantities required (if we limited our thinking to this mechanism), their detonation would have been deafening.
Now to answer my rhetorical question. Two additional sensitive instruments are at our disposal to help NIST analyze the 9/11 decibel issue: (1) barometric pressure measurements and (2) the human ear.
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero.
Consider the firemen in the WTC stairwell.
Consider Willy Rodriquez holed up under a firetruck in the street near the towers.
Consider EMT Patricia Ondrovic running down Vesey Street...
[There are more.]
They were all easily within 1/2 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.
Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for RDX enhanced nano-thermite.
As a further real-world example from this last week, consider the fertilizer plant explosion near Waco, Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROrpKx3aIjA
Towards the end of the short 55 second clip immediately after the explosion, the daughter from the back of the vehicle that is ~1/4 mile away is saying words to the effect, "I can't hear anything, Daddy."
Apples-to-apples this is not. We know that the mechanisms of destruction are different between the fertilizer plant and the towers. The point is that the brissance of chemical explosives needed for pulverization on 9/11 would have made the WTC destruction a painfully loud and deafening experience for many survivors and witnesses, just like the recent Waco explosion.
Therefore, this is another clue that the primary destructive mechanisms on the WTC was ~NOT~ massive quantities of chemical explosives with the brissance to pulverize.
On top of this, Dr. Jones (or anyone else leading 9/11 research) never published on purpose the calculations into any combination of "~salted~" thermite with RDX (or other things) that can account for, say, a single hot-spot with a duration of four weeks? The reason is that even rough ball-park estimates suggest obscenely massive quantities that are above-and-beyond and unspent from their original purpose of pulverizing the WTC into super-course dust particles.
On purpose, Dr. Jones did not perform analysis of the USGS data on the dust samples regarding the various elements and their percentages contained therein. Why not? Seems like a rather fundamental for a nuclear physicist, and one easily assigned to a grad student.
As for defaming Mr. Rogue's character and integrity, I'm just the messenger pointing out what Mr. Rogue did to himself.
Mr. Rogue is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong, and he continues to defend the indefensible.
I do not expect this posting to survive on Mr. Rogue's poorly written and defended hobby-horse topic, owing to Mr. Rogue's hatred of me blinding him. [Another integrity test.] The purpose of this posting will be in its re-purposing elsewhere.
//
x108 Señor El Once : off of this lunatic's endless carousel ride
Mr. Rogue is reminded that he wrote (2013-04-12):
I am off of this lunatic's endless carousel ride.
And under "PROLOGUE New Wave 9/11" (2013-04-19)
The entity calling itself 'Señor', can go around and 'round on it's creaking carousel for as long as it wishes. Alas, I am through with this. \\][//
If there be any more spins beyond these final words, we'll know someone grabbed the handles and was manually pushing the carousel into his revolution.
//
x109 Señor El Once : the dust is composed of many things
{Note: This is not really in reply to Tamborine man's June 18, 2012 – 3:18 am posting, but the "Reply"-link on his posting seems to result in what appears as a "top-level" posting and the last to this thread.}
Dear Mr. Juan Ditchner,
Regrettably, we seem to have a small misunderstanding, and I apologize for my hand in the mix-up. The misunderstanding centers around different definitions for the word "rubble" and thus also quantities exhibited thereof. You wrote on April 23, 2013 – 11:24 pm
I have read here repeatedly that there was no lack of rubble. Dr. Wood clearly demonstrated in her book, on her websites, and in the slides of her presentations the amazing lack of rubble. Yet the disinformation specialists that hover around this thread claim "no lack of rubble".
My definition of the word "rubble" is very expansive, going from the ultra-fine dust to large wall-assemblies consisting of three steel beams connected by three steel spandrels, both of which are presented in pictures of the WTC as evidence in Dr. Wood's textbook. Generally, I think of rubble as not being useful except for melting or grinding down for re-use. I have no difficulty believing either of these two descriptions of what was found:
[1] "... [T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-?m diam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-?m -diam) or coarse (2.5–10-?m diam) particles that are typically measured." ~ Lioy et al
[2] "As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder..." ~Jones – Jan 2007. [*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower.]
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NoMini-nukes-AppA.pdf
I accept these descriptions and point out that they still represent a massive energy sink to achieve. Dr. Wood's DEW hypothesis isn't powered in a manner that can be substantiated as real-world operational, plus she has deftly side-stepped any rational analysis of her peers in the fringe 9/11 TM, like the Anonymous Physicist, to see what nuggets of truth could be extracted and re-purposed, like from the wide variety of nuclear options that don't have an energy problem.
You should be asking why neither Dr. Wood, nor Dr. Jones, nor even the Anonymous Physicist -- all disinfo agents in a fashion, one and all -- speculated specifically about Neutron Nuclear DEW, when clearly in fell within the realm of nuclear options and considerations.
Our misunderstanding seems to be that maybe your definition of the word "rubble" is not quite as expansive, and wants to split hairs in the relative percentages by mass of debris as dust particles versus fist-sized chunks versus almost-complete steel wall assemblies versus everything inbetween.
Thus, I will deftly side-step your pointless, strawman challenge:
Well, where is your evidence? Where are the pictures and videos showing rubble (not dust, not paper, and not related to building 7) in the streets surrounding ground zero? It's time to put up or shut up for those of you who make claims without having any evidence to back it up. I will not hold my breath...
Hybridrogue1:
What [Dr.] Jenkins is speaking to is "Molecular Disassociation" – no matter what term you wish to use to call it, that is what we see in the fine dust – ...
Dr. Jenkins:
It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the
steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers ... (formula omitted) ... The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, ...
Juan Ditchner on April 23, 2013 – 11:46 pm:
[Dr.] Jenkins was clearly trying to calculate the energy required to turn all the solid steel in one of the towers to gas, not fine dust, or CAN YOU NOT READ?
Indeed, this is what trips up Dr. Jenkins ~AND~ Dr. Wood. The pictorial evidence in Dr. Wood's textbook clearly shows copious amounts of steel in whatever definition of "rubble pile" you want to use, so both Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Wood are guilty of building different strawman (or Red Herrings) from this.
In re-using satellite images supposedly of the dust cloud from space [certain images I suspect of being digitally tainted], Dr. Wood allows herself to be clobbered by some of Dr. Jenkins calculations into the energy requirement to turn solid steel into a gas.
Dr. Jenkins' strawman, however, is guilty (a) of not scaling down the energy requirement to turn solid steel into tiny iron spheres in the dust [instead of gas] and (b) of not scaling down the rational estimates of what steel in the infrastructure [might be agreed upon] is unaccounted for [instead of the whole 110 floors.]
Allow a short detour through Dr. Harrit. A private study was made of the dust in a nearby building for other insurance reasons and amazingly detected significant percentages of tiny iron spheres. Dr. Harrit (quasi-on-behalf of Dr. Jones and the nano-thermite crowd) assumed the premise that these were created by nano-thermite chemically reacting with steel that leaves precisely such iron spheres as part of the by-product. Estimating the tonnage of such iron spheres using steel of various Oxygen contents and calculating backwards, one arrives at an unbelievable, massive quantity of nano-thermite to support such a nano-thermitic chemical reaction and assumption.
Now I remove the assumption and re-consider the evidence of significant percentages of tiny iron spheres in the dust in order to speculate on its source. Dr. Wood says it was DEW, but can't power it. I stand on her shoulders and say it was neutron nuclear DEW [or as Mr. Rogue helped me coin, "neu nookiedoo"], and by its very nature, can power it... in a tactical manner.
Mr. Ditchner, I hope we can agree that "the dust is composed of many things, including iron spheres and a host of elements as analyzed by the USGS." While we are on the subject of dust, please review Mr. Jeff Prager's presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] that examines the USGS report and discovers through the presence and correlation of elements a nuclear signature (fission). I stand on those shoulders and say (again): "fission-triggered fusion in the form of neutron bombs that directed escaping highly-energetic neutrons upwards, scaled back the blast/heat waves to tactical levels, and resulted in only short-lived lingering radiation."
Mr. Ditchner continued:
[Dr. Jenkins] gave no formulas for turning steel into dust because it was done by a unknown process.
I disagree first that the process was unknown [nope, it was neu nookiedoo]. Second I disagree with your speculation into the motives for why Dr. Jenkins "gave no formulas for turning steel into dust."
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that we can agree on a quantity of steel (mass M) that is unaccounted for in the rubble pile. The energy requirements to turn mass M of steel into iron spheres in the dust is still massive, and any explanation involving chemical means calculates backwards into being an obscenely huge tonnage of explosive material that Occam Razor ain't logistically gonna get in place quickly as compared to half-dozen or so per tower neu nookiedoo devices from the nookie-and-cranies of the Military Industrial Complex's arsenals.
Thus, I speculate that Dr. Jenkins didn't give forumulas for turning rational amounts of steel into dust, because some calculations easily lead to other (high school) calculations that prove ridiculous the assumption that chemical explosives (including any mixture with nano-thermite) could be the PRIMARY destructive mechanisms. Many people influential in the 9/11 TM would be exposed as perpetrating a fraud, which tried to stop 9/11 speculations short of nuclear aspirations (e.g., neu nookiedoo). And it exposes the depth of infiltration into protest organizations, even the beloved and needed 9/11 Truth Movement. "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it," as per Lenin or Marx or Stalin, I forget.
Mr. Ditchner, by all means continue to reference what you know to be valid nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood, but be careful of where her disinformation vehicle might steer you.
P.S. It is a pity that the comments are so out of sequence. Although bugs in software (like what happens on WordPress to "Reply"-links when top-level comments get deleted) can explain some of the foul-up, there is a part of me that views the messing-with-comment-sequencing -- particularly on popular but "deviant" threads -- as another form of infiltration designed to steer away from the Truth destinations that logic must take rational thinkers to.
My apologies to lurker-readers for having to wade through them.
x110 Señor El Once : The neutron glove fits.
Dear Mr. Ditchner,
The Firefox rendering problem is known. It happens on all of Mr. McKee's articles with lots of discussion. At about 36 page-down's (equivalent to some large height value), the template used by Mr. McKee stops rendering his chosen background color and defaults to the back-background color. It wouldn't be so bad if the background and back-background color were the same, as was the default case of the template chosen. But Mr. McKee chose to customize his. Hint: Do a Ctrl+A to highlight the entire thread and you'll be able to read it better. In a few months, Mr. McKee will probably chose another WordPress template... and then have to deal with its issues.
But now on to your commentary.
Good troll holds to a ridiculous notion that a succession of mini neutron devices could turn the towers and their contents to anything other than hot flaming ash and cause fires and burn victims among the gaping masses below.
Your description, which obviously was ~not~ observed on 9/11, would be valid for mini-nukes of the standard variety, such as a fission-triggered-fusion device. Evidently you are missing the all important distinction regarding how neutron nuclear devices differ. They are technically also fission-triggered-fusion devices, but their encasement allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape -- better yet, to be aimed and directed.
Why is this important? Because when the highly energetic neutrons are ~not~ allowed to escape, they bounce around within the encasement, cause more and more chain-reactions, and result in the ~large~ nuclear blast and heat waves that our PR conditioning regarding "nukes" expects.
By allowing the neutrons to escape the nuclear reaction in a neutron device, the blast and heat waves are significantly reduced. And when the neutrons are aimed upwards, they won't be detrimental to life forms, which is what our PR conditioning regarding "neutron bombs" expects.
Further, ERW (enhanced radiation weapons, or neutron bombs) produce only short-lived amounts of radiation (as observed after 9/11). Neutron devices produce tritium, which we know was measured in abnormal quantities after 9/11. Finally, evidence of fission reaction and other signatures & correlations of nuclear devices were present in the dust.
You wrote:
If the glove don't fit...
Certainly. The neutron glove fits. You just don't see it.
Now with regards to Dr. Wood, she was correct about the massive energy requirements and that a directed energy weapon was used, for this is indeed what an ERW is. She did an awesome job of collecting evidence.
Beyond that, Dr. Wood gets it wrong. She can't even power-up the devices that her lingering innuendo suggests. She doesn't address tritium; doesn't address the anonymous physicist; doesn't address valid criticism of her work (e.g., Dr. Jenkins); doesn't fix blatant errors in her work (e.g., supposedly a wilted firetruck engine, police car getting "zapped" at the bridge as opposed to being towed there, spire falling instead of turning to dust, etc.) Her lame attempt to brush off hot-spots is a good indication of the disinfo blinders that she wears.
I've followed a zig-zag course to my understanding of 9/11 truth. This has been dictated not just by incremental releases of evidence & analysis, but also by the steering of the 9/11 Truth Movement that did not allow a straight line approach to openly and objectively considering certain topics: media manipulation, nuclear involvement, and Dr. Wood. This thread is a great example of the latter two, for those with the fortitude to wade through the comments.
Mark my words. Where acknowledging-9/11-being-an-inside-job should be a litmus test for our leaders, Dr. Wood's textbook is proving to be an excellent litmus test for objective thinkers and honest seekers for truth. While Mr. Rogue continues to get bloody noses from Dr. Wood's book by being too obtuse to acknowledge ~any~ good nuggets, Mr. Ditchner, you too will get bloody noses from the same by being too obtuse to acknowledge ~any~ bad disinfo nuggets. Both exist in that publication.
Want to know how to spot the true trolls? They're the ones with no middle ground, no self-doubt or waffling, no zig-zag course to their beliefs, no room for compromise, no leeway in "convince me or let me convince you." When two are set against each other [artificially], they form a pincer attack on truth as they probably run the discussion through the mud as a distraction.
The trolls are both: (1) those who try to dismiss Dr. Wood's work without analysis, details, or identified specific "good, bad, and ugly", mostly just lots of hearsay from someone with a Pee-Ayech-Dee; and (2) those who try to champion Dr. Wood's work with blinders to its weaknesses, errors, and omissions; mostly just brain-dead fawning.
Mr. Ditchner, have you read Dr. Wood's textbook cover-to-cover? How well informed are you? Give us your "good, bad, and ugly" chapter-by-chapter assessment.
//
x111 HybridRogue1 : The locus is hocus pocus
The locus is hocus pocus in the locomotion of the necro-train to ouch witch.
It is claimed by Wood and her followers that there was not sufficient metal in the aftermath, but this is clearly a physical impossibility.
If it is proposed that the metal was turned to dust then it should be identifiable in the dust of the aftermath. But the Fe level in that dust is minuscule compared to the amount that would account for the millions of tons of steel that made up the structure of the towers. As this is the case, the only position available for the "dustification" proposition is that that steel simply disappeared.
Thus, "dustification" is a meaningless term to describe a mysterious process that has no basis in physics. It implies vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter. It is a foundational law of physics, that energy/matter can neither be destroyed nor created, but merely changes in form. It can transform from solid to liquid, from liquid to gas, and recombine into another solid depending on the energies applied to it – but it cannot be made to disappear.
\\][//
x112 Señor El Once : vanishing molecules
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You write:
Thus, "dustification" is a meaningless term to describe a mysterious process that has no basis in physics. It implies vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter. It is a foundational law of physics, that energy/matter can neither be destroyed nor created, but merely changes in form. It can transform from solid to liquid, from liquid to gas, and recombine into another solid depending on the energies applied to it – but it cannot be made to disappear.
You pulled that definition of "dustification" out of your ass, didn't you?
Nowhere have I heard that dustification means or implies "vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter." You muddle high school chemistry and probably even introduce an error based on your own misunderstanding of science.
Dustification means to me three things that relate. (1) Energy has been injected into molecules such that chemical bonds that usually connect them are broken. As such, the molecule represents no longer what it was, as the base elements from the molecule are free to escape (e.g., into the atmosphere) and maybe form bonds with other elements. (2) Energy has been injected into atoms such that fundamental nuclear entities (protons, neutrons, electrons) no longer appear in the same numbers, thereby changing either its position in the periodic table or its isotope. (3) Not every molecule nor every atom are impacted by this energy, but sufficient numbers are such that the material when viewed from a human-scale -- as opposed to the atomic scale -- falls apart before our eyes. Dustification.
One could argue that if a molecule is separated into its fundamental elements (atoms), the molecule no longer exists and has vanished, ~but~ this does not mean that the atoms themselves from the molecule no longer exist or have been destroyed. Thus, it adheres to the laws of physics by matter/atoms not being destroyed. [Ergo the error in Mr. Rogue's statement.]
As the analysis of the 9/11 dust proves, it was composed of lots of different fundamental elements, many of which were measured in correlated quantities. Ignoring the nuclear recipe spelled out by a few of those correlated elements, the presense of these fundamental elements means that they did not disappear. They just changed their association with other elements, and are no longer associated in a solid, cohesive mass that we would recognize formerly as concrete, steel beams, office furnishings, bathroom fixtures, door knobs, etc.
The key phrase from above is "energy has been injected." This is what trips up Dr. Wood and her followers, because they cannot account in a proven operational sense for how a DEW device would get its energy. She stopped short, and gave the abundance of energy so quickly and readily available from nuclear sources the brush-off.
You wrote:
If it is proposed that the metal was turned to dust then it should be identifiable in the dust of the aftermath. But the Fe level in that dust is minuscule compared to the amount that would account for the millions of tons of steel that made up the structure of the towers. As this is the case, the only position available for the "dustification" proposition is that that steel simply disappeared.
I agree that to assume "millions of tons of steel" is an erroneous scale. It is unsubstantiated that such was missing. [SIDEBAR into a rabbit hole: Some of the 9/11 theories into "hollow towers" and the potential of them never having been finished may have merit. However, the cause of the missing content and steel would be by design of the structure and not by design of the destructive mechanism.]
However, by building the frame that "the Fe level in that dust is minuscule compared to...", a couple of points might be overlooked. The Fe level in the dust was significant, even as measured across the street ~inside~ the interior of a neighboring building (the Banker's Trust). The energy of neutron bombs is one explanation for this. The alternative is chemical means, e.g., nano-thermite and explosives. The issue with that alternative (if true) is that Fe would be the byproduct of the chemical reaction of nano-thermite with steel. Taking into consideration boundary conditions for oxygen content of the steel, one can calculate backwards from that Fe byprocut as Dr. Nils Harrit did to determine boundary cases for the original amount of nano-thermite. Neither the lower nor the upper bound cases represent quantities of nano-thermite that are logistically pretty for Occam's Razor.
As you said:
The locus is hocus pocus in the locomotion of the necro-train to ouch witch.
P.S. I love how you adhered to your previous statement "FINI!" Demonstrates your integrity.
// neu nookiedoo
x113 Señor El Once : Veteran's Today Solving 9/11 Mystery
I'm confident that you're position is so weak and lame, you'll delete this posting with another insincere "FINI" brush-off. I love it when you prove continually your lack of integrity.
Be that as it may, the response to your "dustification" posting is here:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/#comment-42812
More importantly, read the following.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/
//
x114 Señor El Once : belief in God
Señor Juan Ditchner writes:
I'm going to go out on a limb and take a wild stab that you could never believe in God because you cannot explain God through physics.
I know your wild stab wasn't directed at me, but I felt compelled to weigh in partly because your premise is wrong ["cannot explain God through physics"].
It is precisely because I studied physics and calculus [and many other sciences] that I glimpsed why there is a God: an entity who defines those very "laws of nature" among other things. [Not a bearded-being with whims, fancies, and favorites, but a constant, ever presence: "Principle, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Truth, Life, and Love" as defined by a spiritual thinker from the 19th century.]
A major clue of the lies was when the math didn't add up to the "scientific-sounding" exlanations that were paraded out. Goes for NIST as well as Doctors Wood and Jones.
//
x115 Señor El Once : words of burn-out
Dear Ms. NellJSmith,
I appreciate your kind words of encouragement to continue with my 9/11 research, to counter my words of burn-out:
[T]he WTC destruction is my hobby-horse that will probably get put out to pasture in the coming year. Been eleven years since the event...
You wrote:
I feel it would be a very great shame to take the view that 9/11 is, simply due to the passage of time, no longer worthy of interest or debate.
If everything else stood still, then I would agree that 9/11 would remain worthy of interest. But everything doesn't. "They" just keep piling it on, one scandal after another. Karl Rove said it to Ron Suskind best:
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you [the reality-based communities] study that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
Just as I've fallen behind in fashion, music, cinema, etc., I've fallen behind in the (political) dramas of these actors of history. I hear more recently the outraged voices of others at the scenes being played out before us, yet without the patience to connect the data points in a trendline with other stage-craft designed to fool, like 9/11.
In fact, I would say the opposite: new data arises all the time, and new and better theories and arguments are proposed; and, in any case, the sheer enormous significance of the events of 9/11, no matter one's views as to what really happened, must mean that it is a topic which will never "become old."
Be very careful in "accepting new data... and new and better theories" on 9/11. I've been duped by my share and have had to recant on several things.
I think the "old" data has been there all along of 9/11 being nuclear. So as we step back from this singularity of truth to view the obscuring actions surrounding it (these past 11 years), I'm left in a disappointed and depressed mental state in contemplating those who obscured it... right from within the heart of the 9/11 Truth Movement. People with more science and engineering than I, foisting up explanations that have large, inequalities in the calculations to defend and that ignore all the evidence.
Although I took my tours around the 9/11-Mulberry-Bush that included at various points Pods-on-Planes, September Clues, No-Planes, and Dr. Judy Wood DEW, I had always held that 9/11 was nuclear (just from the energy of pulverization alone), but could not prove it at the time. I only had "minor" pieces of evidence that seeped out and weren't handle well, like tritium, or nuggets of truth mined from disinformation sources (like Dr. Wood).
Thankfully, the connecting pieces of evidence were brought to light in the form of a proper analysis of the WTC dust (by Jeff Prager) that show correlations for nuclear fission.
Thankfully, others (some of whom I've relied upon in my article above) have taken a more forceful approach than I could muster. I'll let them lead for awhile.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
I find your views to be well-expressed, well-researched and very interesting, and, in my opinion, it would be a great pity if you were to give up on 9/11 as a topic of debate.
Again, I appreciate the kind words.
Ah, yes, but the reality of "debate" is a contributing factor to the burn-out. I am all for keeping an open mind and for looking into the crazy. But when the crazy can't be substantiated and is disingenuous? When their champions are unyielding with no sincerity to the gentleman debate sentiment "convince me or let me convince you"? When their stilted debate is little more than talking points and blatant unobjectivity? When the games of the infiltrator get exposed? I grow weary of another loop.
In my humble opinion, everyone in the USA by now should know that 9/11 was an inside job and that we were told a pack of lies. When I come across old friends and relatives (on Facebook) who do not have this view, what goes through my mind is: "These people are too ignorant and too stupid to know any better or to question! If the 9/11 trendline aligns with data points about eugenics or population reduction, well, by golly, maybe those with such an agenda have a point, and my old friends and relatives, being so stupid, should get culled from the herd -- along with me (because sometimes the lucky ones in a lay-off are those who are let go. Being left-behind will be no picnic.)"
Another conspiracy-related hobby-horse may present itself for me to ride around in dressed as "El Zorro." For now, I try to apply myself to my employment and my family as I take my place among the sheeple, half-plugged into the Matrix, .
//
x116 Señor El Once : Warning of possible spooky links
WARNING: Moments after I clicked on Mr. Quinazagga's images to have opened in individual tabs, my home network router lost its connection with the internet. I know that gmail can withstand no connection to the internet, but in this case, no go. Next thing I know, gmail is put into an unfriendly state. Then my virus protection software is telling me that Firefox is using too many resources, forcing me to kill its processes and start over.
x117 Señor El Once : less sincere and rational
Dear Mr. Quinazagga,
I wrote up a detailed response to your postings. But the deeper I got into your hastily written prose, the less sincere and rational you became in my mind. This aspect is hammered home to me with your words:
[The image] shows the point of failure at the impact floors so this concurs with the NIST findings and shows Thermite or DEW not the cause of the collapse but impact damage and secondary fire damage from the 767 that was the intercontinental configuration with the central belly tank normal for a plane going coast to coast.
I guess you took your clues from NIST whose shoddy reports on the WTC ~stopped~ at the initiation of the collapse and did ~not~ analyze anything that was happening in the dust thereafter. El-Oh-El, they didn't even try to explain how the top of the towers could hit street levels in a time that was within a couple of seconds of free-fall.
Here's what you are PURPOSELY missing.
(a) The upper floors are leaning in that photograph. A correct interpretation of physics assuming gravity alone suggests that those upper floors should topple over into the path of least resistance. Instead, they are alleged to have plowed through the path of greatest resistance down to the ground.
(b) The copious amounts of pulverization and dust were generated in the earliest stages of this tower's "collapse" and is a huge energy sink that gravity can't account for.
(c)_ The images taken moments after your image show that block of upper floors disintegrating in on itself before it reaches 10 or 20 floors below the alleged impact level. The disintegration of those upper floors arrested its toppling, spewed pulverized content over the sides and horizontally very energetically, but also left much less that could construed as a cohesive pile driver that could continue plowing throw the path of greatest resistance at free-fall speeds. All this would not be possible unless HUGE AMOUNTS of energy were added to the equation.
Or stated another way: when a pile-driver is assumed to be acting only under the forces of gravity as is alleged by the government, then the very acts of (1) disintegrating the upper floors, (2) spewing content over the sides and horizontally, and (3) destroying lower floors are all energy sucks that take away from the destruction being able to approach (4) free-fall speeds, if they didn't arrest the collapse much sooner. The only way all four can be present and observable in the destruction is if energy is added... And it didn't come from the airplanes or the resulting fires.
This is key.
Failure to acknowledge this is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)
Seeing how I've got it written, here's part of my thrashing of the rest of your postings. You wrote:
Dr judy woods was tossed out of Federal court as her data is without any merit.
No, Dr. Woods was tossed out of Federal Court because she and her plantiffs had no standing to be making their whistleblower case. That is, they weren't federal employees; they weren't involved in the creation of the faulty reports. The court case never progressed far enough to determine whether or not her data had any merit. Big difference.
You continued:
She has failed to follow basic research rules in regards to time date location of the cars.
Agreed. The police car was damaged first and then towed to the bridge; it wasn't damaged at the bridge, which she implies in her book and website. She makes several errors of this nature. Whereas one can split hairs that damaged-at-the-bridge (Dr. Wood's implication) is a completely different proposition than damaged-closer-to-the-towers, we must not lose sight of the fact that such vehicles were torched at all when other more combustible objects were not.
You continued:
She knowingly mislead people by creating her own truths without any facts to back them up.
You'll have to be more specific. I don't find this to be the case. What I find is that (a) she relied too much on a government report on hot-spots with tainted satellite images; (b) she gave too much leeway to Hutchison; (c)_ she never proved that devices to snag Tesla energy or energy from Hurricane Erin were operational; (d) she gave the bum's rush to nuclear devices; (e) thereby, she offered little but dangling innuendo to P O W E R her destructive mechanisms, and by her own words, it required lots of energy.
You continued:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357255/lightbox/
The photo taken on 91301 after the collapse of building seven shows no sign of controlled demolition or falling into its own footprint it fell across the street hitting the liberty building.
Let's grant you that WTC-7 hit the Liberty Building. So what? Enough of its debris fell neatly into its own footprint. The points you are missing are that it shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light.
You continued:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/
This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.
So what?
You continued:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/
This is impact damage on the liberty building near the fire station. There is no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF or and any electrolysis this means all of the claims to DEW are self created trues without facts to back them. This is why they were thrown out of court.
Ah, now you're showing something interesting! Get a load of what I call a "steel doobie" that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The "steel doobie" (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away.
Check out this illustration that is very analogous to electric-magnetic fields and waves:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/bending/Image710.gif
The picture you've linked to supposedly prove "no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF" [or any other controlled demolition hijinx] does not prove such. In fact, the "steel doobie" proves otherwise even before seeing the parallels with how electric-magnetic fields could operate. Based on other evidence, I'm led to believe that the "steel doobie" was close to a heat source that made steel spandrels pliable and thus facilitated the ease with which horizontal forces could act on it.
Therefore, your lame interpretation of your image could be a strawman argument for "no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF". The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.
Read the following, which supports DEW but deviates from Dr. Wood:
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW Parts 1 and 2
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/
I expect that you are a hit-and-run flamer. So this isn't written for you but others.
//
x119 Señor El Once : Dr. Wood's work has its own strong points and weaknesses
Dear Ms. DawnAtilla,
Thank you for your effort at providing substantiating quotations. It has, unfortunately, two major problems: namely, (1) you did not credit the source(s); (2) you did not connect these quotations together into a meaningful "whole." Moreover, it is hard to tell which words and analysis are yours, Ms. Atilla, if any.
Some of the quotations seems to come from Dr. Judy Wood, and maybe a snippet from Alfred L. Webre and his interviews with Mr. Richard D. Hall and Andrew D. Basiago.
Yeah, well, Dr. Wood's work has its own strong points and weaknesses. I suppose a great example of the latter is her inability to synthesize the efforts of other 9/11 researches (e.g., the anonymous physicst) or to address valid specific criticism of others. If I remember correctly (no guarantees and I'll apologize if I get this ASSUMPTION wrong), Dr. Wood wrote this quotation that you used:
Basements Of WTC Buildings Undamaged
"Stuffed mannequins in the basement of WTC with clothing on were carried out of the basement undamaged. If a 100+-story WTC building collapsed into its basement and left a 35-story rubble pile, there would be nothing left in the basement. Even streetcars underground at the WTC were pulled out after the collapse and had no damage."
The skew here is to mix two buildings of the World Trade Center complex (namely the towers) with the complex itself. The underground shopping mall may have had stores directly below the towers (and other WTC buildings), but the mall -- being a mall -- had many other stores that were technically ~between~ the two towers and other WTC buildings (and were under the WTC plaza). The "bathtub" that held out the waters of the Hudson consisted of an area much larger than the footprints of the two towers. Debris from the destroyed buildings (WTC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) did not destroy every square inch of the much larger WTC complex. In this context, I see no contradiction between the escavation of "undamaged goods" (or rather, "not-crushed goods" from certain mall stores) and the statements about everything directly beneath a 100+ story tower being destroyed.
But Dr. Wood's collection of evidence that all 9/11 theories-du-jour must address remains a strong point. I encourage readers to objectively review Dr. Wood's work for valid evidence, but with the caveat that she does have disinformation and skew amidst the nuggets of truth, as exhibited (I ASSUME) above.
As for the other trio in the quartet that you name drop: I've enjoyed reading their works in the past, but -- to put it nicely -- consider them entertaining fiction writers. I think they subtract from the credibility of whatever argument you were trying to make.
I don't know where you were heading or what you were trying to prove with your two postings, because your hypothesis statement and conclusion didn't exist so failed to connect anything together for me.
Taken at face value, I think all of your quotations (except the trio's contribution) that talk about anomalous effects exhibited on 9/11 (if true and not skewed analysis) fit into the paradigm of a neutron nuclear DEW devices that I have championed.
//
x120 Señor El Once : slight advantage to a plane with wingspan large enough
Dear Mr. Deets, you wrote:
My position is there is conflicting evidence pertaining to a range of possibilities, none of which includes AA77. When I consider that range, there is a slight advantage to a plane with wingspan large enough to strike the light poles.
I disagree with the "slight advantage to a plane with wingspan large enough to strike the light poles," particularly when the plane's model is limited to a commercial aircraft. The physics does not add up, which I will go into in a moment.
The dispute centers around:
(1) The SOC ("South of Citgo") flight path that destroys many light poles and an entrance hole, but has few "trustworthy" witnesses to observing a commercial plane hitting the poles and/or the Pentagon.
(2) The NOC ("North of Citgo") flight path that has many highly credible witnesses, although none who could observe this aircraft actually hitting the Pentagon.
In both cases, all of the witnesses' minds connect together cause (low-flying aircraft) with effect (explosion at Pentagon and damage shown on news.)
On top of this is the lack of evidence of an actual plane in the debris. Seats, bodies & body parts, luggage, clothes, tail, wings? It is well to doubt an actual plane impact.
The following is based on discussions from 2012-04-15, 2012-04-18, and 2012-04-24.
The following video [Constallation plane crash] at about the 1:00 mark shows wooden poles slicing through the aircraft wings before themselves getting cut down.
The video is not 100% applicable to the 9/11 Pentagon plane, but it does reveal some interesting characteristics of wings and poles. The differences between the constallation crash and the Pentagon poles:
(a) Constallation plane crashed into wooden poles that had bases sunk into the ground [inelastic collision]. Pentagon had aluminum breakaway light poles [elastic collision].
(b) When the Constallation plane hit those wooden poles, it was flying slower than the alleged Pentagon plane.
(c) Catastrophic damage happened to both the wings and the poles. The wings had major slices most of the way through their width (ex. 0:27).
Please bare with the brief diversion at the 0:16 mark in this linked video about flesh-bone-and-feather deep penetration into a wing on an aircraft, that by all appearances to me is propellor driven (probably turbo-prop) and thus with velocities less than the alleged commercial aircraft of 9/11 in its final moments.
Here's how the two videos above are related.
Aluminum light poles of the break-away variety do not apply the same levels of resistive force that the buried wooden poles exhibited, so probably by design would not cause the same level of wing slicing observed in the Constellation video. On the other hand, aluminum light poles are structurally stronger than flesh-bone-and-feather birds. One would expect such aluminum poles to damage an aircraft's wings to the same or greater level as the bird, recalling also that each wing hit at least two light poles.
The kinetic energy is (1/2)*m*^2. The velocity of the alleged Pentagon aircraft was greater than both the Constellation plane crashing into the ground and the propellor driven plane smacking into some fowl.
My hypothesis is that such breakaway aluminum poles hitting with the alleged velocity of the Pentagon plane would have crippled the aircraft to such an extent that the fireball and breakup would have happened over the Pentagon lawn.
Others have attempted to merge a NOC flight path that suddenly changed to SOC path to knock over light poles. The following image shows light pole and signage placement with respect to a NOC flight path into the Pentagon.
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathmissespolescringhol.jpg
from
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
Assuming the validity of the obstacles, the plane can go either around them or over them.
One simulation shows the plane making steep almost-wing-dragging banking one way and then another to get from NOC to the SOC downed pole path. The simulation shows that it possible, but that the wildness of this manuever did not match any eye-witness accounts.
An alternative is that the plane flew NOC and high enough to clear the poles and then swoop down to enter at ground level (yet leaving no crater in the foundation) in the extraordinary span of less than 400 feet, if memory serves me well on the width of the Pentagon lawn. Traveling at 500 mph (777 feet per second), this span is covered in 0.5 seconds. That pesky lack of a crater in the foundation kind of pours water of the inertia of an aircraft flying a downward trajectory from the height of the last NOC pole to the ground floor "entrance hole."
I point out to you that even removing the ground-clearance requirement, the direct NoC path cannot do all of these: miss poles, enter the near ground-level Pentagon hole, and avoid putting a crater into the foundation. Any last-split-second change from the NoC path to the SoC path that would benefit from staged down poles to enter the ground-floor hole would result in serious wing tilting that no witness observed.
Another extract:
With regards to Mr. OneSliceShort, his videos, and his satillite images of light pole and sign positions, a NOC flight path *into* the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its NOC route. To avoid the poles, it would have been g-forces impossible to fly over such obstacles, then swoop down, and level off for the ground floor entrance hole that did not affect the foundation with any form of an impact crater.
The light poles had to be staged as per the operation even if an actual plane were to have flown SOC and had been found lodged in the Pentagon. Why? Because if they wouldn't have removed the light poles from the planned flight path, physics suggests that those poles might have damaged the aircraft significantly to the point of starting its disintegration (and explosion) over the lawn of the Pentagon and thereby not inflicting enough damage on the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating the $2.3 trillion in missing DoD expenditures. Remember the objectives.
In conclusion: Witnesses to the NOC flight path were not witnesses to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon. The NOC flight path has no expected damage to light poles and signage along its route, and could not have flown over or around such obstacles. The observed NOC flight path could not have been altered to suddenly match the SOC aligned damage and entrance hole.
The SOC flight path presents obstacles that should have cripled and destroyed a commercial aircraft. Either the obstacles were downed in advance, or the plane wasn't a commercial aircraft but something more advanced with stronger wings and no seats, passengers, luggage, etc.
//
x121 Señor El Once : Who are you? What is your real name?
Dear Mr. A. Ruff,
In "The Dark Knight Rises" movie, Batman gives some advice to the Police Officer (an orphan with middle name "Robin") that "the hero dons the mask not to protect himself but to protect those he cares about."
It is important that an author stand behind their words and be willing to defend those words, to admit error or uncertainty, and to change opinions, when new information necessitates such. This proves how genuine the person is. "Standing behind your words" can be accomplished in many ways, such as consistency in alias-usage forum-to-forum, a "home court" to consolidate words, or a revealing of identities at a time and choosing of the author (e.g., to a select audience.)
You charged Mr. Broken Record:
Who are you? What is your real name?
I find this line of attack distasteful and immaterial, despite having sympathy with the other points in your cranky posting.
Integrity ought to be exhibited in the comments that participants make. When it isn't, readers note it.
ECHELON and PRISM, and Google/Facebook/WordPress/YouTube's single-login and tying together of aliases with IP addresses with street addresses with individuals and credit histories, assures us that our "permanent digital record" has detailed reading for those with a badge and a need to know. No sense making it easier.
Meanwhile, given the vast distances over which the internet serves, it isn't as if knowing a real name will enable you to drive across town to punch someone in the nose for their disingenuous views. And on the flip-side, only those who are independently wealthy, retired, or otherwise out of the workforce (e.g., for physical reasons) [and have no spouses or relations in the workforce] can have some degree of freedom in voicing their views under their real name without blow-back from "Google Background Checks" on their next employment search.
//
x122 Señor El Once : little bit loose with the "troll" word
{2nd Attempt}
Dear Mr. RuffAdam,
This is not a defense of Mr. A.Wright, who appears to have been involved with torture. How else could he have known of a successful trial substitution for waterboarding? 2013-07-21:
@Hybridrogue1: I didn't realize you were passing on your title of resident crank... I'm honored. I'd better brush up on the old Hegelian Dialectics and start some interminable discourse with El Senor Once, the reading of which to interrogation subjects has been successfully trialled as a viable substitute for waterboarding.
Other parallelisms occur to me when I read your charges against Mr. A.Wright:
If A.Wright refuses to answer all questions and fails to respond to critics points then he is not following the rules of this or any discussion forum. He evades or ignores when he should by all rights be required to respond yet he is still given latitude to question and badger others. ... Any debate rules you care to look at require opponents to address the topic at hand AND respond to each others statements and rebuttals. Failure to do so means YOU LOSE the debate. Failure to respond effectively with a substantial counter argument means YOU LOSE the debate.
On another thread and another topic near and dear to my one-trick-pony hobby-horse, which goes by the name of "Neu Nookiedoo", you were guilty of the same offenses. You even made a big deal out of not reading and ignoring my comments instead of just ignoring them, particularly when they had you cornered with respect to ~not~ doing your due diligence on "the good, the bad, & the ugly" in the work of Dr. Judy Wood that would demonstrate an open-mind. The higher calling to which you subscribe your 9/11 Truth endeavors dictates that "the good" nuggets of truth be preserved, cherished, and re-purposed... even from disinfo sources.
My hobby-horse ain't yours, so we can let mention of that nuclear topic slide by without further adieu. What persists from that example?
A little bit loose with the "troll" word you have been. Be careful of what you wish for.
Triple-W was chided in the past for engaging Mr. A.Wright, particularly when the engagement so quickly devolved into off-topic flames. Be careful that you don't become entwined as one of the pincers in his "old Hegelian Dialectics" that derails this discussion.
WITH REGARDS TO THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION
Mr. B. Record on 2013-07-22 tries to plant the seeds of discouragement and futility in searching for the Truth of 9/11.
Well where have all the debates and discussions gotten ya so far? ... So everyone in the gov't is bad and there is no hope of taking the evidence to gov't officials so your solution is to just discuss/debate the evidence with other truthers and infiltrators ad nauseum? I'm sure the next answer will be that we need to raise awareness with people so that they will do something, right? And what are they supposed to do after they are made aware? Tell other people? How has that worked so far?
The purpose of "blah-blah-blah" in this forum and at any conference on the 9/11 topic is to raise awareness to a critical point where distributed and massive action can make a change.
As Mr. B. Record hints, the solution is not to take our gripe to the bad government. No, the solution is to re-make government... in order "to form a more perfect Union", given that the present one isn't anything other than an oligarchy.
As was so aptly quoted by Triple-W:
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~R. Buckminster Fuller
Because I don't want to sully this comments section with more instances of "viable substitutions for waterboarding" and because this comment is nested under a thread where the following is relevant and applicable, I'll append something written earlier but not posted.
++++++
Agreed, NSA and Echelon continue to grow our digital dossiers, and "[t]here is no making it easier than it already is" in terms of them knowing who we are, assuming that the wealth of data collected on everyone can be filtered down and have our names pop-up in their search results (top-1000) as "persons of interest" today, tomorrow, or whenever.
I'm not worried about "them", because they have to prioritize and I can't fathom how I'd make the cut. They also have some rules (albeit many are written on the fly) to guide their actions. But when & if that fateful moment arrives, the juggernaut will be so massive, so consuming, so pervassive, I won't be able to fight it. I'll be caught in a net like thousands of other minnows. It'll roll over me and squash me into nothingness like so many others.
Meanwhile, what I worry about are those who operate without rules; those on the fringed; those whose blinding patriotism -- not to the Constitution but to corrupt government institutions or military-esque brotherhoods -- misguides them; those who take matters into their own hands.
By accident or on purpose, their lack of morals and ethics might lead them like a Middle Schooler into doing unethical things on-line from a distance just to tweak with someone for fun, or to really mess with them. I'm talking ~not~ about hacking that could screw with email or deplete banking accounts (but they are to be considered); I am talking about the low-hanging fruit of the Google-lingering effects of tarnishing another individual's reputation on-line... Oh how easy it is to smear and libel another "on the internets" from the safety of a keyboard.
Mr. McKee [who knows the Bruce Wayne to my Batman] can attest to how such a gambit was played out against my Bruce Wayne on "Screw Loose Change" without me participating there or even being aware of it until late... but not beyond the statute of limitations for taking the culprits to court for criminal libel. [Alas, victory in court does not equate to actual collection of judgment, let alone legal fees. And the efforts to get justice would have a blow-back tarnishing effect on "name" and "reputation" in the meantime.]
//
x123 Señor El Once : What are you deluded by?
Mr. RuffAdam, Mr. Syed, and the Triple-Dubya have given great (if snippy) responses to Mr. B. Record. (I offer my respect to RuffAdam and Mr. Syed for their activism.) It turns out that Mr. Paul Craig Roberts has also done the same from another angle.
Before I offer up Mr. Roberts views, allow me to address something that Mr. B. Record wrote:
So how did it work out when everyone took 9/11 truth to "the people of the world"? ... I just see all of this as delusion and zero direction.
And what are you deluded by? The under-current of your several postings has been "why bother with anything? 9/11 was in the past. Informing citizenry doesn't work. Nothing to do. Let's sit on our thumbs and let the political currents sweep us away and drown us. No sense paddling or swimming against the stream. All is hopeless. Nothing can be done." And in copping this attitude, you play right into the role that the powers that be (PTB) have for everyone: Do nothing, because nothing can be done. Watch your "Merika's Got Talent" and tune out to considering anything that you could do personally to change matters.
+++++
Here's some brief exerpts from Role Reversal: How the US Became the USSR by Paul Craig Roberts {with my comments in curly braces}:
In Washington politicians of both parties demand that Snowden be captured and executed. Politicians demand that Russia be punished for not violating international law, seizing Snowden, and turning him over to Washington to be tortured and executed, despite the fact that Washington has no extradition treaty with Russia.
{And despite the fact that Snowden hasn't had a trial by a jury of his peers, maybe because Jury Nullification is a very real danger for the PTB (powers that be). "Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict." In doing so, they set legal precedence that can be far reaching. Remember this for when you or those you know are called to jury duty.}
Snowden did what Americans are supposed to do–disclose government crimes against the Constitution and against citizens. Without a free press there is nothing but the government's lies. In order to protect its lies from exposure, Washington intends to exterminate all truth tellers.
The Obama Regime is the most oppressive regime ever in its prosecution of protected whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are protected by law, but the Obama Regime insists that whistleblowers are not really whistleblowers. Instead, the Obama Regime defines whistleblowers as spies, traitors, and foreign agents. Congress, the media, and the faux judiciary echo the executive branch propaganda that whistleblowers are a threat to America. {According to the PTB} It is not the government that is violating and raping the US Constitution that is a threat. {According to the PTB} It is the whistleblowers who inform us of the rape who are the threat.
What Americans have learned in the 21st century is that the US government lies about everything and breaks every law. ... Snowden harmed no one except the liars and traitors in the US government. Contrast Washington's animosity against Snowden with the pardon that Bush gave to Dick Cheney aide, Libby, who took the fall for his boss for blowing the cover, a felony, on a covert CIA operative, the spouse of a former government official who exposed the Bush/Cheney/neocon lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Whatever serves the tiny clique that rules america is legal; whatever exposes the criminals is illegal.
//
x124 Señor El Once : the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators
Mr. Ruff wrote above on July 29, 2013 – 8:18 am:
The case for CD [controlled demolition of the WTC] ... strong with or without the thermite paper and evidence. Video and witness evidence is strong enough to prove CD all by itself. Broken Record is correct however in that CD if proven to the public at large can still be blamed on selected patsies or fall guys. The problem is that proving CD does not prove who did it.
Proving CD could certainly narrow down the list of suspects significantly, particularly when ~all~ of the evidence is considered and when the thermite paper is cast into the proper light.
What is that proper light? Namely, that thermite -- if truly involved at all -- did not act alone for either pulverizing the towers or maintaining under-rubble hot-spots. Dr. Jones has admitted such, even while allowing Mr. Gage and the yeomen of the 9/11TM to extrapolate those thermitic findings to explain WTC anomalies that physics says it cannot and isn't comparatively Occam Razor.
I know you don't want to mount my Neu Nookiedoo one-trick pony, despite aligned evidence and despite the omissions & games of Dr. Jones in his "no nukes" efforts. Does Dr. Jones ever discuss in that "no nukes" paper possible configurations of neutron bombs that could match tritium measurements, correlated elements in the dust, 1st responder ailments, energy requirements of pulverization, ease of installation, etc.? Nope, making that a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicist to make. He malframes in that work by only considering big fission or big fusion devices, as well as by accepting 100% and misusing the govt commissioned study on tritium, a report that had valid but speculative and stilted goals.
Triple-Dubya and I have made too many carousel spins discussing in a Tetris way how the evidence blocks could be oriented for a CD using either "chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)" or "special configuration of neutron nuclear bombs". [And remember that the CD does ~not~ have to be of the same form for all buildings in the WTC complex.]
Obviously, I'm of the opinion that the gaps are fewer with neu nookiedoo. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that the evidence stacks up equally well either way. The cover-up activities of the government & a complicit media are what suggest strongly it was neu nookiedoo.
How so? Because if the CD was "chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)" [primarily], TPTB could still try to scapegoat a third-party (e.g., 19 stripper-loving, coke-snorting, cave-dwelling, Muslim-extemists) for the "relative" ease (compared to nukes) with which the "chemical explosives (thermite + other stuff)" could be obtained or manufactured, albeit while stumbling over the facts of: (a) massive [& unreasonable] quantities that can't be acquired at just any WalMart; (b) extended access to secure facilities for CD installation; and (c)_ observable evidence showing massive overkill [e.g., pulverization, free-fall speeds] above and well beyond what was needed for the goals of destruction of two symbols of capitalism [the towers].
The neu nookiedoo hobby-horse, on the other hand, would require, say, only a dozen devices per tower, thus shorter facility access for CD installation, and by their very energetic nature gives the observable and unpreventable overkill effects that really mucks with those lame pan-cake & pile-driving excuses from NIST.
Aside from the United States, the list is rather short regarding who would have this unique configuration of neutron bombs: England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel come to mind, but there might be more (or less). The Dubya sabor-rattling with China over a downed spy-plane prior to 9/11 might suggest China, except that none -- not even the USA -- were even considered as suspects. TPTB through the media named Osama bin Laden before the dust had settled.
++++++
Mr. Noel has made several excellent postings, although underlying agreement between Mr. Noel and Mr. Ruff on the true substance of each leg that they respectively champion from the large, multi-faceted, shock-&-awe, neo-con con-job is sometimes missed in the disagreement over which aspect of the public-duping plan should have a priority in bring a sheeple to enlightenment. Of course, my Neu Nookiedoo hobby-horse says y'all both been trumped by the message -- whether directly or through surrogates -- "the guvmint of Merika dun nuked Merika". Worse, is the pawning of Merika into a frightened, liberty-surrendering TSA/DHS/FEMA-victim.
Mr. Noel wrote:
Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but the still more numerous watchdogs who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases — like ending the open-ended Afghan war — that 9/11 Truth would nullify.
The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB through their tax-doging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience, an excerpt:
The Litmus Test
It should go without saying that anyone who promotes the official story of 9/11; anyone who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or stupid.
Any presidential candidate, senator, congressman, fireman, pilot, engineer, architect… anyone who, knowing the facts, does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack.
Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, every violation of our basic rights we so docilely accept — TSA cavity searches, being forced to remove your shoes in order to board a flight, metal detectors and X-Ray scanners (even in hospitals), ID checks at every turn — they all came about because of 9/11. Everything that curtails, inhibits, or restricts your everyday life today is a direct or indirect result of 9/11. Think about it.
And every one of these violations of our personal freedoms is based on a lie.
Therefore, everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.
Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make "the guvmint of Merika" and all its institutions obsolete.
The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
//
x125 Señor El Once : piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan
As long as everybody is piling on poor Mr. Kevin Ryan, I might as well contribute my feather-of-weight by starting with something Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:
The only reason Ryan and the others I mentioned have not simply been laughed off as cranks similar to our resident crank A.Wright is because of their work on the CD evidence and their college degrees.
Regarding their work (e.g., Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Ryan) on the CD evidence, this ties in with the words of Mr. Daniel Noel with his "9/11 censorship" claims. You see, their framing of the discussion around super-duper nano-thermite was one of those so-called "limited hang-out's" out of which they got lots of mileage despite parking "further research" in a cul-de-sac. The high school chemistry and math extrapolated backwards from the evidence (e.g., pulverization energy, long duration under-rubble hot-spots, tritium, correlated elements in dust indicating nuclear involvement, 1st responder ailments, etc.) was always eventually going to expose the inapplicability and non-Occam Razorness of super-duper nano-thermite with any combination of [name your] chemical explosive CD mechanisms (as primary).
All along, they have known of the weaknesses of their postulated mechanisms, which is why they never produced papers with even "back-of-envelope calculations" of ball-park guestimates on chemical CD (including thermite) quantities. All along, they have known that they needed to be looking towards other sources for the energy and destruction. Dr. Judy Wood's "disinformation vehicles" comes closest from the other direction regarding at least "thinking out of the box" into other sources of destruction.
"9/11 censorship?" Yep, neither Mr. Ryan, Dr. Jones, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Legge, nor Mr. Cole have ever offered up a detailed "good, bad, and ugly" book review on Dr. Wood's "disinformation vehicles". Why, because certainly one can find some "bad and ugly?" Why was it mostly off-hand dismissals and hand-waves of "looney" aimed at low-hanging disinformation fruit (that I call "get-out-of-assassination cards" played by Dr. Wood) like Hutchison Effects and Hurricane Erin?
The reasons for their silence may have been (1) out of respect to keep the "limited hang-out" efforts of Dr. Wood in play while running down the clock on the public's attention span; and (2) to ~NEVER~ call attention to the good in Dr. Wood's work, because the good are valid anomalies that all 9/11 theories-du-jour must address to be complete, and their thermic aspirations couldn't.
They have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively "nuclear" connotations with regards to how the public would, should, or could react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal "nuclear" connotations with regards to what the military reaction would, should, or could be with respect to nuclear responses to those framed as the aggressors. The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- "9/11 censorship" --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to "nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first" would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did "nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs" with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how "the enemy was de-humanized" in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other autrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
Nuking of Iraq and Afganistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, "if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either," particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of "authority figures" it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent "hair-on-fire panic." And I believe it is why lots of 9/11 Censors who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably "personally insentivized" upon them as well in a "deal with the devil" sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
//
x126 Señor El Once : Stop earning the extra "Dubya"
{This posting sits in the moderation queue and could be deleted. Its content was re-written in the next posting.}
Dearest Triple-Dubya,
Stop earning the extra "Dubya" appended to your name standing for "the weasel."
The carousel rides that you've been on have made you aware many times over both (1) that your "smearing Professor Jones" accusation is unfounded and (2) that criticism of Dr. Jones' work [or anybody's work] is valid and doesn't equate to "smearing." Proof of your weaselness.
Or is everything that was written in this thread about Kevin Ryan's work "character assassination" and "smearing" as well?
"Guilt by association?" Ha! Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones were co-authors on the nano-thermite paper, which has stilting & skewing and doesn't account for what maintained the hot-spots in between the measured spikes in output of gasses. A rather glaring omission. And when cornered, your hero admits that "something maintainted those hot-spots (not just NT)" yet offers no speculation into what that something was.
Seems to me that Dr. Jones was first author, but none of the authors have been able to provide calculations into requisite quantities of thermite (with any combination of conventional chemical explosives) which can account for pulverization AND hot-spot duration. Another glaring omission. Why? Because the calculations suggest massive quantities that ain't Occam Razor.
As for Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" paper, it starts off on the wrong foot by accepting without question or qualification the stilted commissioned work by the govt on "potential" sources for the tritium measured in the run-off from WTC-6 at haphazard measuring locations & times and stops taking samples when the levels were found to be miniscule and not hazardous to health. Then Dr. Jones twists those findings as being the complete story on the actual tritium at the WTC, when clearly (1) no samples were taken at ~any~ of the hot-spots and (2) few samples were taken in a systematic or timely fashion, like before dilution with water. Then Dr. Jones, BYU Nuclear Physics Professor, frames everything as large nuclear devices and does not even mention neutron bombs, which is a variant of fusion. Pretty damning omission.
For the record, the above is a valid critique of Dr. Jones' work. It is you, Triple-Dubya, who twists that as being a smear on the man. You have Dr. Jones' email address, and you've exchanged emails in the past. Dr. Jones has never addressed the deficiencies in his work that have been pointed out and that you should have relayed on to him.
You've never proven that the "neutron nuclear DEW" argument was flawed, not even with Dr. Jones' help. In fact, the flaws are the other way around regarding your position... You get tripped up by an imaginary garden hose of several hundred THOUSAND miles and by the significance of correlated elements measured by the USGS in the dust.
What is surprising is that your ego won't admit what intellect & facts spell out.
//
x127 Señor El Once : Review, Criticism, Smear
Mr. Rogue's spinning carousel squeaks its lack of understanding between "critical review of work" and "smear on an individual." Yet again. Ho-hum.
Review: an evaluation of a publication, product, service, or company... A peer review is the process by which scientists assess the work of their colleagues that has been submitted for publication in the scientific literature.
Criticism: the practice of judging the merits and faults of something or someone in a sometimes negative, sometimes intelligible, (or articulate) way.
Smear: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively.
Smear tactics: differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility. ... Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading.
Mr. Rogue's "smearing Professor Jones" accusation against me is unfounded. Using URLs, Mr. Rogue should document where I might have used smear tactics against Dr. Jones. For any cherry-picked quotations that he may deem to be uncharitable descriptions of Dr. Jones, prove that the context did ~not~ provide substantiation in the form of critical review of Dr. Jones' work and found it with faults.
In other revolutions, Mr. Rogue's carousel has squeaked about my alleged "character assassination" and "smearing", yet when confronted for specifics (as above), his substantiation was MIA. Spoiler alert: Mr. Rogue's carousel squeaks about "smearing" can be proven (yet again, ho-hum) to be themselves "smears." Oh the games he plays!
Or is everything that was written in this thread and was critical about Kevin Ryan's work "character assassination" and "smearing" as well?
"Guilt by association?" Ha! Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones were co-authors on the nano-thermite paper, which has some malframing in purpose & limiting of scope and doesn't account for what maintained the hot-spots in between the measured spikes in output of gasses. A rather glaring omission. And when cornered, Dr. Jones admits (Sept 2012) that "something maintainted those hot-spots (not just NT)" yet offers no speculation into what that something was!
On the surface, a carousel cranker would say that "it is forgivable that Dr. Jones, Mr. Ryan, et al did ~not~ speculate further." However, scratching below that surface, a critical reader realizes that the paper was itself a speculative effort into attributing six spikes in the hot-spots to super-duper nano-thermite. They succeeded! Even I can believe! The issue remains from which their efforts side-track: "something maintainted those hot-spots (not just NT)." Their subsequent PR tours to promote this work pre-maturely parks in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac further public thought & research into explaining the rest of the anomalous evidence.
Seems to me that Dr. Jones was first author, but none of the authors including chemist Mr. Ryan have been able to publicly provide calculations into the requisite quantities of thermite (with any combination of conventional chemical explosives) that can account for pulverization AND hot-spot duration AND audio signature. Another glaring omission. Why would they neglect this simple little exercise that is second nature to their professions? I submit that they have performed the math, so Dr. Jones' and Mr. Ryan's true negligence is in not making it publicly known. Why? Because the calculations suggest massive quantities that ain't Occam Razor.
As for Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" paper, it starts off on the wrong foot by accepting without question or qualification the stilted commissioned work by the govt on "potential" sources for the tritium measured in the run-off from WTC-6 at haphazard measuring locations & times and stops taking samples when the levels were found to be miniscule and not hazardous to health. Then Dr. Jones implies those stilted findings were the complete story on the actual tritium at the WTC, when clearly (1) no samples were taken at ~any~ of the hot-spots and (2) few samples were taken in a systematic or timely fashion, like before dilution with water. Then the acclaimed BYU Nuclear Physics Professor frames everything as large nuclear devices and does not even mention neutron bombs, which is a variant of fusion. Pretty damning omission.
Mr. Rogue has Dr. Jones' email address, and they have exchanged emails in the past. Dr. Jones has never addressed the deficiencies in his work.
For the record, the above is a valid critique of Dr. Jones' work. It is Mr. Rogue who twists that as being a smear on the man. Mr. Rogue tries to start a flame war with:
The argument for nukes at WTC is so flawed that, and the assertions framing Jones in this respect so spurious, that I make this comment despite the hysterical response I know that it will receive from the anonymous entity calling itself, "Señor."
In closing this "hysterical response", I point out that the flaws are the other way around: they are in the works of Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan. Mr. Rogue -- hypnotic writer that he is -- gets tripped up by an imaginary garden hose of several hundred THOUSAND miles and by the significance of correlated elements measured by the USGS in the dust. In a Tetris sense, the anomalous 9/11 evidence stacks with fewest gaps when considering "neutron nuclear DEW".
//
x128 Señor El Once : the third time the challenge has been put to you
2013-08-06
{email to Mr. Rogue}
Dear Triple-Dubya,
You're just a dick playing games.
The charge before you trimmed it and inserted the neu nookiedoo meme:
Using URLs, Mr. Rogue should document where I might have used smear tactics against Dr. Jones. For any cherry-picked quotations that he may deem to be uncharitable descriptions of Dr. Jones, prove that the context did ~not~ provide substantiation in the form of critical review of Dr. Jones' work and found it with faults.
This is at least the third time the challenge has been put to you to "put up or shut the fuck up." But no. You come up with nothing but continue with your hypnotic little smearing games, equating "critical review of someone's work" with "smearing."
You're such a hypocrite, Mr. Rogue, and living up to the weasel that I append to your name. If you weren't such a hypocrite, you be saying that reviewers of Mr. Ryan's book was smearing him. You're not. Game, set, and match.
You're too ignorant to figure out the connection: Gee, Mr. Syed has found Mr. Ryan's premise on the Pentagon very wanting and offers lots of examples. If the Pentagon is one instance of scope-limiting leading to false conclusions in Mr. Ryan's work, could there be others? Lo and behold, there is! In his nano-thermite work done with Dr. Jones. The problems in that work has already been documented, but Mr. Ryan's Pentagon-misdirections only underscores the importance of seeing the misdirections in that NT work.
And for all of your bellyaching about neu-nookiedoo being flawed, your supposed debunking efforts (on COTO) is proven flawed (and littered with ad hominem). You bend over backwards to google plausible benign sources for each and every facet that spells out 9/11 nuclear hijinx (some of those explanations from dubious sources), but in the end just the fucking coincidence of all those facets being in one place at the same time and in correlated quantities seals the deal on neu-nookiedoo, and you know it.
Your ego is just too proud to admit when you're wrong and when your trusted sources can't be trusted.
I've publicly expressed my gratitude to your oppositional efforts many times. You've helped me strengthen my arguments.
But you don't have to be a dick about it. You don't have to lie, cheat, or weasel, which is what you've done and reflects badly on your reputation when pointed out.
//
x130 Señor El Once : scope-limiting leading to false conclusions
Connecting my postings with the topic:
Mr. Syed has found Mr. Ryan's premise on the Pentagon very wanting and offers lots of examples.
If the Pentagon is one instance of scope-limiting leading to false conclusions in Mr. Ryan's work, could there be others?
Lo and behold, there is! In his nano-thermite (NT) work done with Dr. Jones.
The problems in that NT work has already been alluded to in my previous posting, but Mr. Ryan's Pentagon-misdirections only underscores the importance of revisiting the misdirections in that NT work.
P.S. Mr. Rogue has not proved his hypnotic allegations of my "smearing" of Dr. Jones while at the same time avoiding my valid criticisms of Dr. Jones' and Mr. Ryan's work. Ergo, I've earned the right to have him STFU.
//
x131 HybridRogue & Adam Ruff : Hit & Run
2013-08-08
++++++++++ 2013-08-08 ruffadam
Ok it is clear to me that Ethan does not wish to have a rational debate taking on one issue at a time and instead prefers to have a free for all where multiple unrelated questions and issues are thrown together so as to confuse and tangle up the whole discussion. I am not going to participate in that sort of circus because it leads nowhere. We can say flyover witness and he will respond with what about Betty Ong. We will say look at the Lloyd england story and he will respond with what about the witnesses who say the plane hit and around and around we go never resolving a single point. I have been there done that too damn many times I know how it goes.
The other reason I am not going to deal with you Ethan is that you are apparently too lazy to look at the evidence under discussion, namely the CIT presentation. You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend watching it and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you, spending our time and effort to do that, when you should spend your time to do by simply watching the videos CIT produced. Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can't be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you. By the way to really get a handle on all the evidence from P4T as well it would require more than two hours so I guess that cuts you out huh?
Since you are not familiar with the evidence and apparently will not spend any time getting familiar with it I see no point whatsoever in any of us continuing to engage you on this topic. You literally don't know what we are talking about. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the pentagon evidence BEFORE you engage us and tell us all how wrong we are about it and Kevin Ryan.
As to your statement that: "I stand by the approach to this book, and you all seem to at least agree that Ryan put together some worthwhile info on some of the most likely perpetrators."
I repeat what I said above in response:
"This statement and line of reasoning is a red herring on your part because we have to accept that the truth should be tailored to the sensibilities of the very people who refuse to accept the truth, the "911 deniers" as you call them. That is illogical and wrong in every possible way. The truth is the truth no matter how many believe it and no matter how many don't believe it. The moment you start tampering with that you have gone off the rails. Kevin Ryan has gone off the rails by taking this approach and so have you by accepting it as a valid approach. Keep in mind that this is the 9/11 TRUTH movement not the 9/11 Public Relations movement. Real truthers should accept only as much of the official story as is proven to be true by the evidence and not one tiny bit more. The entire premise of "accepting as much of the official account as possible" is as bogus as a three dollar bill and therefore the foundation of Kevin's book is cracked and I question if it is worth the paper it is printed on. I have to wonder now about everything he says in the book and I have to do my own research to verify each item in the book because Ryan cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the pentagon so what else is he misleading us on?"
++++++++++ 2013-08-08 ruffadam
I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
++++++++++ 2013-08-10 hybridrogue1
"No radiation = no nuke."
Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it.
\\][//
+++++++++++ 2013-08-19 ruffadam
My last comment on Amazon told Gretavo that I would not be continuing the discussion on his forum but that he could come here and discuss it. I am not going to his forum he will have to come here. The reason for that is that Gretavo is dishonest and is using various disinformation and evasion techniques in his arguments and I would not put it past him at all to post something, let me respond, and then edit what he originally said in order to make me look bad or crazy. If he comes here he will have no such options for trickery. So the ball is in his court. FTR here is my comment to Gretavo aka RT on amazon in which I make this point clear:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P4ZYCITNJOZ3/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&asin=1489507833&cdForum=Fx201AN65PYHTJ8&cdPage=3&cdThread=Tx1U1LWHE144UL9&store=books#wasThisHelpful
RT,
Yeah it is "disruptive" and an "attack" to question Mr. Chandler and his Pentagon work. What a joke you are RT for even going down that road. To top it off you go right into an off topic rant about Jeff Hill and Chandlers association with him following your scolding of CIT and Judy Wood supporters for going off topic. Wow that is some hypocrisy there RT. At any rate my comments were not off topic to begin with since they focused on Ryan's book and specifics about the Pentagon position he espouses in the book. My other comments were directed towards Chandlers review of Ryans book. So stuff it RT you don't have a leg to stand on and neither does Chandler after calling us trolls and disinformation operatives and then having the gall to call us the disruptive ones. Hypocrisy all around it seems. The truth is neither of you guys can handle valid criticism. It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in Chandler's paper or Ryan's book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
I will not be continuing the conversation with you on your blog RT but you and Chandler and Ryan can come to Truth and Shadows and discuss the Kevin Ryan book review posted there if you wish. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/ Or you can talk about any of the other blog entries you wish. I don't expect to see any of you but the option is available and unless you flagrantly violate the rules of free speech with threats or nonsense like that you will not be censored in any way shape or form unlike the cess pit of censorship 911Blogger.
——————————————————————————————
So by posting this reply on his own blog which I said I was not going to Gretavo is again demonstrating dishonesty. He is attempting to paint me as the one running from debate when in reality it is him doing so.
+++++++++++ John Albanese via Adam Syed 2013-08-11
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1783/hzfo.jpg
There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
9/22 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.
+++++++++++ 2013-08-10 hybridrogue1
I think this comment is worth saving on this side of the fence for safe keeping
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
~ ruffadam
on August 9, 2013 at 1:12 am
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
\\][//
x132 HybridRogue : too much of a weasel to post here
{The following is written by Mr. HybridRogue, who I call triple-W, because he is too much of a weasel to post here and be challenged directly.}
2013-08-08
"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."~Rogue
"What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures? Let me guess. I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling"~Senor
Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions. The whole post is at the URL below on December 26, 2012 at 11:28 am for you to see for yourself.~Rogue
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO. While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute. Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first. And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?
He simply insists that it couldn't have been because of the 'hot spots', but that is another issue that does NOT answer the primary question, but leaps ahead to his argument about hot-spots.
The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light. This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.
Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.
But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars. A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive. Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.
And this is a discussion about the profile of the destruction of the WTC – the actual explosive event.
\\][//
x133 Señor El Once : lives up to the "weasel"
2013-08-12
2013-08-12 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
Triple-Dubya lives up to the "weasel" that I append to his initials. It starts out that he is too weasely to post on my thread, posting here instead 2013-08-08. He charges:
Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions.
Triple-W previous wrote:
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.
There are four main pieces of evidence the the weasel tries to brush aside by not addressing specifically: (1) the arches A & B, (2) the horseshoe C & D, (3) the twisted-up stuff E, and (4) the steel doobies F and G.
In order to create the horse-shoe D, the physical space needs to be available for one end of the beam to be bent to "kiss" the other end, after of course something heated its mid-section to be bent. That physical space would not have been available once the pile had come crashing down and was sitting smoldering.
Just as importantly, take a look at the multiple examples of what I call a "steel doobies". In G, it stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image (I'm told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The "steel doobie" is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble. In fact, steel doobie F wasn't under the rubble either.
So, one can't malframe the discussion, as attempted by Triple-W, that "a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them" deformed them into what they are. In fact, Triple-W has no explanation for how chemical explosives with or without thermite could make this doobie.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away.
Triple-W's game playing:
And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO.
Or maybe this proves Triple-W's MO in not addressing the point: arches, horseshoes, and steel doobies!
While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute.
No, they don't have the complete known profile of chemical demoltion. The decimation of those buildings was too quiet to be chemical demolition. The damage to vehicles on West Broadway in the parking lot (and not to flags, people, paper) could not have been achieved by hot-and-spicy burning thermitic dust from the towers.
Senor will not address this point, but will insist that "we must take the whole event as the profile" – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first.
I addressed the point... again. Ho-hum. It is Triple-W who does the dodge. Been smokin' a doobie, but not a steel one.
And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?
Notice the hypnotic suggestion of Triple-W: "the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail." Again, it does not.
The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light.
The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure -- both inner core and outer wall assemblies -- would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.
This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.
This is Triple-W spinning like a top and lying. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like (1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield, (2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding where they would have placed the device plus the outer wall assemblies, (3) debris, and (4) the distance from the detonation.
The fact is, of the small EMP produced, much of could be contained. What wasn't, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris and cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot. (Remember, the damaged vehicles are evidence that Triple-W can't explain reasonably, and for sure doesn't match the profile of chemical explosives.)
The electronic devices were a significant distance from the towers and out of the range of the minimized EMP.
Senor's come back is always 'but these were tiny little nukes', that is also why they didn't make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.
No, my come-back is "these were neutron bombs whose design and yield are different from little nukes of the run-of-the-mill fission or fusion variety." The neutron profiles are apparent.
But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars.
*BEEP* *BEEP* Nope, weasel. You do the misframing. I never said that the EMP would "scorch steel and blow up cars." What I said, and you failed to understand, was that EMP would induce electric currents in steel (and not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people). The currents would heat the steel, and if great enough, that heat would cause things like paint, seals, and plastic handles to burn. Get enough things on fire on a vehicle, and the gas tank could blow up.
However, more telling is EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. I could see that happening with EMP heating the door and expanding it within its door frame to the point of popping off.
A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive.
Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived -- contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
Triple-W doesn't have the government reports that measured systematically and promptly alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulated the results, and prove they were zero, so he can't claim the framing of radioactive levels as he does.
Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor's pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.
Ho-hum, Triple-W. The little bit of tritiated water was (1) 55 times greater than expected background levels, (2) wasn't measured everywhere -- not the hot-spots or even close, (3) wasn't measured in a timely or systematic fashion before dilution and dissipation.
If Triple-W does not want to rationally go down neutron bomb avenue, then he should have Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan explain:
What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures?
I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation.
//
x134 Señor El Once : No radiation = no nuke?
2013-08-12
2013-08-12 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
For the moment, I will set aside your trollish hit-and-run behavior and its claims that you will limit yourself to one posting that itself cranks another spin out of the "endless merry-go-round of Señor El Once." [You will not be held to your self-proclaimed limit, but you will be made fun of.]
You wrote:
When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.
No radiation = no nuke.
First of all, you malframe the nuclear devices, Mr. Ruff. They were not "mini-nukes", because without further clarification (demonstrating your understanding of nuclear devices) these imply to the science-challenged readers "fission or fusion" devices that have much larger explosive yields and leave the kind of radiation signature that you're foisting up as a red herring.
The discussion is about neutron devices, which are a variant of fusion, expel the lions share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, can direct those neutrons and subsequently the blast and heat wave, and do ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly, such radiation from the neutron devices depletes quickly and would not be measured at all.
Secondly, you malframe the radiation argument by challenging me to find "valid documentation that ANY nuclear device that does NOT emit radiation post detonation."
No, no, no. You obviously did not read the article above or its predecessor, nor have you googled "neutron bombs" (or "Big Ivan").
The search isn't for a nuclear device that "does NOT emit radiation post detonation." No, no, no. The search is for a nuclear device that emits radiation in a targeted fashion and does not leave long-lasting, lingering levels of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.
For the duration of this paragraph, accept the premise of neutron devices and assume this was the PTB's plan. To be successful, they would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. (Issue "fake" badges that don't work for radiation.) They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the 1st responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Mr. Ruff, of course I can't prove "measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero" for the same reason you can't prove the opposite of "~NO~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero."
(1) If a crew of researchers was permitted to make prompt radiation measurements in a systematic fashion all around the WTC;
(2) If those measurements were tabulated into a report (with nothing omitted);
(3) If (nuclear) scientists provided analysis of those tabulated findings in that report (without scientific sleight of hand);
(4) That report was buried and never made public.
Ah yes, M-16 armed military security dropped down quickly around the WTC. If you popped out an errant Geiger Counter or camera, those devices were confiscated, and you were ordered in an unfriendly fashion to "leave and don't ever come back."
Ah yes, Mayor Bloomberg even tried to pass a law that made possession of Geiger Counters illegal in NYC.
Ah yes, the NIST report on the WTC-1 & 2 stopped its analysis at the initiation of the collapse. How long was it delayed?
Ah yes, the 9/11 Commission report didn't even mention WTC-7. How long was it delayed?
Ah yes, the EPA issued false proclamations into the "healthiness" of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction.
Ah yes, the FTC destroyed CDs and tapes recording the actual conversations of air traffic controllers.
Ah yes, the military brass changed their story several times regarding responsiveness of the air defenses.
Ah yes, the NYC Fire Investigators were upset by the destruction of evidence and that they weren't permitted to test for conventional explosives (or anything else, like the proof of the radiation that you seek.)
Ah yes, the NIST report of WTC-7 in its DRAFT form didn't mention the observable free-fall and in its FINAL form analyzed only the first 18 floors of its demise, broke that into 3 stages, admitted that stage 2 over 8 floors (100+ feet) was indistinguishable from gravitational accelaration, and then concluded with a straight-face that these three stages when averaged together were slower than free-fall. How long was it delayed?
Ah yes, the government commissioned a study to speculate on possible "civilian" sources for tritium that was sampled ~LATE~ (as in "not promptly") in the run-off from the WTC after much delution. The sampling was also not systematically performed in lots of locations, was not performed at any of the hot-spots, and was in fact HALTED because they were measuring miniscule quantities that were well below the EPA threshold on what is considered safe for humans ALTHOUGH in cases 55 times the expected trace background levels. They speculated into aircraft exit signs, sites from munitions stored at the WTC, and time pieces worn by victims to account for the elevated tritium levels, although very imperfectly.
Ah yes, the USGS did collect in a systematic fashion dust samples. As far as I know, these samples did not contain nano-thermite. No nuclear physicists from the government or any institution -- including Dr. Jones -- studied the correlation between elements in the dust. Jeff Prager did and noted they correlate as proof of nuclear fission. (Think "fission triggered fusion configured as a neutron bomb.")
Ah yes, Dr. Jones provides no analysis of the USGS dust sample data so therefore saw no correlations in the elements indicating nuclear hijinx. Dr. Jones accepted without question as being the totality of the tritium story at WTC the flawed government commissioned study & its speculation into potential tritiums and stilts this into his no nukes conclusions, but never once mentioned or considered neutron devices and the variety of ways they can be configured. Dr. Jones & Mr. Ryan speculate that thermite might be responsible for six energetic spikes from the hot, under-rubble fires, but does not speculate into what maintained the hot-spots between spikes.
Here is a recent quote from you, Mr. Ruff 2013-08-10, used here to pre-emptively shut up Triple-Dubya. Substitute "Dr. Jones" for "Chandler" and "Ryan":
It isn't an "attack" to point out the massive gaping holes in [Chandler's] paper or [Ryan's] book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.
The point of all the "ah yes" items was to demonstrate examples of government pressure applied to agencies charged with writing reports and to get those reports stilted. Or to get them suppressed.
Again, I ask, where is the government report that systematically & promptly samples for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulates those measurements, and offers analysis that concludes "no radiation"? Give me the sample numbers taken closest to the hot-spots.
And in case you were wondering, tritium is not an output of conventional controlled demolition with or without nano-thermite; it is, however, an output of neutron bombs (and fusion devices).
And what about the damage to vehicles along West Broadway and in the caticorner car park? For the specific (e.g., metal) and targeted (e.g., line-of-sight) nature, they can't be attributed to hot-and-spicy clouds of burning thermite.
The Banker's Trust Building had facade damage from 9/11 and was repaired. Before occupancy, it was torn down. Why? Maybe because errant neutron radiation can lead to embrittlement of steel.
Over the weekend 2013-08-11, Adam Syed posted something from John Albanese, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite.)
There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.
9/11 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.
Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument with a straight-face: "insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives)." Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: "no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added." In reality, energy had to have been added, but it wasn't in the form of loud, chemical, conventional explosives. It was a controlled demolition, but who is to say how loud tactical neutron bombs would be by comparison?
On the surface, your request to "show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero" seemed somewhat rational and even gets 2013-08-10 Triple-Dubya's panties into a wad "Hmmm....brilliant in its simplicity. Isn't it?"
However, if dust samples can be collected in a systematic fashion (and reveal nuclear evidence) and if tritium measurements even in a haphazard fashion reveals elevated levels, then where is the prompt, systematic, complete and total collection of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation measurements? [Guess what? Any anomalous readings debunks the "gravity-driven pile driver" of the OCT, as well as conventional, chemical explosives with or without thermite. Ergo, shouldn't be a surprise that any such report -- if it existed -- would be quickly buried.]
The neutron nuclear DEW primise does not live or die without a report on radiation. And even if a report were coughed up supposedly providing tabulated data samples with consistently no radiation (particularly next to hot-spots), is the track record really there that it could be trusted? The sum total of all of the other evidence keeps neutron nuclear DEW devices in play as explaining 9/11 at the WTC.
Here's something you wrote to RT, I believe, on 2013-08-08. Change the focus to be neutron nuclear DEW research and apply it to yourself:
You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend [researching neutron nuclear DEW] and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you [...] Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can't be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you.
//
1 comment:
Section x106 "keep an eye out for that 'projection' stuff" and item [4] the duration of under-rubble hot-spots has a misunderstanding.
It was written:
"[T]hermite under-the-rubble would obtain its oxygen from the reaction with steel and leaves iron as a by-product."
Here is the chemical equation for thermite:
Fe2O3 + 2Al --> 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat
It says that one of the components of thermite itself (Fe2O3) has the oxygen used in the combustion as well as one of the resulting products.
If the thermite is applied to steel, the reaction is not taking oxygen from the steel and leaving iron (Fe). The heat output product of the chemical reaction is acting on the steel to cut or melt it, and is not breaking the steel into its chemical components, is not consuming oxygen from the steel, and is not leave iron (Fe) from the steel as a by-product. The iron by-product comes from the original thermite compound.
If we assume thermite is the primary mechanism, the proportional amount of measured tiny iron spheres in the dust can be traced back through the chemical reaction to arrive at estimates for initial quantities. They are still massive.
If we assume that nuclear (DEW) methods were the primary mechanisms, then the proportional amount of measured tiny iron spheres in the dust might have well come from steel (Fe3C + other alloys), but requires being broken down from the chemical compound comprising steel.
//
Post a Comment