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.
//
x135 Señor El Once : where is the report that documents "no radiation"
Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,
I'm not sure if you subscribed to the comments section under the article "9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2)" where you posted a hit-and-run comment, trying to avoid my carousel. Therefore, I call your attention to my 2013-08-12 response here.
Mr. Ruff, you said "no radiation = no nuke" and that I must "show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero" before you'll consider nuclear-anything as an option.
This is a little unfair. If the PTB knew they were going to use nukes, this is the one report above all others that would never see the light of day.
Moreover, it can easily be turned around with: "Where is the report that tabulates the timely & thorough measurements of radiation at the WTC -- all measurements at zero or background levels -- and conclusively says there was no radiation?" It ain't available. Dr. Jones never had a conniption fit about it being MIA.
At this late date if it were to pop up, would we trust it? Had it been published decades earlier (and maybe we missed it) and in light of all of the other stilted reports (examples in my 2013-08-12 response), would it merit being trusted? Would it stand up as being a model of scientific work, or would it be torn apart like so many other 9/11 "scientific reports"?
Mr. Ruff, you also neatly do a number in malframing things as "mini-nukes" that have their own connotations and radiation signatures that would be different from the proposed neutron devices. When radiation measurements are not done systematically, thoroughly, and above all promptly, -- when the clock is purposely run out --, such expected nuclear radiation from neutron devices would have quickly dissipated and not be there... but not quickly enough to prevent 1st responders from illnesses akin to Hiroshima.
Ergo, your charge to find a nuclear device that has no radiation is malframed. All have radiation signatures, the question is: which ones produce only low-level and short-lived radiation? Neutron devices.
//
x136 Señor El Once : Reading a Book
Ah yes, maybe parallels with Dr. Judy Wood are to be drawn regarding "the BOO-oook! Read the fookin' BOOK!"
Don't have "the fookin' BOO-ooook" [from Kevin Ryan]?!! Then get it and "read the fookin' BOOK", preferably before trying to put together fookin' BOO-oook reports about it.
I recently purchased the Kindle version of Kevin Ryan's "BOO-oook!" I am now "reading the fookin' BOO-oook," but ain't too far and expect it to be a slow-go, because I got a life. Using a Kindle while family camping just don't feel right. But it also don't feel right to have a dead-tree book on my shelves for years after cracking its cover.
So far, so good. No issues. His preface and intro are preaching to a choir boy.
I commend Mr. Adam Syed for having purchased and read the book before offering his review. I hope to be able to follow in his noble footsteps.
//
x137 Señor El Once : Got ignorance much?
Dearest Mr. Adam Ruff,
"Got ignorance much?" Because, man, you are exceptional at displaying it. Paraphrased:
"I am such a high and mighty Truther that I don't even have to crack a book, much less read it, in order to be able to pass my holy judgment and declare it unfit for consumption. And this concludes my book report sans having read the book."
To repeat your actual quote:
You see no issue with that huh? WOW just WOW.
Sure, I'm allowed to say "so far, so good" because in my reading (now somewhere in Chapter 2) I have literally not come across the context for the cherry-picked quote that has your panties in a wad:
the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to "accept as much of the official account as possible."
I'm not saying that I won't find any fault with Mr. Ryan's work (or that cherry-picked premise). I'm already a bit annoyed at the style of writing that resembles in some ways a fiction mystery writer, where he writes eloquent passages that foreshadow some nefarious connection that he'll make in detail in some later chapter. I'm unhappy with some of his innuendo like into Rumsfeld's two years at an investment company in the early 1960's before a tour in Congress or into Cheney's deferment years where he "had other priorities." I would have preferred to have substantiation right then and there, but this is all pre-mature nit-picking at this point; Mr. Ryan might pull it off. I am more annoyed with my ancient & faulty-scroll-button Kindle that makes it difficult to follow footnotes that I usually love to read.
At least I am open minded enough to give this a go.
You, Mr. Ruff? Won't read Mr. Ryan's book. Won't read Dr. Wood's book (to strip that disinformation vehicle of still valid and useful nuggets of truth.) Won't consider a nuclear 9/11 without an official government report that states "alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were way out of whack," the very same report that coincidently is missing-in-action for documenting the "alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were at or below expected trace background levels" to alledgely prove "no radiation."
Dr. Fetzer writes 2013-08-14 on that neu nookiedoo theme but also applicable to Mr. Ryan's (and Dr. Wood's) work:
Ruffadam is a great example of a core problem within 9/11 research: those who take strong stands and shoot off their mouths when they haven't done their home work and don't know what they are talking about.
Maybe if you put on lipstick and kiss Mr. Ryan's ass, he'll comp you a copy of his book so you don't have to worry about putting money into Mr. Ryan's pocket and instead would be taking it out of his pockets.
I'm such a nut, I've been known to purchase people copies of a controversial book so that -- TOGETHER -- we can get on the same literal page and discuss it point-by-point in a rational manner and perhaps come to be on the same figurative page. [Mr. Chandler, Mr. Shack, Mr. Jayhan, Mr. Cole, and dearest Mr. Rogue have failed this simple test of their integrity and objectivity.] You, Mr. Ruff, have already given ample evidence that you would fail it, too, so I'm not even extending the offer. "Pearls before swine" and all that jazz, ya know?
Nothing quite like shooting a hole into the foot of your 9/11 Truther reputation so handily, eh, Mr. Ruff?
"Read the fookin' BOO-oook, or STFU with your lame-ass fookin' book reports."
P.S. This response is no reflection -- positive or negative -- on Mr. Syed's book review. Maybe I'll find myself in Ethan's camp and validating Mr. Ryan's approach. One thing for sure, if Mr. Ryan's book unravels to be just another "disinformation vehicle", I'll be found stripping it of re-useable nuggets of truth (some of which have been found in my reading to date) and be glad of my objective efforts.
//
x138 Señor El Once : a tighter, more restrictive use of language
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Nice posting. Thanks for the quotes from Jeff Prager and the links to your work.
In the future (as in the past), I recommend a tighter, more restrictive use of language with detailed explanations. Otherwise, the public's perception & common (but weak) understanding of some word or phrase used by you could cause confusion. Or as I have seen, it opens the door for a straw-man attack by an opponent hinging on the fuzziness of those words or phrases.
An example is when you wrote:
There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes.
A possible improvement to this wording would be:
There is ample proof that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of a sophisticated arrangement of micro and mini nukes configured as neutron bombs that direct the energy in a strategic manner and having differing radiation signatures.
//
x139 Señor El Once : the best way to challenge the official story
Dear Mr. Syed,
Thanks for the hint in where it is located. Does the printed book have preface material in roman numerals, because that would assist in me locating it? Kindle doesn't do page numbers in any shape or form that correlates to the paper document. Also, where Kindle opens a "book" upon first reading isn't always predictable (e.g., it wasn't the title page.)
Would you be so kind as to also indicate what chapter it was in and how close to a bolded subheading it may have been? Maybe the first sentence of the paragraph containing it?
Maybe Kindle skipped over it, or I read over it, or I ain't got to it yet.
This being said and assuming it was me who missed it, I'll take that cherry-picked quote -- "the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to accept as much of the official account as possible" -- and place it up on my "belief fence" that straddles "validated" and "invalidated" in the hopes that my further reading will nudge it to one side or the other.
In my present ignorant state (that slowly changes each opportunity I get to sit in "the throne room sanctuary" to sneak in reads), I will say that Mr. Ethan did have a point. Making too much hay out of this premise can be misleading.
By that, I mean that in discussing 9/11 with others, often, you've only got so many minutes to punch significant holes in the foundation of the belief in the official story before interests & opportunity fade. I have often couched my 9/11 discussions "assuming 19 hijackers got on the planes, assuming the planes even took off, assuming the planes flew the routes proposed, assuming this or that, here's a major anomaly..."
It really can be a useful strategy to "accept as much of the official account as possible" in order to target large low-hanging fruit elsewhere. Dispensing with that proves the first crack in the pile of lies; it opens the audience's mind to an instance of deceit that they previously may not have been aware of. If the discussion flow merits, you can later double-back and explain why the assumption was actually invalid.
The gist of this tactic is that by first finding common ground with the audience (or debate partner), you work from various angles to take out or unravel the rug beneath their feet, which can sometimes be more effective than systematically starting in a far corner and sequentially unraveling a row at a time in painstaking details and well outside their interests or scope of expertise. When you unravel what is directly beneath their feet (e.g., where they are coming from, their interests, their knowledge, their paradigm) and then unravel it everywhere they subsequently step (e.g., flow of the discussion), maybe some hope exists that their beliefs will trip, instill reflection, and lead to a change. [Alas, not my experience of late on FBI_book.]
You wrote:
[Kevin Ryan] doesn't really give much of an explanation other than for the sake of "simplicity." ... Take it to mean what you will.
I find Mr. Ryan a bit wordy in a crafty, teasing sense with lots of fluff, innuendo, and cliff-hanger foreshadowing, mostly because I'm part of the choir maybe not his primary audience (and I'm still not very far.) I know how intro material sometimes gets written (like after you've figured out where the rest of the chapters are going) and re-written (like after lots of suggestions by others) such that it can become a different beast from the rest of the work.
Obviously, if I've read over it and missed it, it didn't impress me in context to be foreshadowing a major flaw in his work... but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise; your analysis already taints my perceptions.
Because I'm still so early in the book, I can't really say where I've found instances of that initial "accept as much as possible of the official account" premise leading me astray. I'm still mulling "deep state", "Continuity of Governmnent" name dropping, various dangling of potential connections between major players, the edited history of Rumsfeld & Cheney, and other things that he teases me with in the early chapters to be validated either in later chapters or from exploring the sources of his footnotes.
//
x140 Señor El Once : consulted with his bird's brain
I can say as well as far as Judy Wood's book is concerned, that it is simply false advertising to claim that she addressed anything unique in her book that was not already on her website. One did not need her book to address her assertions. And one did not need to pretend to be giving a "book report" in order to criticize her "science".
I guess Mr. Rogue has consulted with his bird's brain in regurgitating this tripe, because he's already admitted not having read Dr. Judy Wood's "disinformation vehicle" to completion. He has produced nothing that indicates any form of a detailed analysis or review. His criticism has always relied on others (e.g., Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Legge) yet from well before the publication of her book and much of that skewed (e.g., Smash 'em up Derby: Disinformation vehicle versus Disinformation Vehicle). And he has violently defaced that 500-page full-color, hard-cover book for the benefit of his bird's poop leaving nothing that he can refer back to today in order to substantiate his assertions.
When accepting the free gift, he was told of the overlap with her website, but also of the differences which were many -- some good, some bad. No false advertising given, just faulty expectations & analysis on his part. And he even expressed gratitude at one point for the consolidation of destruction images and correlation to map positions in her hefty tome.
Yep, it is easy for me to call her book a "disinformation vehicle" while at the same time blatantly stealing her hubcaps and wheels, and chopping & stripping sundry valid & viable materials from within for re-use in another jalopy. Mr. Rogue's inability and unwillingness to do the same speaks -- like a rapper from a low-rider -- volumes about him.
The charges made here against the larger portion of the commentators here, that we lack integrity, or are in some way hypocritical for criticizing Mr Ryan for his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis is preposterous and based in self indulgent arrogance.
I don't know about the integrity of others, but I do know about Mr. Rogue's. Hypocritical for sure. If Mr. Ryan can be faulted for "his out of hand dismissal of the Pentagon flyover hypothesis," does he have other work requiring a revisit with a more critical eye? Yes, can we say: "nano-thermite?" Co-authored with Dr. Jones (lots of issues with his work on NT not adding up & his no nukes conclusions not considering neutron devices) and Dr. Jenkins (the very one with whose outdated stilted work Mr. Rogue tries to debunk Dr. Wood's more recent work). If Mr. Rogue doesn't see a pattern, he isn't paying attention.
P.S. Kindle isn't in hand. Maybe later tonight after bedtime stories. Maybe on this weekend's camping trip.
Woes to us all that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation's bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped.
//
x141 HybridRogue1 : slurmiester maximus
2013-08-14
++++++++++ 2013-08-14
I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus.
\\][//
++++++++++ 2013-08-14
>"I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation."~By: Señor El Once on August 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm
. . . . .
More sludge from Maxifuckanus' cesspool. I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario. It is another blatant lie from this defaming scoundrel. That he will not accept such an explanation is not the same as my not having made one available.
Maxipad wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn't shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.
I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.
This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.
\\][//
++++++++++ 2013-08-15
>"Woes to us all that Mr. Rogue has fallen from such artistic cinematic heights on the California coast near the turn of the century to the level of a starving artist a decade later within the nation's bread-basket & bible belt, for his inability to afford to stream lengthy videos or to purchase (or acquire) books to which he might read and offer his witty, first-hand, and knowledgeable commentary. We are so handicapped."~Slurmiester Maximus
>"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."~Maxasshole
On the contrary: "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device." Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.
Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.~Wiki
>"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."~Maxifuck
Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.~ww
Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is "batshit crazy" I say Mr Eleven is 'crazy as a shithouse rat….I guess were in tune, "close enough for rock'n'roll"….
Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin' liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes….
\\][//
x142 Señor El Once : completely misinterpret the assignment
Mr. Adam Ruff (and others) have a tendancy to completely misinterpret the assignment of the sincere truth seeker in a movement that has been infiltrated and where nary a single publication can be trusted 100%. Honest mistakes will be present in all endeavors, and material will be omitted for a host of reasons ranging from the author's low confidence level in its viability (or their expertise on the subject) or its rabbit-hole nature requiring never-ending effort to document or being a distraction from other more obvious things. One could argue that purposeful mistakes and omissions are made, maybe at the behest of an agenda orthogonal to truth, but the bottom-line is that criticism should still focus on what is printed.
In such an environment, the assignment becomes to classify each published nugget as (1) true, (2) false, or (3) don't-know. Then one studies each classification pile to see what structure it builds or if the intended larger structure of the endeavor still stands when various pillars are knocked out.
No question, lots of "Disinformation Vehicles" are at hand. The perfect ride isn't available. And Mr. Ruff sounds like the petulant teenager: "I ain't touching that mint condition Porche 911 and driving it nowhere, because it has orange carpeting and an 8-track player, and doesn't have an MP3 jack, fuzzy-dice on the mirror, or an 'I (heart) NY' bumper-sticker."
The intelligent, objective, and resourceful truth seeker will be ever the cannibal, chopping & stripping those "Disinformation Vehicles" of truth in the creation of the jalopy that can go the distance.
I am not far enough into Mr. Ryan's book to label it disinformation, but I am far enough to have picked up facts here and there that are memorable. Kudos.
As far as Dr. Judy Wood's "Disinformation Vehicles" goes, it should be pointed out the crafty nature with which information is presented and then left dangling with no connection or supposition that ties it together into anything resembling "a cohesive theory." Because Mr. Ruff does not have and has never had Dr. Wood's book in his grubby little fingers -- much less read it or gawked at its collection & correlation of pictures --, a rational person must naturally raise an eyebrow to his boastful ability to "say with total confidence that her book really isn't worth the paper it is printed on."
How "extensively" could the over-confident Mr. Ruff actually have look into Dr. Wood's "DEW theory?"
More importantly from a chop-shop perspective in considering the true, inherent value of Dr. Wood's "Disinformation Vehicles" and its components, what should be preserved from a "DEW theory?" How about the meaning of the DEW acronym: directed energy weapon? Any shaped-charge consisting of chemical explosives (including nano-thermite) fits into this category. As do unique configurations of neutron nuclear devices that I have been championing. All in all, her "DEW theories" ain't far off.
Other components worthy of preservation are the images of the totality of the destruction; her chapters that debunk with cascading pool balls the official theories (of that day) of gravity collapses; her pointing out the media black-out of hurricane Erin and its anomalous movement; ...
Astute thinkers would do well to approach Mr. Ryan's "(dis)information vehicles" in an equally fair and objective manner, keeping a keen eye out for components worth salvaging, those pesky nuggets of truth.
Mr. Adam Ruff charges:
If Ryan or Wood have something to say to me or to us they can show up any time they want and confront us with their best evidence and arguments.
Hello?!!! Anybody home, Mr. Ruff? Their words are published in their books. That's what they have to say to you. Are you listening? Are you reading?
Maybe if Mr. Ruff read their works and could talk knowledgeably about what is (right and) wrong in them, maybe those authors would have cause to come here to defend themselves. Until he puts up with specifics, (in Mr. Ruff's words) his "criticism is just a lot of hot air."
At this premature stage in the reading & digestion of the works, Mr. Ruff comes across like a cheapskate trying to avoid purchasing the books in the hopes that the authors will come here and essentially re-post their whole books, a posting at a time.
In any event, sweeping & openly ignorant dismissals of their work without having read them... well... Mr. Adam Ruff's own words apply:
So [Mr. Ruff] can stuff his snide remarks where the sun doesn't shine. ... So really quit with the BS [Mr. Ruff, you] have every opportunity in the world to [read their works and] make your case... [You] won't do it!
//
x143 Adam_Ruff : I reject all of their work
SEO,
The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth. It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for "nuggets of truth" that may or may not be in their book. Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.
Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don't like them, they are itchy and carry disease.
You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees. Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust. I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.
You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.
x144 Señor El Once : throwing in a screw ball
2013-08-16
2013-08-15 {Expect it to be deleted or not pass moderation.}
{Also posted on 2013-08-16, where the discussion is happening.}
2012-12-05, 2013-03-12, and 2013-04-15 prove that Triple-W regurgitates and it doesn't get more tasty:
I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario.
Let's first refine that FACT. Thermate reactions with steel contain their own source of oxygen, namely from the steel, and leave iron as a by-product. Being a chemical REACTION, when one of the components needed for the reaction is exhausted, the reaction should stop. Likewise, measuring the amounts of by-product, one can work backwards with high school chemistry to estimate original quantities of components of the reaction.
Were this THEORY of nano-thermite's primary role (with any combination of other chemical explosives) valid, one would expect a huge blob of by-product (cooled off) iron at the location of every (dowsed) hot-spot. How big would those resultant iron blobs be for such a long chemical reaction, and were they found? I recall seeing only one such blob that they called "the meteorite", but its volume is no where near big enough to account for the unproven theory for one hot-spot, and there were many.
How much of each component (thermite & steel) is needed to sustain a hot-spot whose duration is several weeks long?
How much volume of said component does this represent? [Can be calculated from the burn-rate and duration time. Does hundreds of THOUSAND of miles of imaginary garden hose filled with thermite & any combination of other chemical explosives ring a bell?]
The answers to these are not trivial. Aside from not being Occam Razor, the blobs weren't in the pile in great abundance as would be suggested from such chemical reactions.
As an aside, small iron spheres were found in the dust of the buildings across the street from the towers. Under the assumption that thermitic reactions in the towers generated them before or as they fell, Dr. Harrit calculated backwards to estimate initial quantities of reactants. Also a massive number.
Continuing with the theory and throwing in a screw ball:
[My debate partner] wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn't shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.
I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.
So according to this premise: (A) is the chemical reaction of thermite with steel from which it obtains oxygen to burn and generate a hot-spot; and (B) is the combustion of building content and requires oxygen from air. B produces flames, smoke, and "smoldering embers" (still requiring air) but let's set that aside.
The scenario presented is that: [START] chemical reaction A happens for a time under the rubble without air. Before the limiting reactant (thermite or steel) in A at a hot-spot is consumed, movement within the pile allows air to creep below, such that the heat from A ignites B. B burns and consumes combustible content, moving the burn location. Before it fully consumes either the combustible content or oxygen from the available air, its heat finds another pocket of A that B is able to ignite and get to chemically react. [Go to START for another cycle.] Continue said cycle for many weeks.
This has several problems with respect to the actual evidence and 1st-responder efforts, starting off with the amount of water from fire hoses and rain that were dumped on the hot-spots and continuing with the amount of chemical flame retardant also pumped into them. [Refer to the introduction of the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan article on speculation into the source of several spikes in the release of gasses off of the pile.] The extent of B type fires under the rubble lasting or being re-ignited "from smoldering embers" would have been severely limited, owing to lack of air and to drowning water & the fire retardants; B type fires could not have gone the duration or held up its leg of the aforementioned burn cycle.
The extent of A type hot-spots is limited to the amount of thermite (or other chemcial explosives) in the pile, whereby the burn-rate of thermite dictates the quantities needed to go the duration. If the primary purpose of A was to bring down the structure & pulverize content, how likely is it that additional, mind-blowing overkill amounts would be unspent and left-over in the pile from their original purpose to account for this several week long after-effect? How much proof do we have of iron by-product blobs in the pile that correlate to the quantities of thermate reacting with steel to achieve long-lasting hot-spots?
Lots of people on both sides of the 9/11 divide have stated over and over again that most of the steel in the buildings has been accounted for from the rubble and clean-up efforts. [An example are the discussions with Dr. Jenkins trying to debunk the dustification of steel comments from Dr. Wood.] If the steel is accounted-for as steel (and if we have little evidence of iron by-product blobs), then the steel wasn't consumed and altered by a reaction with thermite. Therefore, high school chemistry tells us (in yet another way) that thermite was not present in sufficient quantities to account for the hot-spots.
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"~Dr. Steven Jones, September 2012
I had written:
[Triple-W] 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 responds with more weasel games:
On the contrary: "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device." Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.
The application goals for standard, run-of-the-mill neutron bomb that most of the literature covers and was fear-mongered hyped in the media is completely different. It refers to a battlefield situation where a spherical radiating of neutrons (and blast & heat wave) has tactical advantages. Triple-W knows the application goals for a tactical neutron device is different, for it has been explained many times. He tries to skew things with his "radiate... outward in all directions" word-smithery from one cherry-picked quotation about a different application of neutron devices.
However, his question is valid: "Directing "the neutrons upwards" by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What would you get if you combined the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
Triple-W quotes from Wiki without understanding the significance:
Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.
The significance of the bolded statement is that if your device is directing neutrons through, say, a pin-hole cap in the casing and is aimed upwards, the amount of building material that gets hit with ionizing radiation to become radioactive is vastly limited. Yes, you'd end up with some radioactive material, but a manageable cleanup operation and not the thorough spherical dowsing of anything and everything at ground zero and the expected radiation signature of a full-fledged fusion device.
I wrote:
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.
Triple-W plays his games again:
Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.
Wrong! Whereas for much of the floor space for the picture in question (when the towers were nearing completion, "you can see right through the buildings." But there is an area where you cannot see right through the building: namely the buildings' core. It is rather pronounced, like a spine in an X-ray. So who is trying to spin the "absolute bullshit."
In addition, allow me to introduce some controversy from the Let's Roll Forum disinformation site. Whether or not we give credit to the hollow-towers theory, what is true is that some form of window coverings were installed, maybe precisely because of the picture in question and its see-through result. I've seen no other pictures than that one, yet there were lots of days (after sun up or before sun down) over 30 years when a clever photographer in a helicopter would have tried to recreate it. As far as I know, for most of the towers' lifetime, it was never again possible to see through the towers in the same way.
Now that Triple-W's somewhat rational arguments have been addressed and his premise debunked, let us turn briefly to his other excellent & convincing substantiating arguments. I am utterly speechless at their wit, eloquence, and reason. Touche'!
2013-08-14: More sludge from Maxifuckanus' cesspool ... defaming scoundrel... Maxipad... Maximum prevaricator...
2013-08-15: Slurmiester Maximus... Maxasshole... Maxifuck
2013-08-14:
This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.
Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is "batshit crazy" I say Mr Eleven is 'crazy as a shithouse rat... Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin' liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes...
2013-08-14: I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus
Meh.
//
x145 Señor El Once : a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented
Mr. Adam Ruff writes:
The main point of your lengthy lecture seems to be to take what is good and solid out of these two books in question and discard the rest. I reject that totally. The reason I reject it is simple. Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer. If someone tries to pull a con job on you once you should not give them a second chance because they might just succeed the second time.
I would agree with Mr. Ruff if he were talking about a math or science book that had lots of other competing volumes available that didn't have "intentionally misleading or deceptive information."
But that is not what this discussion is about. Our sources of 9/11 information aren't as cut-and-dried and logically accurate as textbooks, and we don't have alternative textbooks to reference that can be considered closer to 100% accurate and that put the faulty ones to shame to be relegated to the $1 table of Barnes and Noble.
No. As much as our good citizenship upbringing would have us wanting to trust the government's publication efforts, a small army of intelligent internet researchers puts them to shame. Not to be outdone, the government has a documented history of meddling with media and infiltration, such that once trusted "alternative" websites -- like 9/11 blogger -- suffer, and we bemoan the censorship. Yet still, the 9/11 keyboard warriors hoist cries of "mole" for the efforts of researchers, leaders, and speakers when they go "off-" (or "on-") script about some niche topic.
To take the ignorant and boastful stance of "rejecting" the totality of someone's work based on the discovery of untruths or outright deceit WHEN a void exists of valid alternative explanations for EVERYTHING presented in the foundation of truthful evidence isn't just short-sited. I'd be inclined to call such actions "playing right into the hands of disinformation."
If honest & sincere 9/11 Truthers don't reach into the maw of disinformation sources to rescue and re-purpose the valid truthful nuggets, who will? The government? The PTB? The true perpetrators of 9/11? Seems to me they are ecstatic when ignorant slobs like Mr. Ruff brush the whole works into the fire so that there is no more rememberence among fellow citizens of anomalous nuggets lacking explanations, no, not from even in the few trusty truthy sources remaining.
The expression goes, "you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts."
The issue isn't about the inaccuracy of the opinions uttered in the sources that you label "disinformation." The issue is about collecting and preserving the facts that are independent of the opinions.
Such should be the case for both Mr. Ryan and Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones, Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkins, the NIST reports, the 9/11 Commission Reports, the USGS dust data, etc.)
Mr. Adam Ruff continues:
Mistakes are one thing, they can be overlooked and/or forgiven but intentional disinformation cannot and should not be overlooked because it is evidence that the person has an agenda other than truth.
No one is recommending "overlooking intentional disinformation," assuming that intentional motive can be proven. In fact, if it can be so indentified, the intentional disinformation should be studied precisely to gleam their "agenda other than truth" so that proper weighting can be assigned to their other opinions or skew.
It is foolish and a waste of precious time to spend hours and days pouring over information from a disinformationist to look for "nuggets of truth" that may or may not be in their book.
No, it is not foolish, particularly not in the 9/11 environment where valid information can be torpedoed and sunk with nary a rescue publication that presents, let alone (properly) analyzes, those nuggets. A simple example is Dr. Wood highlighting the pictures with the horseshoe, the arches, and the steel doobies. What other 9/11 publication accuratly accounts for these?
Even if I did find something in their work that seemed to be true I could not trust the information until I verified it from another source. You see it could just be another deception from a clever disinformationist, another con.
Exactly. Verify it from another source. If that other source isn't available, what do you do? Your ignorant solution is to bury it anyway.
Moreover, I should point out that you conflate the presentation of evidence and facts with the analysis or interpretation thereof. Are you playing disinfo games that you refuse to see the difference? If you -- as a leader of sorts in the 9/11 Truth Movement (moreso than I) -- want to make it easy for the lazy truthers, you should lead and be investigating the material thoroughly first hand and then documenting "the good, the bad, and the ugly." But this, apparently, you can't be bothered to do. You're happy with the second-hand, lame assessments of others ... even after those assessors are found wanting and dishonest based on other endeavors. [Don't get me wrong, the overall assessment could remain valid. But given a proven dishonest agenda of an assessor, what might their previous assessment of a work be hiding in its dismissal?]
Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity.
What if your trusted source lacks the time, energy, or capacity to assess some new work? Do you ignore that new work?
What if your trusted source suddenly becomes untrusted? How do you circle back and make sure his agenda didn't con you in some other way? Dr. Jones is one such example. "For simplicity" let's assume the involvement of nano-thermite; the fact remains that it cannot be ascribed all of the anomalous features of the WTC destruction that he has purposely led the entire movement to believe; high school chemistry & math disproves it handily. His "no-nukes" dismissal relies on a skewed tritium report and didn't even mention neutron devices. September 2012, he admits "Something maintained those under-rubble hot-spots (not just NT)." And Dr. Jones led the charge against Dr. Wood, "looney beams from space." Where is his review (or that of any leader of the 9/11 truth movement) of Dr. Wood's book for the good, the bad, and the ugly? M.I.A. Dr. Wood got more right than she got wrong, period.
If you choose to lie down with dogs you are going to come up with flees. I choose to avoid flees whenever possible because I don't like them, they are itchy and carry disease.
If you lie down with dogs, you can enjoy their warmth on cold winter nights. The dogs accept you and might even defend you from attackers. Regular doggy baths can rid them of flees.
You choose to spend your time studying information from known liars and as a result you have gotten some flees such as the DEW flees and the Nuke flees.
Guess what? Because Dr. Jones has never corrected the record with regards to the true limits and capabilities of nano-thermite and skewed his no-nukes report, he enters into the category of "known liar."
As for the flees who have taken up residency in my crouch hair, his actual name is "neu nookiedoo", which is short for Neutron Nuclear DEW (directed energy weapon).
And you have not debunked it. You have not even addressed it. You have taken a stilted position that you don't have the gonads to defend -- "No radiation = no nuke" -- when it is served back at you for why it is stilted and unfair, while at the same time misinterprets and malframes... my poor, iddy-biddy little flee "neu nookiedoo". Where's your proof of "no radiation"? M.I.A. Maybe you should have a chat with the sick 1st responders.
Since you have those flees on you I choose to stay away from you and the (dis)information you promote, perhaps unwittingly. I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust.
Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?
So why did you read them if you didn't trust the government sources? To gain information. You spotted both the truth and the stilted lies. You made hay out of both in your online battles, didn't you?
Oh, and please, please, pretty please list all of the sources on 9/11 that you trust implicitly (other than Dr. David Ray Griffin, cuz I like him too.) What are their works of outstanding integrity, quality, research, and complete truth?
I will also spend my money purchasing books and/or videos from credible sources such as CIT and P4T. My money will NOT be used to line the pockets of disinformationists such as Wood and Ryan. No way in hell buddy, you will NEVER get a penny out of me to go in their pocket. I have read enough of their information that is freely available to conclude that they are spreading disinformation and therefore their information can and should be rejected as untrustworthy.
Hey, dude, Mr. Ruff, man, if you weren't such a pompous dick, it would be worth EVERY penny for me to purchase those books and send them to you for review -- GRATIS! No charge! ... Just to get us on the same literal page and validate or debunk each point LEGITIMATELY. [And I have a proven track record of delivering on such promise.]
And because I am reading Mr. Ryan's book at the moment, I know that your ignorant, off-hand, dismissals-sans-review is giving Rumsfeld and Cheney (among others) a free-pass. You're too stubborn to read the book and validate the (valid) sorid history of these people that makes them viable candidates for Mr. Ryan's alternative conspiracy.
And don't get me wrong on the topic of Mr. Ryan. I have reason to ~not~ trust him, because of his nano-thermite work with Dr. Jones. Or more correctly stated, for the nano-thermite work he didn't do (e.g., calculations into quantities needed for pulverization or hot-spot durations, and mixtures with other things, that might make it a tad unreasonable.) On this venture, though, I don't have reasons (so far) to find fault.
You can wallow in all the flees you want SEO but I will not be joining you.
You can walloo in all of the closed-minded ignorance you want, Mr. Ruff, but I will not be joining you. I prefer to read things for myself and make my own assessments (albeit often times influenced by reviews of others to see thing I might have missed.)
+++++++++ Here's me being lazy and pissing off Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue with a single mondo posting. Consider it a test of your reading ability. Consider it also a blessing, because why suffer from TWO postings from me, when ONE posting is so much easier to scroll over.
While we are on the subject of both Mr. Ryan and his book, I went back and found the quote-mined passage that got everyone's panties in a twist.
"For simplicity, this alternative conspiracy should accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes."
The entire context of this does not make this nefarious. Mr. Ryan writes that his book's purpose isn't to debunk aspects of the official conspiracy theory, because many other works are present (and referenced in his footnotes) that already do that handily. His purpose is to identify potential members of the alternative conspiracy (e.g., not the 19 patsy hijackers). To aid in this effort, he would look into (paraphrased) "the things that didn't happen but should have, as well as the things that did happen and shouldn't have", because these hint at the levels of power and authority that could effect such. Also, who benefitted ultimately from this?
The official conspiracy was four planes and the damage wrought. For the purposes of identifying potential members of the alternative conspiracy, it doesn't matter whether a plane hit the Pentagon or whether it flew over it. Either scenario still points out systematic failings that point to the same conspirators. For the purposes of the book in getting at the the alternative conspiracy group, you can simplify the task by accepting the official account and then doing the old questioning "what should have happened but didn't [e.g., to prevent aspects of 9/11], or what shouldn't have happened but did [e.g., to cover it up]?" The clout it takes to get numerous agencies to published flawed works is telling, as is getting the media to propagate it and suppress the tough questions.
Mr. Ryan mentions often in that introductory chapter the phrase the alternative conspiracy. Meaning the conspiracy other than the 19 patsies. Meaning it is a speculative effort, and other alternative conspiracies could be drawn up, but would most likely overlap or outright include everyone Mr. Ryan identifies, where for the sake of simplicity he limits himself to 19.
P.S. Another blessing I give you is that I'll be off-line at the beach and camping starting the moment this goes up and lasting ALL WEEKEND LONG. Means you have time to compose INTELLIGENT and not so ignorant responses on the fronts where you're confronted. Means no postings from me, and might also mean more time with my nose in my Kindle getting further along in Mr. Ryan's book. Have a good weekend, all!
//
x146 Señor El Once : did he address?
2013-08-19
2013-08-19
Did Triple-W address the components, reactions, and by-products of thermite with steel? No.
Did he address how fire-fighting efforts dampened his theory of what was burning under the rubble without sufficient or constant sources of air? No.
Did he point to any iron blobs, the by-products of thermite with steel? No.
Did he acknowledge learning anything about the differences between fusion devices and neutron devices, or how the latter can direct the neutron energy? No.
I leave his two responses as examples of his style of "excellent & convincing substantiating arguments." As before, I am utterly speechless at their wit, eloquence, and reason. Touche'!
[Further such examples will be copied & archived elsewhere, before being deleted. They will remain archived until an appropriate time when they and many more can be served up for the weasel's banquet.]
Before retiring for the day, triple-W wrote on his own thread (2013-08-16)
Ahh Maxifuckanus is very good at designing sci-fi weapons for comic books, such as his nookeedoodoo directional neutron blaster which shoots its beam upward through skyscrapers…all that energy directed upward, yet rather than shooting a hole through the center of the buildings skyward, also blows it to smithereens.
He has two choices, the energy blew up the buildings, or it shot its beam up into the sky. If it blew up the buildings, that neutron radiation splattered all over the materials and irradiated it. If that is the case the radiation would have been detected – it was not.
Neutron nuclear DEW (neu nookiedoo) directs the highly energetic neutrons upwards through the building or debris of the building. Due to its directed nature and narrow angle, relatively little of the material is hit with neutron radiation that would ionize and be measureable as short-lived alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.
The blast and heat waves of neu nookiedoo would not be so precise in their targeting. Even a shape charge to radiate as half-of-a-sphere would inflict some blast & heat damage on the other half of the sphere. However, the purposes of the neutron configuration were (1) to expell the lion's share of the neutron radiation (2) in a manner that doesn't impact collaterial life-forms and (3) doesn't leave large quantities of radiated materials, (4) while reducing the blast and heat waves to tactical levels.
Ergo, either through his own ignorance, stupidity, an agenda, or all of the above, Triple-W lives up to the "weasel" appended to his initials by malframing the situation as "two choices, the energy blew up the buildings, or it shot its beam up into the sky." No. Not at all. Where the neutron radiation went is different from what could be expected from a blast wave, a heat wave, and EMP, except that by having the former, the latter three are dialed down to tactical levels. The directed neutron beam -- if narrow -- would be the cause of radioactive materials for the things it hit, but not for materials that the blast or heat wave decimated. And the materials that it hit would have been comparatively small with respect to the whole clean-up operation.
Triple-W is encouraged to find the exact government reports that measured all forms of radiation at WTC timely, thoroughly, and systematically and spell out his premise of:
If that is the case the radiation would have been detected – it was not.
I have not seen such a report. Triple-W's hero, Dr. Jones, didn't make a lot of waves to get such a report. And if he did, he's kept very quiet about the FOIA battles to acquire this specific report. Dr. Jones went on to write his "no-nukes" farce without referencing such a report (or the existence of neutron devices.) In fact, he based that "no-nukes" piece on a stilted commissioned effort whose purpose was to speculate into potential sources for the untimely, unsystematic, unthorough measurements of tritium. [Speculation does not mean it was fact or could contribute to the measured tritium in the way their imprecise models predict.]
Triple-Dubya, you earned the W from "weasel," and you continue to earn it.
//
x147 Señor El Once : I poked at his ignoranceg
Book Report Progress on Kevin Ryan's latest
Before I share my good vibes from being partway through Kevin Ryan's book, it is with sadness that I highlight the actions of a respected 9/11 Truther in being less than truthful.
In an earlier posting, Mr. Adam Ruff was boastful about his ignorance:
Instead of following your foolish, naive, and time wasting philosophy of research, my philosophy is to reject everything from those who intentionally spread disinformation and instead spend my time studying the information from sources I can trust because of their track record of honesty and integrity. ... I will spend my precious time looking at and studying information I choose from sources I can trust, or at least from sources I have found no reason to distrust.
I poked at his ignorance with:
Did you read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC-7? How about the 9/11 Commission Report? I bet you did. OH SNAP!!! I wager all of the money in my wallet that these happen to be from sources that you do ~NOT~ trust. Does this make you a liar, Mr. Ruff?
The entirety of Mr. Ruff's response (below) is a statement of self-contradiction and admitted ignorance:
I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.
How is that Mr. Ruff had "better things to do with his time than read" my posting yet could boast from this self-admitted strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance that he finds my "arguments unconvincing?" Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn't need to read anything to remain unconvinced. Evidently, Mr. Ruff doesn't need to read anything, period. He knows what's inside every book without even seeing its cover, such is the progress of his brand of ignorance.
Mr. Ruff, I do not believe it was Mr. Rogue's intention to foreshadow your subsequent actions with his uncredited quotation from Magus Maverik: "The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager."
Here's a brief detour just to keep readers in suspense about my assessment of Kevin Ryan's book (so far), it should be pointed out that (2013-08-09) Mr. Ruff laid down what he and Mr. Rogue thought was an impregnable gauntlet for neu nookiedoo with his statement: "no radiation = no nukes." However, Mr. Ruff has been exceptionally silent on my response that said essentially "prove that the left-hand side of the equality is valid" for 9/11. Where is the official report that systematically, thoroughly, and timely measures alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation at the WTC, tabulates the results, analyzes it properly, and publishes this for public consumption?
*Oh SNAP!* This "no radiation" publication must come from a source that Mr. Ruff cannot "trust because of their track record of (dis)honesty and (lack of) integrity," namely the US Government. Ergo, he has not wasted his precious time on it, has not read it, has not found it, and is therefore spouting off about "no radiation at the WTC" from third- or fourth-hand sources who haven't been vetted and he can't recall.
So, dear readers of this forum, when this same Mr. Ruff passes off his judgment concerning Mr. Kevin Ryan's new book from his strong-hold, argumentative position of ignorance, ... well, enough said, eh?
Without further delay, MY ASSESSMENT (so far) THRU CHAPTER 5 OF MR. KEVIN RYAN'S BOOK.
This book is going to be a silent best-seller among those in the know and the powers-that-be. You see, every individual has an ego; everyone wants to be recognized for their deeds. The problem with (auto)biographies is that, if they were deep and truthful, they throw away the subject's fifth amendment rights about self-incrimination and would probably get themselves "suicided" before publication. Plus, the subjects have a lot of thanks and praise to bestow upon others for helping them achieve the heights of their noted fame.
So after a long tenure on the world's stage, what does great-grandpa do to impress upon his lineage of his truly unbelievable exploits "for freedom and democracy?" Why, gramps lets the likes of Kevin Ryan research as many sources as he can, mine them for nuggets of truth, amass them as data points, publish them creatively next to one another, and let readers create the trend lines in their minds into what a bad-ass, tricky, mother-fucker they really were.
The trend line is nothing short of "kick ass," and a manual for domestic (& foreign) terrorism that puts to shame the Germans of the 1930's and early 1940's. We've all heard about the real Gold Rule: "He who has the gold, makes all the rules." Mr. Ryan's book proves that if you have all of the watchdogs of politics sucking on your teet of cash or favors -- from Congress to Committees, to judges, to the press -- you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, and change the rules as you go along, and propagate works of complete fiction that literally writes the glorious history of the victors that the majority of the public still sheepishly believes. This is literally a stunning achievement akin to the use of tazers to get protesters into the "free-speech zones"!!! Yet without the likes of "fringe 9/11 truther" Kevin Ryan writing about it, few would know the depth of their exploits. Few would know how long these stars were toiling to pull off the con of all cons.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has spent all of its time saying "insiders did 9/11", but other than Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, the movement has refrained from detailed finger-pointing under the belief (a concession) that just listing the anomalies of what happened would be sufficient to motivate representatives to escalate it into a new, thorough, and accurate investigation, trials of those charged, and justice. Hasn't happened. So Kevin Ryan's book pushes the notion of who a bit further with example of those back-slapping college buddies, frat brothers, and secret society pledges who had finnigled their careers to be in a position of responsibility and authority where their purposeful actions (or conveniently timed in-actions) assisted the 9/11 (domestic) terrorists' acts and/or its cover-up.
Mr. Ryan's book is an example of what real power can accomplish. [Just saying this doesn't mean I agree with the goals or the means to the goals of the 9/11 endeavors.]
If Mr. Ryan's book is disinformation as Mr. Ruff speculates (without reading), well it is disinformation that theoretically (in a very "conspiracy theory" sense) would not be flattering to the careers and lives of those hoisted up by the juxaposition of data points from their own careers. It should wind them up in jail awaiting trial. But because his book demonstrates how thorough the infiltration, those named in Mr. Ryan's book with lots of substantiation have the influence to keep the wheels of justice from running them over.
Meanwhile, though, they remain proud of all of the secret, world-changing actions that they contributed to make (so the "conspiracy theory" goes) offspring for several generations proud. I expect Mr. Ryan's book to be a hot-selling Christmas stocking stuffer for the well heeled and connected, particularly those named, in giving hours of "bad-ass grandpa (or grandma)" reading pleasure for the entire extended (crime) family.
Those of us not in their family tree? Well, time-and-time again we get to have our noses rubbed in how the rules are made to govern us, but not those making the rules. Ethics and honor applies to us, but those of our "superiors" seemingly gloat that "the ends always justify the means."
I won't bore people with lots of interesting data points that I did not know before reading Mr. Ryan's book. One that comes to mind from these early chapters is that a particular securities trading firm had been in trouple for some of its 9/11 associated transactions (like put options against airlines, never redeemed but I may have this transaction confused with another.) Former FBI Director Louis Feech and former CIA Director George Tenent both managed to snag slots on its board of directors on that same firm after leaving their respective agencies. The world is small.
//
x148 Señor El Once : Triple-W misframes her work
Far be it from me to defend Dr. Judy Wood's book to the death, but Triple-W misframes her work. And this is in part Dr. Wood's fault for re-purposing many of her earlier submissions to her website without first upgrading them to address errors, criticism, new thought, etc.
In a conventional controlled demolition, energy is added to take out supporting columns underneath to get the building in motion downward. Thereafter, most of the destructive energy comes from gravity slamming the left-over structure into the ground. The amount of charges, therefore, can be reduced to what is essentially necessary to achieve the goals of the demolition, such as landing it within a specified footprint or area, breaking it in chunks that can be easily removed by equipment, etc. In a conventional controlled demolition, bigger blocks of intact structure hit the ground and give off resulting seismic signatures.
Lots of people (like "a bellowing sphincter") try to turn the 9/11 towers into an unconventional controlled demolition with chemical based explosives and nano-thermite. Ignoring for a moment the valid evidence of explosions in the basement at the start of the tower's demise, the unconventionality of 9/11 had it decimate upper-levels to keep with the ruse that this is the consequence of a plane impact. The official account(s) used theories of pancakes and pile-drivers.
The pile-driver itself might not have been a bad idea, except that a 20 or 30 story block according to physics & demolition practices cannot decimate 80 to 90 lower floors. 50 or 60 upper floors, maybe might be able to decimate 50 or 60 lower floors, but even that is a stretch given that the lower levels are stronger than the upper ones. The real issue becomes that the larger the pile-driver, the more likely it will topple out of the path of greatest resistance into the path of least resistance, thereby (a) creaming neighboring structures or more importantly THE BATHTUB and (b) leaving lots of floors still standing and (c)_ also registering as a seismic signal.
In fact, this danger of the 20-30 floor pile-driver falling outside the path of greatest resistance is an observational nugget of truth from Dr. Wood. She explained why its decimation from the earliest phases of the collapse (as observed) was necessary. Decimated, pulverized remains falling from great heights would not damage the bathtub as much as larger blocks of intact structure. Damage to the bathtub could have brought the flooding Hudson into not just the lower levels of the WTC, but to many other buildings connected by the subway. The NYC damage from a BATHTUB failure would have been catastrophic.
Thus theorizes Dr. Wood, decimated, pulverized upper floors and cascading down was a design goal of the unconventional demolition. (In both towers, the supposed upper pile-driving block was decimated into itself before proceeding significantly below "the impact" levels; it even arrested angular momentum from one tower before it could topple over.) Ergo, calling it a pile-driver is a misnomer.) Pulverized content cascading to the ground would reduce seismic signals.
The age old questions: how much conventional chemical explosives (including nano-thermite) is required to pulverize content, which already smacks of overkill? Not a trivial amount. Now imagine that MANY MANY times that already overkill amount was left unspent from its pulverizing assignment to maintain those hot-spots of duration many weeks. It ain't very Occam Razor from a logistics point of view.
[It should also be pointed out that NIST's Dr. Sunder was able to say with a straight face that the decibel signature of the tower's decimation was too quiet to have been conventional explosives doing a controlled demolition. Of course, he wanted to park thinking at gravity-driven-pile-drivers, and he side-steps that such could happen at free-fall speeds without energy being added somehow. There is, however, validity to the "too quiet" assertion of fact. Had conventional chemical explosives been used to achieve what was observed, the result would have been quite deafening. Severe hearing loss was not one of the ailments of the 1st responders.]
Dr. Wood got it right in questioning conventional chemical explosives and in getting readers to think outside-the-box into the source of the destruction. She points at DEW, directed energy weapons. What she trips over with a disinformation agenda is (a) she can't power in any real-world operational sense her DEW devices, (b) she added spins through Tesla energy, Hurricane Erin energy, and Hutchison Effects, and (c)_ she doesn't address all forms of nuclear devices and gives the nuclear evidence short-shrift.
Neutron nuclear DEW. Between half to a full dozen per tower. Easier to install. Easier to account for all of the massive energy sinks, like pulverization, spewing debris large distances, and free-fall speeds. Easier to account for under-rubble hot-spots (failed but fizzing nuclear devices). Radiation is short-lived and quickly dissipates. Plenty of energy. Wouldn't have the same audible signature or even seismic signature. Tower tenants report lots of construction on other levels, but one snoopy tenant did not find anything. (I speculate they were building something to contain nuclear side-effects, like a detonation flash.)
//
x149 hybridrogue1 & Adam Ruff : crazy as a shithouse rat
2013-08-16
+++++ 2013-08-16 hybridrogue1
Slurmiester Maximus,
You are not only as crazy as a shithouse rat, you are a hypocrite for bitching about my gracious sobriquets offered to your batch of AKA's.
And a hardy fuck you extends to yet another day...
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-16 hybridrogue1
+++++ 2013-08-16 hybridrogue1
O failed kuberne-te-s, prone and wailing magister ludi, tried and wanting, heavy of carne who hath cast thy spirit into Hades' fire. Take thine damned meat-package and cast it therein as well. Taunt us no more with thy empty boasts of wisdom. Languish with the swine from whence thou spawned. We care not to drink from thy bladder of urine flavored vinegar. The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager.
~Magus Maverik
\\][// .
+++++ 2013-08-17 Adam_Ruff
I find your arguments unconvincing and WAY too lengthy. I have better things to do with my time than read your book length crappola.
+++++ 2013-08-16 hybridrogue1
Ahh Maxifuckanus is very good at designing sci-fi weapons for comic books, such as his nookeedoodoo directional neutron blaster which shoots its beam upward through skyscrapers…all that energy directed upward, yet rather than shooting a hole through the center of the buildings skyward, also blows it to smithereens.
He has two choices, the energy blew up the buildings, or it shot its beam up into the sky. If it blew up the buildings, that neutron radiation splattered all over the materials and irradiated it. If that is the case the radiation would have been detected – it was not.
He complains about the nicknames given him, while continuing his "triple dubya", weasel" crankshafting…well again, I hope that fuck you is sufficient for this gamester.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-19 hybridrogue1
>"Did he address how fire-fighting efforts dampened his theory of what was burning under the rubble without sufficient or constant sources of air? No...."~M.F.
. . . . . . . . . .
Aye, for these be taunts to a bellowing sphincter and naught else.
\\][//
+++++ 2013-08-19 hybridrogue1
Maxheadfuck,
Do not pretend that there is any verification for any such weapon as you describe, other than what has arisen from your imagination. As such the tale you weave is Speculative Fiction.
On top of this, by adding this additional nuclear aspect to the DEW hypothesis, does not indemnify you from the already extant proofs of Wood being an utter charlatan. All of the critiques made against her are equally applicable to your proposition.
\\][//
No comments:
Post a Comment