Part 2: Neutron Nuclear DEW at Facebook 9/11 Debates
The following comments were made under:
DEBATE ISSUES
https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-debates/debate-issues/621888681188274
9/11 Debates: Neutron Nuclear DEW
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/662698580440617/
x40 Maxwell C. Bridges : premise: 9/11 was a nuclear event
2014-01-26
{This is a condensed re-posting on Facebook of another article. Fodder for skipping. It gets a total of three postings. This one, a re-start of this one, and then in another forum.}
The premise of this discussion is that 9/11 was a nuclear event that involved per WTC tower multiple neutron DEW devices. Everything about 9/11 including the lock-stepping of those in the on-going cover-up. Think about it: wiffs of nuclear-anything on 9/11 vastly reduces the list of possible suspects and would have figurative nuclear fall-out in all aspects and levels of what constitutes the status quo in the USA. We'd vote our government out, and maybe the USA into separate regions. But I digress.
Allow me to give my discussion opponents an advantage by saying the totality (so far) of my nuclear argument is contained in my article, "Nuclear 2001-09-11" at:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
But for those too lazy to follow the link, I'll use this Facebook posting to summarize it. The first order of business is to describe the nuclear devices properly. I call them "neutron nuclear DEW", whereby some of the arguments and much of the evidence of Dr. Judy Wood apply. A paradigm shift is required to understand it.
++++++++ begin inserted text
From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the common paradigm suggests that such always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of casualties. When "DEW" (directed energy weapon) is appended to the description, the assumption is that energy is being aimed at a target to achieve destruction and casualties. (Laser beams and active denial systems do precisely this.) Contradicting DEW, the assumption for neutron devices is that the neutrons radiate in all directions from the detonation point to achieve maximum casualties.
The necessary paradigm shift for neutron nuclear DEW is that energy is ~not~ being used efficiently nor to its maximum destructive potential. In fact, the DEW portion of the design has the purpose to throw away the highly energetic neutrons by aiming them (upwards) where they can do the least collateral damage, both to life forms and to tandem nuclear devices. Nuclear side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, EMP, and radiation are still present, but are reduced to tactical levels. Radiation is present, but mostly non-lingering (dissipating in 48-72 hours). And for what did linger, tight security and nuclear hazmat efforts were in effect to handle.
In the case of 9/11, the devices' detonation sequence in the towers was top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fractricide of nukes lower in the tower.
Opponents have countered at times with: "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 results by combining 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 (or even pin-hole) 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.
++++++++ end inserted text
Evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event include the items below marked with [*].
[*] Radiation
Even from a flawed small set of samples, the measurement of tritium at levels 55 times greater than background levels (that gets re-defined in the report) alone is proof enough that radiation was there. As for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, this was there too, but due to the nature of the device being primarily a neutron one, that particular radiation would have been short-lived (48-72 hours).
For all detractors who are tempted to say "you have no proof of there being radiation," I respond that they also have "no proof of there being ~no~ radiation, or all measurements of such be at or below background levels." The report that performed systematic measurements of such with samples from all over the WTC including the hot-spots has been very much missing in action.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x15
[*] Radiation Mitigation Techniques: The Dirt on That
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html
[*] Proper analysis of the Dust
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed the data from the dozens of dust samples collected by the USGS in his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html
These samples were collected more rigorously and systematically than those of Dr. Jones or the Lioy et al report. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. As was mentioned, the Lioy study lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). It ignores them and doesn't explain their presence. [Neither USGS data nor the Lioy et al report found the NT flakes that Dr. Jones did.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x21
[*] Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite
Nano-thermite (NT) has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) NT by itself does not have the brisance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers' decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials' brisance.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18
[*] High Temperatures during the Destruction
Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x19
[*] Pulverization of Content and Structure
This was observed and recorded. Therefore, it was either (A) a design goal, (B) an overkill miscalculation, and/or (C) an unavoidable side-effect of powerful nuclear means. It cannot be explained away as a gravity-driven pile-driver that happened at near free-fall speeds, because this defies the laws of physics. So when contemplating what added the energy needed to balance the physics equations, logistics becomes a massive hurdle for chemical-based explosives/incendiaries, particularly when the bomb-sniffing dogs only had a few days' vacation in the days leading up to 9/11.
[*] Decibel levels of the destruction noise
The conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia) said:
"The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile."
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.
Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for chemical based explosives/incendiaries (enhanced with nano-thermite.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x31
[*] Horseshoe Beams
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzNRxiBYVz33RPhNOmitywA233zBBp0X3hKuVDwKCsS1emtmmcipov3VNwa9CYkLX0xHEM9FwbaBomOWBSP6N9vfbQJpMX5qRmmVHVxXRHaDDGUj5WSVln02JBHz-SzKsFJBirSQk-dfY/s1600/WTC_steel_abnormally_bent_expert_testimony_about_beam_on_right.jpg
The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. If an incendiary or explosive is attached to a column in a localized fashion, how could it achieve end-to-end effects? So QUICKLY? Could the brisance of RDX blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch? RDX could probably blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter. While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x23
[*] Vehicle Damage
The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).
Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x26
[*] First Responder Ailments
From Jeff Prager:
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the 'start date,' specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were 'salted' such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn't alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we're seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x32
[*] Flawed Reports by Sources in both Government and 9/11 Truth Movement
Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".
A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
What astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions are based on incomplete data. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" goes the computer expression. This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x3
++++
The above is but a copy-and-paste summary of my nuclear article. The links take you to where such topics are discussed.
//
x41 Maxwell C. Bridges : it would be a huge mistake
2014-01-26
Dear Ms. Elizabeth Tague,
It would be a huge mistake -- and one that falls right into the disinformationt trap -- to reject Dr. Judy Wood's work out of hand as you are attempting.
At least I have read it cover to cover (as well as her website), and can more easily speak to the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Here's a review:
++++++++++
Dr. Wood's doesn't promote theories, just lots of dangling innuendo that she doesn't connect together into a cohesive whole. In more than one case, her comments and leading statements are wrong. Here's three examples. (1) She points out how the engine of a particular fire engine was melted. No. The engine in that particular model was set back closer to the axel, so what she points out as melted wasn't. (2) She points out how a police car was torched at the bridge. No. The police car was torched elsewhere [with pictures documenting this fact] and was towed to the bridge to get it out of the way. All of her speculation about energy zapping things at the bridge are wrong. (3) She points out how a ladder truck had its ladder and front end wilted. No. That truck had a large piece of building land on it, and the picture was taken after it was removed. (4) She talks about the spire disintegrating based on one perspective. Yet when other videos from other perspectives are studied, that spire telescopes and falls over. It is only in that one perspective that it looks to be disintegrating.
Dr. Wood's book re-hashed things from her website yet corrected very little of her mistakes, many of which -- like the above -- should have been known or pointed out to her. She doesn't address any of the criticism of things from her website. Dr. Jenkins had some valid criticism (and some skewed invalid stuff, too.)
Dr. Wood promotes Hutchison way too much. I'm on the fence as to its validity, leaving the door open for it to be proved. Yet there is a difference between validity and applicability, and she hasn't proven the latter for 9/11.
Furthermore, although September Clues has its own issues in being a disinformation vehicle, it does have some nuggets of truth. For example, some imagery manipulation did happen (just not the extreme extent that they promote), and the media was and has been complicit in the ruse from the beginning. I can think of two or three images off the top of my head that Dr. Wood used that may have been manipulated: (1) fireman walking over "beam on fire"; (2) window of broken glass framing the images of patriotic firemen standing in a puddle raising a flag; (3) one of her satillite images supposedly showing dust cloud from space; (4) the images of hot-spots [she used a government report unchallenged].
I take issue with Dr. Wood because she gave nuclear considerations the bums rush. She makes a big deal out of dirt being carted in, spread out, then a few days later, piled together and carted away: blatant radiation mitigation techniques. But does she talk nukes? No. It doesn't take much research to discover unique nuclear mechanisms, or unique configurations of known devices (e.g., neutron bomb) that would have achieved the observed effects. Hell, she doesn't mention tritium, doesn't mention the 1st responder ailments, doesn't put into perspective the energy required for the pulverization, doesn't power her DEW devices with anything real-world operational...
The true value of Dr. Wood's book is soley in the collection of images. It is worth the price of her book just for the correlation of images to map positions.
What is also noteworthy is that nobody from the 9/11TM -- not Dr. Steven Jones, not Dr. Jenkins, not Dr. Herrit, not Jonathon Cole, not David Chandler -- has even cracked the cover of her book to debunk it page-by-page, image-by-image. They won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Why? Because mixed in with the stilt-and-skew, it has copious amounts of truth that remain valid. If they wade even part-way into it, their own theories will be found wanting in not being able to be address the truth that remains. It is better for the disinformation compaign (to avoid nukes) for them to sweep the whole work off the table as if it is "loony, crazy, nutty." It's not, despite being a disinformation vehicle, and it many areas it isn't far from the truth and certainly points out things that astute thinkers must consider.
//
x42 Maxwell C. Bridges : nothing worth addressing
2014-01-26
Dear Ms. Elizabeth Tague,
The name of this forum is "9/11 Debates". I was asked by another participant to present my nuclear 9/11 premise as just such a topic for debate. I have done just that, albeit with links to my article, and with that article links to my source material.
I have provided lots of substantiation to support my premise.
You, on the other hand, are not debating the topic in question, or anything that supports my views.
You glibly state: "Nothing worth addressing."
Substantiate that please [*] point by [*] point, or STFU because we have your number.
//
x43 Maxwell C. Bridges : debunked as soon as she made them
2014-01-26
Dear Mr. Keoki George,
You wrote, "Judy woods theories are debunked as soon as she made them."
For the sake of discussion, I'll agree with that statement.
But it isn't the theories that're important: IT IS THE COLLECTED EVIDENCE that she asks relevant questions about.
The reason nobody has debunked Dr. Judy Wood's "disinformation vehicle" is that in going through it page-by-page, image-by-image, they find that there isn't as much noise (or disinformation) as expected. Worse, what remains of the signal (or valid, nuggets of truth) must be addressed in what every theory-du-jour is being promoted.
//
x44 Maxwell C. Bridges : refrain from re-framing nuclear weapons into your pre-conceived notions
2014-01-26
Dear Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith,
Kindly refrain from attempting to re-frame nuclear weapons into your pre-conceived notions about what they should be or leave behind in radioactive fallout. While true for other weapons, they do not have to hold true for fission-triggered-fusion devices configured as neutron DEW.
You wrote: "You do realise that tritium is used in self powered lighting systems. Like exit signs."
Actually, the report that makes this claim was using "exit signs on aircraft", and not of that of actually in the building. Go to the source at what has instilled this erroneous belief in your thinking: "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center".
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf
Then read my analysis about how they stilted that very report. [Don't forget to scroll backwards and forwards from this location.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x8
You wrote: "I'm curious what relevance that tritium levels were apparently 55 times above normal - because tritium isnt exactly abundant anywhere outside, so when an entire centre of commerece os destroyed."
The first point of relevance is that this report had to re-define trace/background levels to be 55 times their previous meaning in order to spin the measurements as being "at trace/background levels."
The second point of relevance is that the report that measured these levels PRE-MATURELY STOPPED further measurements for tritium when they achieved their stilted goals of determining them being below EPA thresholds for what is dangerous for humans at the far-flung drainage points after much dissipation. The report didn't measure for tritium promptly or at all relevant positions (like at the hot-spots.)
The third point of relevance is that tritium is a trace element to fusion having happened, in this case as a fission-triggered-fusion device configured as neutron bombs.
You ask: "How much tritium should we expect from your numerous neutron bombs?"
Sounds like a good research project for yourself. Doesn't matter. They didn't measure for tritium promptly, systematically, or thoroughly, so we are duped if we hold that report as the final word on what actual tritium levels were in play in the immediate aftermath.
You wrote: "As for nuclear weapons, asides from the complete lack of sounds, blast waves, flash etc, we also don't have any of the radioactive fallout you would expect from a ground burst initiation of a nuclear device. Sorry, but you don't."
Sound would be expected by the rapid movement of air as displaced by the blast wave in the detonation. But if you were to bother to read my premise, the whole point of going with a neutron nuclear devices is that by expelling the lion's share of the energy as highly energetic neutrons upwards, the blast and heat wave get reduced to tactical levels... that were also contained not just within the outer wall assemblies of the towers but within the inner core assemblies (that for all we know could have been enhanced by construction crews in the weeks preceding 9/11 as per the testimonies of those who worked on other floors.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x31
Lack of blast waves? Not true. They were just reduced to tactical levels.
Lack of flash? Not really when you consider them being detonated within the core area.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x24
Lack of radioactive fallout? Only for your pre-conceived notions of what constitutes a nuclear device. Do any research into neutron devices and you'll learn that even from Big Ivan in the 1960's, traditional radioactive fallout is short-lived (24-48 hours) and non-lingering.
You wrote: "Oh and the lack of a fireball or three."
Actually, a fireball is seen at the starting stages of both WTC towers, although most debunkers try to spin that as office furniture and jet fuel fire.
You wrote: "As for cancers... I find it ludicrous that you think that an increase of cancers is due to a nuclear weapon - rather than the fact buildings actually contain nasty chemicals in them."
First of all, the historical experience of demolished buildings actually containing nasty chemicals in them and workers entering therein (with protective gear) does not correlate to the increase in cancers resulting from 9/11, and certainly not to their increase. I find it ludicrous that you think it would an either-or situation, "either the increase in cancer was nasty components of the towers or the last lingering but dissipating radiation remnants of nuclear devices." It should be both.
Ms. Keoki George chimes in with: "ohoh and don't forget, no EMP's!"
Exactly. Explain the vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the car parks (a) from the perspective of a gravity-driven pile-driver or (b) from the perspective of super-duper nano-thermite mixed with any combination of chemical based explosives.
Obviously, I believe that this is much easier to explain (c)_ from the perspective of an EMP that was tactically reduced via the design of the neutron weapon and via its placement within the towers in the inner core. We do have EMP side-effects that slipped out through window-slits and falling debris.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x25
Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith comes back with a video on Nuclear Explosion characterists. Bravo, but inapplicable, because that is ~not~ my framing of the nuclear weapons used. Mine are variants of neutron devices.
Ms. Keoki George comes back with "where are the 10 city blocks that would have been leveled."
STRAWMAN ALERT!!! That is not my framing of nuclear weapons. Here is a brief detour into nuclear weapons.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x3
Please, go read it and become informed. Don't go putting words in my mouth or re-framing my nuclear premise to match your ill-informed pre-conceived notions about what constitutes a nuclear weapon.
//
x45 Maxwell C. Bridges : end-of-life for the disinformation vehicle
2014-01-26
Dear Ms. Keoki George,
The disinformation game has many aspects to it, and one of them includes end-of-life for the disinformation vehicle. They are by design set up to fail, to be exposed, to be discredited... as the limited hang-outs that they are.
And when this happens, subsequent goals of the disinformation game are reached when copious amounts of VALID nuggets of truth contain therein are swept off the table of consideration, thrown away, and never addressed by other theories-du-jour. This explains Dr. Judy Wood's efforts in a nutshell. It isn't her words that are important, but the evidence presented.
//
x46 Maxwell C. Bridges : long-winded pretense of intellectual discourse is boring really
2014-01-26
Dear Ms. Elizabeth Tague,
You wrote: "Judy Woooooodz IS nuts..."
For the record, I consider the above an ad hominem. Her name is Dr. Judy Wood. You haven't proven her mental state. I think that she is actually very crafty. My unfounded speculation is that she was given a choice she couldn't refuse: "let yourself be smeared as loony, crazy, nut while presenting valid evidence needing attention and live, or don't live and don't have any legacy at all."
You wrote: "... and your long-winded pretense of intellectual discourse is boring really."
Ah, shucks! Did it hurt your pwetty widdle bwain to read so much? Well if you don't read it, you have to reason for posting here. This is in addition to you admitting that you aren't qualified on nuclear materials to be able to comment one way or another.
You wrote: "Sorry but crazy people and their insane theories just aren't worth any serious 'discussion'."
Let's see: Mozart, Einstein, [* name a rock star here *], [* name a famous artist here *], [* name a famous actor or director here *]...
The list is rather long of "crazy people" throughout history who have been worthy of "serious discussion." Their mental state should not dissuade us from contemplating the validity of some or all of their work.
You wrote: "Judy Wooooooooooodz is NOT a nuclear or relevent expert either . . . so her opinions have as much credence as your self-aggrandizing scribbles do."
For the record, Dr. Judy Wood does ~not~ offer many opinions on nuclear topics. She does not advocate nukes in what could be pointed out as her theories. That's okay, because her work has been data-mined for what is relevant for nukes.
You wrote: "Handbag shopping awaits, sale on at Jenners and that, guaranteed, will be both more important and stimulating than this conversation ever could be.."
Says it all. Please, go forth and help out the economy with your gluttony.
I look forward to ~no~ more comments from you under this posting of mine about 9/11 nukes (and Dr. Judy Wood's evidence), because you obviously don't have the scientic chops and aren't going to learn to chop with anything of bullet [*] point substance. Shop until you drop.
//
x47 The Opponents : what Facebook SPAM looks like
2014-01-26
Keoki George it seems that you are demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea as to the type of weapons you are suggesting and how they work
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George sorry, maxwell, you are the one speaking from ignorance. Not me
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George I will not read anything that you do nto post here.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George you have demonstrated that you have no evidence of your claims.
13 hours ago · Like
Maxwell Bridges [*] point by [*] point, Ms. George, or STFU. //
13 hours ago · Like
Larry Sera 9/11 was a simple induced collapse of 3 towers, with planes and explosives.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George Ron Morales Elizabeth Tague - Please tell Maxwell to refrain from the swearing and personal attacks
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George Wrong Larry, 911 happened without the use of explosives.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George You were asked to support yoru claims and you haven't done so
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George Neither of you are correct
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George And will never be correct
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George Maxwell, I suggest you read the rules, of which you are now in violation of.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George they are the rules you agreed to when you joined this group.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George name callling and demanding people to STFU is against the rules here.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George You were asked to make your arguments here, but you continue toe spam your blog. That is also against the rules
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George If you can't provide your evidence to support your claims in a summarized post, then you have no argument to make. Asking us to debunk your point by point is not necessary because of the physical evidence of 9/11
13 hours ago · Like
Larry Sera I disagree Keoki.. There is plenty of evidence to back explosives were involved and it can be proven.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George There wre NO bombs found. No remnants of any bombs. there was no nuclear device. there was no neutron bom. there is no bomb that used "fission controlled" triggers that point to DEW (and DEW according to JUDY waood came from sattelites, not bombs)
There is no one that displays radiation sickness
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George there is no one that displays cancers associated with radiation poisoning
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George I am healthy and I spent several days at Ground Zero (and I'm actually healthier today than I was 10 years ago)
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George There was no EMP
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George there was no leveling of 10 city blocks.
13 hours ago · Like
Larry Sera they found molten steel in the basements of all 3 towers. That is an undeniable fact. I do not back the nuclear b.s. , it's more outrageous than the official theory
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George There were thousands of people there comibing through the degbris and site in the months that followed
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George All the sickness associated with GZ was due to the vast amount of chemicals, and particulates that were released by the fires, and the collapse of the towers.
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George None of the sickness and cancers came from radiation which is in ALL forms of Nuclear weapons
13 hours ago · Like
Keoki George You have not provided the type of weapon used, and its yield, and how the weapon was brought to GZ with tens of thousands of people flocking the area
13 hours ago · Edited · Like
Keoki George And all fission trigger (or fission based bombs) leave behind RADIATION.
13 hours ago · Like
Dan Plesse what do you think of this?
The concentration of Uranium is a key.
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/2014/01/uranium-in-dust-what.html
13 hours ago · Like
x48 Maxwell C. Bridges : stop spamming the discussion
2014-01-26
Mr. Ron Morales and Ms. Elizabeth Tague - please tell Ms. Keoki George to stop spamming the discussion about 9/11 nukes. Not only has the little miss not addressed any of the [*] points in the original top-level posting, but also 9 out of the last 10 postings were one-liners that addressed nothing except to assert -- without substantiation -- that I am incorrect.
I am willing to entertain where I might be in error, providing that Ms. George has the brain cells and ovaries to point out such areas.
Instead her style of debate resembles that of the old Monty Python sketch where the main character pays for an argument, and his first debate opponent spends his time with lots of unsubstantiated contradiction. "This isn't an argument." "Yes it is." "No it isn't, it's just you contradicting me." "No it isn't." "Yes it is." "No it isn't."
//
x49 Maxwell C. Bridges : control of the agencies taking the measurings and writing the reports
2014-01-26
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "And all fission trigger (or fission based bombs) leave behind RADIATION."
Duh?!! That's what I've been saying, no contradiction there.
What you fail to understand is the nature and levels of such RADIATION when the devices are configured as neutron devices... AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT has control of the agencies taking the measurings and writing the reports.
I'll spell it out again. The beauty of neutron devices (fission-trigger-fusion configured to expell highly energetic neutrons) is that the left over alpha, beta, and gamma radiation is short-lived (48-72 hours).
Tritium is also a radioactive by-product of fusion, and CHECK, that was there in quantities way above trace levels that the reports stilt and skew.
Fission triggered would leave its tell-tail traces in the dust. CHECK, that was there, too, for those who are dedicated to analyze correlations in the USGS dust samples.
Love your ignorance expressed as "I will not read anything that you do not post here." Puts you at a disadvantage, because my cards are completely exposed and on the table there. Quite easy for you to go through point-by-point. You make it so easy for me to refute your points by merely copying and pasting from it. The point of this discussion should be to take it to the next level.
BTW, telling someone to STFU when they clearly are speaking from igorance and are admitting an unwillingness to get informed (if of nothing else, my documented views on the subject), that is not insulting you. It is re-affirming the rules of debate, whereby you shouldn't go around spamming my thread with your stupid-ass one-liners that ADDRESS NOTHING. Shows what an agent and card you really are.
//
x50 The Opponents : disinfo tactic: ad hominem gets personal quickly
2014-01-26
Do not post UNTIL you have read them, remaining here requires you to abide by the rules.
I do not say that the devices were entirely fission, because they would be too energetic and too radioactive from what was actually observed. They probably could not be used in tandem, due to fractricide from the emissions of one killing another before it could be detonated or reach its full nuclear yield.
//
Look up in whois for this "supposed" Maxwell C. Bridges . . .
This is a debate forum, yet all of you participants are too eager to brush aside my [*] points without addressing them.
Your counter arguments are all about of conjecture and attempts to re-frame the debate into pre-conceived notions of what nuclear weapons should be instead of acquiring new knowledge about how they could be and were.
And, yes, my respect for you runs low, oh so very low.
Indeed, you and your crew should NOT comment or engage me, because none of you can debate worth a damn. Don't feed the trolls.
//
So who elses photo do you use ???
Nor am I interested in upping your traffic to your vanity site.
"Maxwell C. Bridges" has had many sites, including that of
MAXBRIDGES.US
Looks like he couldn't market his "vanity" site, so he had to turn to Wordpress and Blogspot to churn out his "research"
All the sites promoted by "Maxwell C. Bridges":
maxwellbridges.blogspot.com
vaticproject.blogspot.com
truthandshadows.wordpress.com
maxwellbridges.wordpress.com
{edited domain tools}
This is the kind of articles that Maxwell writes:
http://www.maxbridges.us/.../2008-01-30...
And is an anti-semite:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/.../how-ehud-barak...
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/.../im-sure-kids...
2. Nuclear weapons leave fallout. Be it the left over fissile material, or the radioactive material left that came in contact with the fireball. The reason why Tsar Bomba didn't leave muchrelatively speaking, was primaryily because it was an airburst deployment. These being deployed in a building, is going to create a lot.
3. Are you claiming that the fireball were actually the impact of the planes or the sudden increase in air pressure as the floors collapsed? So what yield are we looking at?
As for "it directed all it's energy upwards" and reduced levels to tactical levels. Hmmm. Sorry, but that's not the case. You're not going to be able to direct anymore than a hemisphere of the energy upwards... Because that's just phyiscs. Tsar Bomba was designed to radiate its energy upward - its just a matter of fact with airburst deployment, that only a fraction of the energy from the weapon will hit your intended target.
Yes... You're going to see a flash. You're going to hear the initation and you're going to see a fireball.
And of course nice to see you completely fail to acknowledge that late 20th century building methods included a shitload of carcinogenic materials - all much more likely to explain various ailments that a nuclear weapon.
x51 Maxwell C. Bridges : private message: moderators and victimizers
2014-01-27
Dear Ms. Keoki George and Ms. Elizabeth Tague (and CC'ed to Mr. Ron Morales),
Kudos to you two ladies for your cyber-stalking skills! Although you demonstrate the rudimentary skills of an IT professional, neither one of you have the ethics or morals to be working as such. You both seem to be devoid of basic netiquette and have been acting like a couple of teenage girls in middle school with your cyber-bullying.
+++ begin quote
Rule 8: Respect other people's privacy
It is always a common courtesy to respect other's privacy, including personal information shared via blogs, webpages, messages, etc.
Rule 9: Don't abuse your power
Knowing more than others, or having more power than they do, does not give you the right to take advantage of them. You should never use your power to violate others privacy.
http://phiwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Guide+to+Etiquette+on+the+Internet:+%E2%80%9CNetiquette%E2%80%9D
+++ end quote
+++ begin quote
Violating the Privacy of Others is Improper Netiquette
Avoid sharing personal information about other people without their permission and knowledge. This includes sharing personal details, full names, addresses, phone numbers, and images. No one wants to find out that their privacy has been violated.
http://workplace-ethics.suite101.com/article.cfm/basic_netiquette
+++ end quote
- Respect the privacy of other users on the Internet, just as you expect your privacy to be respected.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/rules/rules.htm
- Respect and protect the privacy of others. Do not distribute private information about others.
http://www.cybercrime.gov/rules/acceptableUsePolicy.htm
Ms. George and Ms. Tague, obviously I could go on with your flagrant violations to basic internet netiquette. But your "win at all costs" debating techniques has you violating the rules of 9/11 Debates.
"1. No Ad hominem or Personal Attacks against group members are allowed in this group. Every effort should be made by group members to keep the discussion civil and not personal. Repeated personal attacks from any group member against another group member will be grounds for removal from the group. ..."
Lest there be any doubt, PUBLICLY PUBLISHING MY REAL NAME AND WEBSITES IS A HIGHLY PERSONAL ATTACK. It served no point in the discussion.
The rules go on to say:
"Questions and points regarding the personal expertise of a debater are legitimate subject matter, however, if the debater relies on his or her own expertise or authority to support a contentious point, but such issues should be restricted to the scope of the issue the debater is indicating personal authority on."
I was not relying on my personal expertise or authority to support my points; I have them sourced. Therefore, both questioning my background AND then publishing what was cyber-stalked are way out of line. The punishment for such violations, according to the rules:
"Posts violating these rules may be deleted and if a member wants the content of the deleted post to be considered part of the debate, he or she needs to repost the content without the offending material."
Furthermore, the rules say:
"... If someone is concerned about harassment by particular members, their recourse is to contact admins."
So it is being done. Consider this me contacting the admins.
I respectfully ask that both Ms. George and Ms. Tague on their own accord delete ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS under my nuclear thread.
Other than the netiquette violation that I am calling "ad hominem," close inspection of their actual comments reveals no contributions of any substance. They play the old "deny, deny, deny" game, and try to put the onus on me to substantiate my views, while at the same time admitting that they didn't read my posting and its substantiation. They have the gall to say I have no evidence of my claim, and refuse to read anything (other than SLC) that isn't posted on the 9/11 Debates. Not a single [*] point do they address with anything more than their opinions and unsubstantiated contradictions.
They are not participating in the discussion in good faith and should be zapped to a RESTART point, preferably at their own hands.
And if similar violating activities persist from the restart point, they will be deserving of the full penalty of their violations: banishment from the group.
With Kind Regards
// Maxwell C. Bridges
And seeing how it was brought up, let's clear the record on a few things.
"Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s."
~ alaskanlibrarian in Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing
http://alaskanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/pseudonyms-and-anonymous-sourcing/
"If you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
~ Rod Dreber in "On outing anonymous bloggers"
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/on-outing-anonymous-bloggers.html
I have had my "Maxwell C. Bridges" pen-name for quite some time.
If Ms. George and Ms. Tague have issues with me using my pen-name, they should take it up first with Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, and the actors who play them. As Batman in his last movie said to the police officer with "Robin" as his middle name, "you don't don the mask to protect yourself, but to protect those you care about."
Ms. Keoki George went above and beyond with her link to "Screw Loose Change", as well as purposely misconstruing what actually transpired. Allow me to provide the humorous backstory to that, because it relates 100% to the despicable actions of both Ms. George and Ms. Tague, as if they were pupils of GuitarBill.
+++++ begin SLC backstory
GuitarBill and I were opponents on AlterNet.Org. He was and still is a very obnoxious debunker who should have been banned from AlterNet several times over. At one point, he was losing the 9/11 debates so badly point-by-point, his only recourse was the one taken by Ms. George and Ms. Tague: he cyber-stalked me and publicly outed me, several times on several threads, and even threads I was not participating on. He claimed he was a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), yet his conduct was so unbecoming of someone in the IT field. It was escalaed and eventually the offending postings were removed.
Because my pen-name was just a flame magnet for his ire, I carried on under an alias. Our paths crossed again, and after awhile it dawned on him with whom he was dealing. He outed me again. Again I escalated it and even got him banned for all of a day or two, until he comes bounding back into the discussions AS IF HE WERE PAID TO DO SO, paid to be "debunker" and no amount of ad hominem rules violations could ever stop him.
When GuitarBill outed me on AlterNet, although it was difficult, I did get them rectified eventually, because they were clearly not in the spirit of what constitutes fair discussion and were blatant ad hominem -- AIMED AT THE MAN --, and not at the case being made. And for repeat offender GuitarBill, he just may have lost his "debunking" contract that allowed him to troll AlterNet in flagrant violations of its posting policies.
AlterNet then went through a purposely very slow and painful upgrade of its databases, which had the desired side-effects of essentially pissing of the regulars into leaving including GuitarBill and me. [When AlterNet came back with a fully functioning discussion system a couple of months later, the great 9/11 discussions that were contained within the old database were no longer accessible. Let this be a lesson.] GuitarBill and I went our separate ways, and evidently he found a home at "Screw Loose Change."
I HAVE NEVER POSTED ANYTHING AT SCREW LOOSE CHANGE (SLC) UNDER ANY ALIAS, much less my real name.
The truth in this statement is evident by the fact that my website and blog take (eventual) credit for my words and my alias usage.
About six months before I was active on AlterNet, another participant cornered GuitarBill on mistakes in some physics that GuitarBill posted. Unknown to me in my debates with him, this was the same physics that I ended up thoroughly trashing, with the only curious aspect of it being why GuitarBill didn't fix the errors before re-using it on me. Fast-forward to SLC, GuitarBill has a run-in with a new alias and serves up the exact same copy-and-pasted physics including its errors. The new alias naturally points out the same mistakes that both I and my predecessor on AlterNet had.
Not in the SLC thread that Ms. George linked, GuitarBill flies off the handle and starts accusing this new alias of being me with my real name (not my pen-name). As was his nature, GuitarBill never let up; he thought he had found the one damning weakness to the new alias, and he was going to exploit it for all it was worth, using both my real name and very creative insults, ad hominem, lies, smear, libel. The new alias said that he didn't know what GuitarBill was talking about and denied the association, but GuitarBill kept going and going in this vane.
Finally the new alias recognizes that the name of GuitarBill's arch-nemesis is his sore-spot, so the new alias changes his profile to be my real name, thinking it was funny. [I kind of do, too.] If you read the threads closely, nowhere does the new alias admit to being me (either real name or pen-name), and is often dumb-founded by GuitarBill's references to our history. In a much later thread after the departure of this person, GuitarBill was re-capping things with one of his SLC teammates. That teammate confided that he thought GuitarBill got it wrong, and the new alias was a unique individual and wasn't me.
[GuitarBill boasted of having advanced degrees in mathematics and minors in physics. I was under the impression the words/physics that he posted were his own. Just last week someone posted a link to a debunking site. It contained words/physics from Frank Greening that were exactly what GuitarBill had copied and pasted, mistakes and all. Too funny.]
I didn't find out about the libel to my name and person until I was ego-surfing on myself (to see what prospective employers would find) and came upon that escapade. It was still within the statue of limitations, and I live in a state that considers such activities criminal libel with up to a $100k penalty. I engaged a lawyer to get the offending libel removed, because an insurance settlement had given me the extra funds to pursue it. Alas, my lawyer counseled me that if I pursued it, the libel would probably get worse before resolution in the courts would be reached. Moreover, getting a judgment in my favor does not necessarily mean that I'd be paid the judgment, let alone legal fees.
+++++ end SLC backstory
x52 Maxwell C. Bridges : debate restart
2014-01-27
{Because the outing items were not edited or deleted by the original authors, the original thread was deleted and then posted again as a top-level thread. This was the first comments under it.}
Lest there be any doubt, here are some of the rules for proper netiquette.
+++ begin quote
Rule 8: Respect other people's privacy
It is always a common courtesy to respect other's privacy, including personal information shared via blogs, webpages, messages, etc.
Rule 9: Don't abuse your power
Knowing more than others, or having more power than they do, does not give you the right to take advantage of them. You should never use your power to violate others privacy.
http://phiwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Guide+to+Etiquette+on+the+Internet:+%E2%80%9CNetiquette%E2%80%9D
+++ end quote
+++ begin quote
Violating the Privacy of Others is Improper Netiquette
Avoid sharing personal information about other people without their permission and knowledge. This includes sharing personal details, full names, addresses, phone numbers, and images. No one wants to find out that their privacy has been violated.
http://workplace-ethics.suite101.com/article.cfm/basic_netiquette
+++ end quote
- Respect the privacy of other users on the Internet, just as you expect your privacy to be respected.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/rules/rules.htm
- Respect and protect the privacy of others. Do not distribute private information about others.
http://www.cybercrime.gov/rules/acceptableUsePolicy.htm
"Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s."
~ alaskanlibrarian in Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing
http://alaskanlibrarian.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/pseudonyms-and-anonymous-sourcing/
"If you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
~ Rod Dreber in "On outing anonymous bloggers"
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/on-outing-anonymous-bloggers.html
x53 Maxwell C. Bridges : found several places on the internet
2014-01-27
For the record, my article can be found several places on the internet. That doesn't make it spam.
My apologies to Mr. Conor Eaton-Smith that his last comments to the old discussion were deleted with that posting. However, I did save them and will try to address them here.
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "1. It's not me to prove your tritium argument. Shall we consider you ceding it? Good."
Nope. Mr. Eaton-Smith's comments were in reference to things like "exit" signs possibly being the source of the tritium measured at the WTC.
The report that makes these claims had a very limited scope and was prevented from even considering controlled demolition, let alone demolition involving nuclear means. The report suceeded in its premise of attributing tritium to things already in the building, but that doesn't mean that it is complete or correct. Let us also not forget that they stopped taking samples when the few samples already obtained (late and after much tritium dissipation) were coming up well below what the EPA's threshold on what constitutes a health risk. Here's a link that deals with errors in that report's conclusion.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x10
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "2. Nuclear weapons leave fallout. Be it the left over fissile material, or the radioactive material left that came in contact with the fireball."
No argument there, except that when neutron devices are deployed, the levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are not lingering.
Also, it is well to note that Jeff Prager's analysis of the USGS dust samples exposes elements of fission that the USGS did not discuss.
Furthermore, hot-spots burned for literally months, security was tight at the WTC, radiation mitigation techniques were in active use, ...
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "3. Are you claiming that the fireball were actually the impact of the planes or the sudden increase in air pressure as the floors collapsed? So what yield are we looking at?"
No, this is not my claim at all. I'm saying that both towers exhibited a flame-up at about the level where the planes impacted at demolition initiation.
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "As for "it directed all it's energy upwards" and reduced levels to tactical levels. Hmmm. Sorry, but that's not the case. You're not going to be able to direct anymore than a hemisphere of the energy upwards... Because that's just phyiscs. Tsar Bomba was designed to radiate its energy upward - its just a matter of fact with airburst deployment, that only a fraction of the energy from the weapon will hit your intended target."
No, I said that it directed its highly energetic neutrons upwards, thereby reducing the other nuclear side-effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP to tactical levels.
The inventor of the neutron bomb suggested that it could be directed into a hemisphere. I freely admit wild-ass speculation into combining the materials of the casing from fusion and neutron devices to direct the neutrons out of the way.
But if I am vastly in error on this point and that only a hemisphere could be achieved, deployment was still high in the towers, aimed upwards, and of a tactical nature. Therefore, embrittlement to the steel of the Banker's Trust building might have been a bigger issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrittlement
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "Yes... You're going to see a flash. You're going to hear the initation and you're going to see a fireball."
Again, we're talking about using neutron devices of a tactical nature, and using them in an unconventional way. Part of that could be structures put in place to shield things.
And as much as I despise the disinformation vehicle "September Clues," it does have nuggets of truth (spaced sparsely). They do show varying networks sharing the exact same footage, and in some cases applying digital filters to alter coloring. Ergo, just because you didn't see it on the telly (because it was edited or filtered and shielded), doesn't mean it didn't happen and doesn't mean that it didn't happen in an altered way.
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "Variants of neutron devices? Do post up what a neutron device initation looks like.. It's enhanced radiation - not reduced blast."
If most of the energy is being consumed by the expelled highly-energetic neutrons, then yes, it does very well mean reduced blast.
Mr. Eaton-Smith wrote: "And of course nice to see you completely fail to acknowledge that late 20th century building methods included a shitload of carcinogenic materials - all much more likely to explain various ailments that a nuclear weapon."
I'm not saying that such carcinogenic materials didn't play a role in the ill-health of the first responders. But historically, workers have been dealing with those same carcinogenic materials (like from other demolitions) sometimes for many years, and then it was many more years before their health significantly declined.
But in the case of 9/11, the onset of health impacts was comparatively faster.
"The rescue people - when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don't wear anything on the site you're not prepared to leave there because it's contaminated. ... My teeth are falling out. ... Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people's teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I've lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, "I've never seen anything like this in someone who's healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can't stop it either." ... The doctor said to me, I have - 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It's this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems."
~Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm
"Those who worked at the WTC site seem to be at increased risk of cancer, especially thyroid cancer, melanoma and lymphoma. According to a study released of nearly 10,000 New York firefighters (half of whom worked at the WTC site), those from the site are 32 percent more likely to have cancer."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/911-responders-plagued-cancer-asthma-ptsd/story?id=14427512#.T_2i1fXD_mE
//
x54 Maxwell C. Bridges : where is the EMP?
2014-01-27
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "1) where is teh EMP? (indicative of all nuclear devices?)"
Shielded mostly by its placement in the inner-core and within the outer wall assemblies.
But it did slip out. There was a electrical substation that blew out (that Dr. Wood drops innuendo as coming from a DEW devices.) I say it was overload currents coming right down the wires.
"She [Patricia Ondrovic] tried to enter WTC 6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC 6, she "saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern. This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to "pop."
http://anonymousphysicist.com/combating-the-fetzer-prager-jones-op-plan-of-denying-the-massive-evidence-of-emp-during-wtc-destruction/
Let's not forget the vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the car park. Gravity-driven pile-drivers can't explain it.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "2) where is the leveled 10 city blocks? (the amount of energy required to take down 8 buildings would have leveled downtown Manhattan)"
You are purposely setting up a straw-man argument by malframing the nuclear devices to be large.
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "3) what type of device was used (make, model, its yield)"
Read, Ms. George. It is above. It is also at:
"Officially known as enhanced radiation weapons, ERWs are more accurately described as suppressed yield weapons. When the yield of a nuclear weapon is less than one kiloton, its lethal radius from blast, 700 m (2300 ft.), is less than that from its neutron radiation. However, the blast is more than potent enough to destroy most structures, which are less resistant to blast effects than even unprotected human beings. Blast pressures of upwards of 20 PSI are survivable, whereas most buildings will collapse with a pressure of only 5 PSI."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "4) Where is the radiation sickness experienced by the thousands of people who have visited GZ since 9/11/2011 including me?"
Again, because you failed to read my article, you have missed several salient points, probably on purpose as I grow to know you much better through your comments and interaction with others.
It boils down to the straw-man argument created by malframing the nuclear device. They were a neutron devices (which is a type of fusion device). Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours. The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.
Therefore, Ms. George, while what you write might be valid for a fission device, it doesn't apply here.
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "5) The sickness you alleged does not support yoru claim its due to radiation (you ignore that there are thousands of chemicals that were released, including various particulates that include fine particles of asbestos, fiberglass, gypsum, sulfur, iron oxide, heavy metals, oils, and all of the other poisonous gasses and substances that can be found in a several of the collapsed buildings)"
I ignored nothing. My previous posting addresses that.
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "I see nothing in your research to address these issues"
Doesn't surprise me. Your third comment on the old thread was: "I will not read anything that you do nto (sic) post here."
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "and no matter the "device" it leaves behind evidence, none of which were found."
This is flat-out wrong, Ms. George, which is why I even bothered to write an article.
- Please explain the horseshoe and arch beams under your beliefs of no bombs whatsoever, nuclear or otherwise.
- Please explain the under-rubble hot-spots burning for literally months, most of the time without oxygen.
- Please explain the toasted vehicles yet not trees, leaves, flags, and people.
- Please explain the Uranium and other trace nuclear elements in the USGS dust.
- Please explain the tritium. Why did they re-define trace/background levels? Why didn't they measure it promptly? Why didn't they measure it systematically and thoroughly?
- Please provide the reports that promptly, systematically, and thoroughly measured for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation all over the WTC and came up with each sampling being at or below trace background levels.
//
x55 Elizabeth Tague : everyone just ignore {redacted}
2014-01-28
January 28 at 1:17am
Please everyone just ignore {redacted} . . . oops I mean "Maxwell" . . . he/she/it thrives on the drama.
Let this thread and poster fade into the shadows of obscurity where it belongs.
Ignore completely for NONE of this has merit . . . do NOT respond or engage people . . . do NOT allow this nonsense to continue please.
x56 Maxwell C. Bridges : private message: appeal to the forum administrator
2014-01-28
Dear Ms. Elizabeth Tague and Mr. Ron Morales,
Allow me to quote Ron Morales, the moderator of this group:
January 27: "Back off the personal people."
January 12: "[T]his is a debate group. One of the conditions for staying is abiding by the rules, which means answering questions and actually engaging in a give and take discussion."
December 5: "No Ad hominem or Personal Attacks against group members are allowed in this group. Every effort should be made by group members to keep the discussion civil and not personal. Repeated personal attacks from any group member against another group member will be grounds for removal from the group."
Now let us consider what Ms. Tague recently wrote.
Ms. Tague wrote on January 28: "Please everyone just ignore {redacted} . . . oops I mean "Maxwell" . . . he/she/it thrives on the drama."
Aside from being in volation with the January 12 guidelines about actually engaging in a give and take discussion, this is an underhanded, highly personal attack in violation with the December 5 rule. It has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. She and Ms. George think it is so cute to let slip a real name. It should be noted that this came AFTER Mr. Morales January 27 message which came AFTER my off-list complaints yesterday.
So what that I write under a pen-name? So did Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Samual Clemens, and many others throughout history.
I don't give a flying fuck that she or her disinfo little buddy Keoki George know my real name from their cyber-stalking. More power to them.
Knowing something is vastly different than publishing it to the world and violating my privacy. Ever had a google-background check done on you in a job search? It might be a bitch you can't see or do anything about, as you wonder why you don't get interviews.
Due to their own actions, Ms. Tague and Ms. George belong in the exact same class as the immoral and unethical assholes of Screw Loose Change (SLC), whose job it is to smear REAL PEOPLE in under-handed ways and shockingly similar to what these two do. In fact, the very online alias (GuitarBill) who reemed me in a past life did it by invoking personal information about me BECAUSE HE WAS LOSING THE 9/11 DEBATE SO HANDILY THAT HE HAD TO REACH BELOW THE BELT. And he continued doing it on the SLC forum (and others) THAT I HAVE NEVER PARTICIPATED ON! Consider it a pre-emptive nuking that keeps on giving via Google. As Ms. George's SLC link shows, evidently I made such an impression on GuitarBill that he inspired a new opponent to assume an alias comprised of my real name. GuitarBill thought he was dealing with me, and the criminal libel that he dished out was real and damaging.
This is a legitimate complaint about the damaging effects of an unwarranted ad hominem attack. Ms. Tague and Ms. George are flagrantly violating the rules of this forum in their personal attacks.
I respectfully ask that such underhanded, purposeful, "accidental slips" of any form of my real name be edited/removed (1 instance each by these two) as well as the SLC link from Ms. George beginning "A look into Maxwell C. Bridges..."
++++
Now let's carry on with the substance of Ms. Tague's comment relating to the premise of 9/11 nukes:
"Let this thread and poster fade into the shadows of obscurity where it belongs. Ignore completely for NONE of this has merit . . . do NOT respond or engage people . . . do NOT allow this nonsense to continue please."
Oh wait! THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE! It is just her opinion that she doesn't substantiate, and skirts also very close to the line of what is considered improper. She doesn't address (nor has she ever) a single [*] point that makes up my premise.
Needless to say, the actions of both Ms. Tague (a moderator?) and Ms. George reflect poorly on the goals of this forum that are trying to discuss and debunk 9/11 conspiracies in a rational way. Their actions reflect poorly on you, Mr. Morales, unless you bring them in line.
By all means, if they have the chops, let them try to debunk my 9/11 nuclear conspiracy in a rational way. I welcome it, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the matter. But the manner in which they have engaged me so far convinces no one.
In fact, they have been doing such a poor job, they make my 9/11 nukes case stronger despite their hypnotic suggestions to the contrary. Ms. Tague should have been truer to her word about letting the thread fade and to not respond by: shutting TFU. Yep. If she can't come to the plate with substance against a well-prepared opponent with a documented history of being around the 9/11 block a few times and that she should have discovered in her cyber-stalking, then she should really STFU and not "feed this troll."
In summary, they need to clean up (or delete or have a moderator delete) their way-ward comments and they need to clean up their act going forward, as per the rules that they so eagerly invoke and that I have the right to invoke, too.
P.S. Mr. Morales, you wrote: "Don't call people liars or accuse people of lying. That's a personal attack." Actually, when it can be substantiated that so-and-so said X but the facts prove it as Y (and maybe so-and-so knew it as Y but said X), calling them a "liar" with the context included isn't a personal attacked. It is a statement of fact.
//
x57 Maxwell C. Bridges : interjected into the debates
2014-01-28
Allow me to quote Mr. Ron Morales, the moderator of this group, before addressing Ms. Elizabeth Tague's most excellent posting:
January 27: "Back off the personal people."
December 5: "No Ad hominem or Personal Attacks against group members are allowed in this group. Every effort should be made by group members to keep the discussion civil and not personal. Repeated personal attacks from any group member against another group member will be grounds for removal from the group."
Ms. Tague wrote on January 28: "Please everyone just ignore {redacted} . . . oops I mean "Maxwell" . . . he/she/it thrives on the drama."
Letting slip "on purpose" a real name (and despite reminders) falls into the category of a personal attack.
Before I dissect the rest of her posting, here is another quote from Mr. Morales.
January 12: "[T]his is a debate group. One of the conditions for staying is abiding by the rules, which means answering questions and actually engaging in a give and take discussion."
Ms. Tague goes on to write: "Let this thread and poster fade into the shadows of obscurity where it belongs. Ignore completely for NONE of this has merit . . . do NOT respond or engage people . . . do NOT allow this nonsense to continue please."
Oh, snap!
Does this answer questions or address [*] points in the original premise? Does this actually engage in a give and take discussion?
Talk about flagrantly skirting the line of what is considered improper.
And it is oh, so, very hynotically c.o.n.v.i.n.c.i.n.g.
So if you don't have the chops to go up against a well prepared 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist who has documented proof on the internet that he has been around the 9/11 blog more than just a few times, please heed Ms. Tague's admissions of defeat: IGNORE this thread, do NOT allow "this nonsense" to continue.
But if you do have the chops and can debunk my 9/11 nuclear conspiracy in a rational way, I welcome it. I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the matter.
But take a note from Ms. Tague's and Ms. George's example. The manner in which they engage me convinces no one. In fact, they have been doing such a poor job, they make my 9/11 nukes case stronger despite their hypnotic suggestions to the contrary.
//
x58 Maxwell C. Bridges : debate in good faith
2014-01-28
When context and substantiation is provided of a participant caught knowingly uttering statements contradictory to previous statements or to facts, it would not be ad hominem to call them "a liar"; it would be factual and logical.
Ms. Keoki George wrote on January 27 at 1:18 pm under this very posting: "and with that my last post. I will not debate someone who right off the bat will not debate in good faith."
Ergo, with the five (and counting) postings from Ms. Keoki George within the last hour (and counting), she proves herself A LIAR.
It surprises me, because she really should have me blocked.
And given that the re-purposed comment talks about "debating in good faith," an example of this is clearly NOT her second comment (January 27 12:08 pm) to this thread with its reference to SLC (that doesn't even involve my participation) or her comment (January 27 12:57 pm) that purposely lets slip personal information, despite off-list warnings that such was deemed a personal attack.
Ms. Keoki George wrote on another thread: "... debunkers pointing out everything wrong in Truthers claims, right?"
This is how we spot the disinformation agenda:
(1) The debunkers do not actually hit "everything". They swing at the low-hanging fruit and call it a day early, either because they ran out of steam or the other fruits do not fit in with their cognitive dissonance views.
(2) The debunkers leave a void. If a piece of evidence A is used to support premise X, the debunkers might make a seemingly logical case that it wasn't X, but they more often than not -- on purpose -- ignore the validity of evidence A; their proposed alternative Y covers poorly or not at all evidence A; and/or their implied or proposed alternative Y (e.g., OCT) is more full of holes than X.
(3) They attempt to throw suspicion off of their misdeeds in debating by "crying wolf" to the moderator first over hyped infractions from their opponents.
(4) If they spot a weakness in an opponent, they will exploit it again and again "to get the win at any costs" even if it means breaking the rules of the forum, of the internet, etc.
One can only speculate as to where their confidence in breaking the rules without consequence comes from.
//
x59 Maxwell C. Bridges : it was determined long ago nuclear weapons and DEW would be disinfo and should be ignored
2014-01-28
Keoki George wrote: "Well it was determined long ago, when the group started that discussing no-plane theories, nuclear weapons and DEW (claims by judy wood) would be disinfo and should be ignored."
Therefore, with each and every comment to this thread (or the last one that she spammed with off-topic detours), Ms. Keoki George has proven herself in flagrant violations of the conspiratorial agenda of this group, because she clearly didn't ignore it.
I do not disagree, however, with the premise that "no-plane theories, nuclear weapons and DEW (claims by judy wood) would be disinfo", particular in the manner that this group frames them.
IGNORING something does not make it go away.
All disinformation is based on a solid foundation of truth, else it would have no traction in the minds of men at all.
If you want to combat disinformation, you have to recognize the nuggets of Truth that comprise it, to rescue them, and to re-purpose them into something that is valid. When you willy-nilly afix the disinfo label to something in order to dismiss it quickly without the recognition and rescue effort, you become just another duped useful idiot playing right into the disinfo game, because it was designed from the onset to be discredited and to have all of those valid nuggets of truth buried without any further consideration.
Case in point, the "no-planes theories." First off, the CIT flyover theorie has more nuggets of truth than the unsubstantiated theorie that a plane hit the Pentagon. The whole September Clues rigamaroll of no-planes at the WTC was intended largely to distract from the real shocker of no planes hitting the Pentagon (and probably Shanksville, too.) Another nugget of truth to be recognized from that "no-planes" disinformation vehicle is that imagery manipulation did happen (just not to the extent hyped) and that media complicity has been involved from the very first minute.
Another case in point is "DEW (claims by Dr. Judy Wood)." Dr. Wood's website and book GOT MORE RIGHT than wrong. Her collection of pictorial evidence mapping images and their perspectives to map positions is worth the price of her book alone. I speculate that she was gotten to, so the Easter Egg clue that she leaves for astute thinkers is to "look at the evidence and don't get distracted." Horse-shoe beams, arches, and molten lumps at least get a publishing and an attempt at an explanation. Not so much by debunkers or those in the 9/11TM who champion nano-thermite.
And of course we come to my hobby-horse: "nuclear weapons." Everybody frames it wrong on purpose in terms of expected yield and expected side-effects. The 9/11TM was infiltrated by a PhD in nuclear physics from BYU who re-used unquestioned and unchallenged shoddy reports commissioned by the government that were stilted for limited scopes and applies them inappropriately to the larger question of nuclear involvement. Yet the nuggets of truth are there, from tritium in the run-off water and downwind trees to Uranium in the dust, from the energy of pulverization to the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, from the spreading of dirt to the security in accounting for every scrap leaving the WTC, from the blatant errors and omissions in agency and commission reports to the reports never published, etc.
Keoki George wrote: "Can't offer debates against fantasy claims. Its like offering a debate against unicorns farting rainbows. But unicorns farting rainbows are more realistic than nuclear weapons, DEW and no planes destroying the towers."
Thus, she proves herself a three-fold liar (1) by posting something here when she said she was done, (2) by ignoring the edicts of her conspiratorial group to ignore this, and (3) by spamming this with off-topic comments.
Call Ms. Keoki a liar is not ad hominem when context and substantiation are provided. Nope, it becomes factual and logical.
Ms. Keoki, you can block me now, please. Thank you.
//
x60 Maxwell C. Bridges : unicorns farting rainbows: structural failure due to massive heat and impact damage
2014-01-28
Mr. Baz Yat wrote: "Neither are nuclear weapons with a yield small enough to take out a single building in a manner that just happens to look exactly like structural failure due to massive heat and impact damage."
I'm sorry, but I find your claim of "structural failure due to massive heat and impact damage" to be akin to Ms. Keoki George's words "unicorns farting rainbows."
You can't even prove massive heat. From what? Jet fuel and office furniture? Ain't possible.
But for the sake of discussion even if we assume that such unicorns farting rainbows was possible to account for the INITIATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE, you have nothing except Allah to explain the physics defying manner in which the stronger portion of the towers were pulverized at near free-fall speeds without extra energy being added.
And if you did have something, it would have been in the NIST report on the towers. But it's not there. Their "full and complete" report stops at the INITIATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Why? Why don't they talk about the energy sink of pulverization? Why don't they talk about the energy sink of tossing large pieces of debris large distances, some starting from the earliest stages when the kinetic energy would have been less?
Now lets turn this discussion back around to nukes. They've been around a long time, with most of the research over the last 40 years classified. Consider this:
+++ Begin Quote
Also regarding the radiation issue, in this abstract of an article, a scientist, in 1969, published the following, "Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere."
This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created. The article's abstract hints at two methods for obviating atmospheric release of radioactivity. 1. Steering the device towards low radionuclide production and 2. "special emplacement techniques" which means place it where you won't get much or any radiation released into the air. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn't find any so far. Maybe I know why?! Could it be because they perfected this, and classified this, as they knew they would be using this on the "home front," such as on 9/11? Could small nukes to be used for "construction," have morphed into nukes used for "destruction?"
Larger quote comes from:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-evidence-testimony-indicating.html
Abstract comes from:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568(196902)19%3A2%3C138%3ARPFTNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
+++ End Quote
Therefore, neither you nor I are in the position to rule out anything nuclear on 9/11 as "unicorns farting rainbows." Your beliefs are about the causality of the destruction are what need to be checked, because they defy physics and the evidence.
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called 'cognitive dissonance.' And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief." ~ Frantz Fanon
//
x61 Maxwell C. Bridges : confidence in breaking the rules without consequence
2014-01-28
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "... debunkers pointing out everything wrong in Truthers claims, right?"
This is how we spot the disinformation agenda:
(1) The debunkers do not actually hit "everything". They swing at the low-hanging fruit and call it a day early, either because they ran out of steam or the other fruits do not fit in with their cognitive dissonance views.
(2) The debunkers leave a void. If a piece of evidence A is used to support premise X, the debunkers might make a seemingly logical case that it wasn't X, but they more often than not -- on purpose -- ignore the validity of evidence A; their proposed alternative Y covers poorly or not at all evidence A; and/or their implied or proposed alternative Y (e.g., OCT) is more full of holes than X.
(3) They attempt to throw suspicion off of their misdeeds in debating by "crying wolf" to the moderator first over hyped infractions from their opponents.
(4) If they spot a weakness in an opponent, they will exploit it again and again "to get the win at any costs" even if it means breaking the rules of the forum, of the internet, etc.
One can only speculate as to where their confidence in breaking the rules without consequence comes from.
P.S. When context and substantiation is provided of a participant caught knowingly uttering statements contradictory to previous statements or to facts, it would not be ad hominem to call them "a liar"; it would be factual and logical.
//
x62 Maxwell C. Bridges : if you could prove "no radioactive debris", you might have a point
2014-01-28
Mr. Ron Morales writes: "No radioactive debris means no nukes. Next issue."
Mr. Morales, if you could prove "no radioactive debris", you might have a point. But you can't, because, you see, the security was so tight at the WTC that wayward Geiger Counters and cameras were some of the first things that got their owners expelled from the site.
The list of people (e.g., fire investigators, college professors, etc.) is rather long who complained of the destruction of evidence before it could be analyzed. "They" were in such a hurry to dispose of the material, they sold it at below market prices as scrap to China.
If there was no radioactive debris, how come they deployed radiation mitigation techniques, like of trucking in dirt, spreading it out, scooping it up a few days later, and carting it off... REPEAT. (This is a handy nugget of Truth from Dr. Judy Wood's website that you should check out.)
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html
Your statements reflect that you haven't even read the postings under which you make your comments. Because had you done so, you might just have received an education into the wide variation in nuclear devices and their side-effects. When using a neutron device (or a fusion device), how long does the dangerous alpha, beta, and gamma radiation linger?
Mr. Morales writes: "There's no evidence of massive heat"
Surely you jest, Mr. Morales!
Where have you been all these years? You go starting a Facebook group call "9/11 Debates" and can't even recall those famous images and pieces of evidence that the Truthers have been carting out year after year and demanding a logical, scientific explanation! I'm shocked!
The meteorite, the horseshoe, the arches, "the steel doobies" extracted from the debris pile -- not to mention the under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months -- contradict that statement of yours.
I love "the steel doobies". An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams (3 stories I believe) attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. These assemblies were hoisted up and bolted in place in a staggered manner.
Relatively intact wall assemblies -- looking like corn chex -- are in images from all over the debris pile (and one was buried in the face of the Banker's Trust building that gravity alone can't explain.) If you have a keen eye, you can also spot lots of instances in those very same images of the debris pile where these assemblies got rolled up around the beams into a "steel doobie" held in place by the bent spandrels like bands around a cigar.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
In the image above, the doobie is right above the orange bucket. Better yet, the left end of this particular steel doobie has some unexplained wilting.
Please, explain to me how downward acting gravity managed to apply horizontal forces on these vertical assemblies to get the steel doobies to roll up and wilt its ends.
My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground.
I don't think nano-thermite could have created the doobies, because it is an incendiary used for cutting at a localized spot. The doobies indicate a heating of the entire assembly, end-to-end. That NT combined with any number of chemical explosives/incendiaries can't explain such heating, at least not in an Occam Razor ease-in-logistics sense. (NT with conventional explosives might have cut the bolts, though, milliseconds after the neutron DEW detonation.)
//
x63 Maxwell C. Bridges : live in bliss and inactivity
2014-01-28
I just had a moment of enlightenment into why the rule-flaunting and unethical antics of others was tolerated by you, the moderator, with nary a hand-slap or decisive action.
Tell you what. Because I think none of your core group of conspirators at 9/11 Debates can withstand the temptation to engage me, you've got probably two options.
Option 1 is to tolerate me but to recommend to all of your core group (including and particularly Ms. George and Ms. Tague) to BLOCK ME so that they will never see my postings or comments EVER (unless someone else quotes me).
Option 2 is to remove me from you group. Warning: this option will have (figuratively speaking) nuclear fall-out onto the reputations of 9/11 Debates, its moderators, and all in the core conspiratorial group. You can bet that I will make hay with it, as will others. Do this, and the core group ought to turn around and create other Facebook aliaes.
I suggest you go with Option 1, because then I will never know why people don't respond to me or post comments on my postings. I'll live in bliss and inactivity, and eventually other postings will push it down, down, down on Facebook and it will die in obscurity.
x64 Maxwell C. Bridges : making his own interpretation of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN STEEL
2014-01-29
Part of #9: "100's of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN STEEL ignored by the Commission report."
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Because it was irrelevant. Fire fighters witnessed molten material that some of them interpreted as molten steel, which would be a natural assumption upon seeing molten stuff in the debris of a steel structured building."
The key phrase is "some of them (may have) interpreted." Mr. Morales is making his own interpretation of their testimony. Given that fire fighters undergo lots of ongoing training in the area of fires and building materials and that they might even have hobbies that involve metal working and welding, Mr. Morales himself is making faulty assumptions about the validity of fire fighter observations.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "But as none of them were metallurgists and one is not capable of assaying the metallic composition of molten metal by sight alone, their OPINIONS that what they saw was steel is not evidence that it was."
Most welders and foundry workers aren't metallurgist either, but that doesn't mean they can't tell the difference between metals even when red hot or molten. I am not a welder, but have taken welding classes to further another hobby. I have relatives on both sides of the family who were farmers and ranchers, and out of necessity were good welders to keep their equipment in good repair. A co-worker of mine welds, forges knifes, tinkers on cars, plays with weapons, but that's not what pays his salary. Fire fighters went through extensive training; each year they continue their education into types of fires and building construction; who's to say what additional hobbies they might have that involves heat and metals.
The point is that Mr. Ron Morales argument about the lack of metallurgist credentials only goes so far in being able to discredit the testimony of what a person observed and might have experience in.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "There were under the rubble fires that burned for months and the molten material could have been aluminum (since there were thousands of tons of aluminum in the debris), slag, or a combination of both plus other metals. The molten material was witnessed to have been present for over six weeks after 9/11."
Mr. Morales faulty rationalization is disproven by evidence. Type into Google "9/11 meteorite". How did this occur?
According to Mr. Morales, if you aren't a meallurgists, you don't know what hot molten metal looks like even if it would run like liquid down steel rails and trickle onto your boots and burn a hole in your foot.
The two bigger issue for Mr. Morales OPINION are these two accidental acknowledgements: (1) "There were under the rubble fires" and (2) "the rubble fires... burned for months."
The only fires that the OCT admits were from jet fuel and office furnishings some 80 or 90 stories in the air, which would have put them (if they survived the gravity-driven pile-driver) under 30 or 20 stories of smothering debris. Therefore, how was it even possible for this to happen UNDER all the rubble.
Secondly, jet fuel and office furnishing fires require oxygen from air to burn, which would have been in short supply under the smothering rubble and certainly would have been exhausted after days, let alone months.
Okay, okay, I'm being unreasonably extreme, because whenever the debris pile got moved in the clean-up, some air could have gotten in. However, if we assume just office furnishings and building content under smothering dust and debris, such fires could burn, what, like a few hours without exhausting its oxygen source?
Whether or not one applies some science to the issue, I'm sure one could apply some real world camping experience to it. How many times has one almost killed a camp fire by putting too much wood, pine needles, leaves, etc. on it? Yes, it might have smoldered and kept burning a little bit under neath, but not to the point where it would melt one's aluminum beer can.
All in all, my OPINION is that Mr. Morales is mischaracterizing the testimony of the fire fighters and unfairly discrediting their experience with fires (and foundries).
Mr. Morales should PROVE that "the molten material could have been aluminum."
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "As controlled demolitions do not produce pools of molten metal at all..."
I could agree with this...
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "... and no thermite reaction has ever been demonstrated to be able to produce a pool of molten metal that stayed molten for even an hour, much less six weeks, ..."
It depends on how much thermite you've got and how you deliver it to the fire. For a single hot-spot of only 4 weeks, you'd need an imaginary garden hose packed with thermite that was over 500,000 miles long. Not very Occam Razar, to be sure. :)
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "... we can exclude either controlled demolition and thermite as the cause."
Agreed. AND we can exclude the OCT.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "However, there have been known cases of debris fires burning for months and reaching temperatures capable of melting aluminum, and over a hundred thousand gallons of stored diesel fuel in the basements of the WTC could have fed such fires."
Prove this contention, Mr. Morales. The only mention of diesel fuel storage playing a role was in WTC-7, and the official conclusion was that it didn't. No where does anybody mention diesel fuel burning under the towers or contributing to the under-rubble fires (to the point of keeping them burning for weeks). No where do those same experienced fire-fighters mention smelling burning diesel fuel with regards to those molten findings.
Mr. Morales doesn't think far enough into his diesel fuel premise. How is the burning of the diesel fuel regulated so that it could last for many weeks? If the tanks were breeched in the destruction, the tendancy of fire would be to consume as much as possible as fast as possible, like the fire-balls from the impacting jets. In order for diesel fuel to burn, it requires oxygen from the air. Not only were millions of gallons of water poured on the pile from firemen (and rain), but they also poured high-tech fire-fighting chemicals on it. Had it been a diesel fire, it would have been snuffed out well before the six week mark.
Finally, when one correlates the expected location of the diesel tanks to the numerous hot-spots, one will find no such correlation.
Mr. Morales does a valient attempt at a wild-ass explanation, but it comes up short.
Neutron nuclear DEW and nuclear fizzling remnants of the same much more easily explains the anomalous duration of hot-spots and the fire-fighters claims of molten steel/metal (as well as the meteorite) without having to mischaracterize their testimoney as "molten aluminum" and bring in unfounded speculation into diesel fuel tanks.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "It was also demonstrated (without rebuttal by anyone) that a thermite reaction melting steel at the top of the Towers (since the collapses began from the top down) could not have resulted in molten steel ending up in the basements of the building (where the diesel fuel was stored)."
Such a lovely strawman that Mr. Morales builds. If Mr. Morales assumes that thermite was used at the top of the towers, why does he all of a sudden assume that thermite wouldn't be everywhere THROUGHOUT the towers including the basement? In for a penny, in for a pound in destroying the towers.
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "And that molten material could not have been molten steel because molten steel produces massive explosions when in contact with even a small amount of water. However, millions of gallons of water fell on the WTC debris pile during this time and yet there were no reports of massive explosions."
Does it really explode? I would assume that it would just turn the water instantly into steam. Molten steel isn't the same thing as hot oil, which seemingly does explode when drops of water are added. (Really, it is partly because water and oil don't mix, and mostly that the rapid expansion of water into steam displaces the oil violently throwing it out as if an explosion. Molten metal doesn't have the same viscosity as hot cooking oil, so its reaction to water doesn't have to be identical.)
I think that some wide definitions of "molten material" are at play, here. One definition would suggest a liquid form. Another definition would be "red hot" such that it could be almost bent and formed. The salient point is that fire fighters described certain underground WTC areas from the early days as being like a foundry.
""NIST's John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal",
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "This is a lie. Gross was asked about reports of molten STEEL and he said he was unaware of such reports. Saying that you're unaware of reports of molten steel is not the same thing as denying the presence of molten metal."
And it is political weasel-wording and plausible deniability.
Reports would imply something written and published. Ergo, given that they controlled exactly such official reports, slow-walked them, suppressed them, juked them, then certainly Mr. Gross uttered no lies. He was unaware of such (published) reports.
" 'Swiss Cheese', "
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "There was a report of corroded metal that was estimated to have been corroded at about 1800 degrees F, which is at the high end of an office fire but far below a thermite event."
An office fire that was oxygen starved and waning as was evident by the black sooty smoke could not reach that high end.
As for thermite, nuclear heat wave, or nuclear fizzle, which presumably would all be very hot, you can achieve the estimated 1800 F degrees for the Swiss cheese corroded metal by increasing the distance from the heat source.
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "See above. Since neither controlled demolition not thermite have nor could have produced molten steel that stayed molten for that long (controlled demolitions don't produce pools of molten material at all), we can exclude both as the cause of long lasting molten material."
Agreed. And because the unsubstantiated wild-ass speculation into diesel fuel fires together with a gravity-driven pile-driver also can't explain it, SCIENCE LITERATE RESEARCHERS SHOULD KEEP LOOKING FOR THE SOURCE. Neutron nuclear DEW devices is my contribution.
"Leslie Robertson"
Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "He said "steel" in one talk but later said he couldn't recall using such a term rather than "metal." It would not be surprising for someone to inadvertently use the word "steel" when referring to the debris at a steel structured building rather than "metal." Robertson nevertheless is not a metallurgist and, again, one cannot assay the metallic composition of molten metal by sight alone, and he was reporting what others had told him."
The reason for the limited-hangout into nano-thermite is that it obtains its oxygen from the reaction with steel, leaving iron as a by-product. Iron is metal, but is no longer steel although similar in so many ways.
Interesting that you shoot down Robertson's credentials as not being a metallurgist when you later essentially say it wouldn't matter whether he was or wasn't, because the reports came from others. Pretty tacky.
In summary, this was started from Part of #9: "100's of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN STEEL ignored by the Commission report." To which Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Because it was irrelevant."
It was not irrelevant, because it is a piece of evidence that needs to be addressed, even with the lame diesel-tanks.
//
x65 Maxwell C. Bridges : it was a fantasy to assume that you even read it
2014-01-30
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "I can't debunk fantasy."
Exactly, which is why you didn't comment on Mr. Morales posting, because it was determined to be fantasy.
And the reason you didn't make any informed comment on my posting was because it was a fantasy to assume that you even read it.
Put me on block, Ms. Keoki, because then you won't be tempted into starting flame wars.
//
x66 Maxwell C. Bridges : Monty Python style contradictions
2014-01-30
Ms. Keoki George wrote: "No, Maxwell, you post fantasy. I can't debunk anything that you can make up on a whim, without support."
Put up, or STFU, Ms. Keoki. Such are the rules of this forum.
"Members shall be expected to make their own arguments and points and not rely on citing other videos and links, though members may cite supporting links to back up claims made in a debate or thread."
Your problem, Ms. Keoki, is that your arguments consist of Monty Python style contradictions and belittling.
Mr. Morales and I are in agreement that the WTC had under-rubble fires that burned for many weeks. I proved via the meteorite (google "9/11 meteorite") that heats were intense, such that metal was fused with concrete and whatnot. Lacking any substantiation of diesel fires under the rubble, what fantasy do you propose maintained them?
//
x67 Maxwell C. Bridges : comment after comment that don't say much and are off-topic
2014-01-30
Interesting spamming of the forum, I must say, Ms. Keoki George.
By that I mean that Mr. Ron Morales posted 5 hours ago a valient attempt to explain away evidence as irrelevant. But then shortly after Mr. Dan Plesse and I post informed rebuttals, you are "Georgie-on-the-spot" in making comment after comment that don't say much and are off-topic, so that the meat of the discussion quickly scrolls out of view and is forgotten.
Bravo! I enjoy your work.
I still encourage you to put me on block.
//
x68 Maxwell C. Bridges : turn VERTICAL wall assemblies into "steel doobies"
2014-01-30
No, Mr. Morales, you demonstrate that a building falling DOWN can turn VERTICAL wall assemblies into "steel doobies". No, they are not a strawman; they were a bonus question for Keoki. Secondly, you have been running out the clock on venturing even the lamest of explanations.
You should research the arches a bit more. Their bends were smooth, which the pressure you allude to would not create. End-to-end heat would have been required, and if we assume your "diesel/office furnishing" fuel sources, it would have to be heated for quite some time. And even then, you provide the evidence that "diesel/office furnishing" fuel sources from an oxygen starved under-rubble location could even get steel hot enough to achieve that.
Let's see temperatures for your fuel sources, temperatures required in the steel, time it would take your fuel sources to heat the metal, etc.
I've already said what I think accomplished it and I substantiate it. My nuclear sources being many orders of magnitude hotter than yours could have heated all of that anomalous steel end-to-end in fractions of a second to the point where, yes, just the weight of the pulverized remains on top would have bent them.
As per the "Super Bowl" teams playing and the running joke on what each of their states legalized, maybe you should go and smoke a "real doobie" to gain insight into the "steel doobies" before answering.
//
x69 Maxwell C. Bridges : velocity-squared term in the energy equation
2014-01-30
Yes, there was an unexplained flash from multiple angles when the 2nd plane impacted. Yes, the plane did appear to have something affixed to its under-belly that other experts have at one point explained was a pod for remote control.
Regarding the plane seemingly not meeting any resistance when hitting the towers.
I used to be all over this one as evidence that the plane crash was faked (by pixels on the telly). NO MORE.
Two things brought me around. One was the video that used 3D modeling of most of the videos of the 2nd plane and verified that they were not only consistent with one another, but with two sets of radar data.
The second thing(s) were the Sandia F-4 video and the Mythbuster's rocket-sled-into-car video. What they brought home was the massive energy available to the equation through the velocity-squared term when the velocity is huge (>500 mph).
In fact, its energy is much greater than the structural energy of the aircraft.
Plus, according to Newton, energy is equal and opposite. So while the steel wall exerted tremendous energy against the structure of the aircraft to decimate it into nothingness (very similar to the two mentioned videos), the decimating plane also exerted energy on the wall assemblies to decimate them.
I should also mention that I googled slow motion videos of bullets hitting various objects, like steel plates. Bullets have comparative velocities to that of the airplane.
Here's what struck my attention. The lead bullet was comparatively very maluable compared to the steel plate. When the bullet hit the plate, it actually smattered into tiny fragments that mostly flung off in all directions on the impact side. However, the bullet transferred its energy into the steel breaking bonds. What came out the other side was a "plug of steel" roughly the diameter of the bullet.
To summarize, that velocity-squared term in the energy equation when velocities are very large is not to be under-estimated in the recipricol damage to bullet (plane) and steel plate (external wall assembly with window slits). The seeming disappearance of the plane into the towers without resistance no longer surprises me.
What surprises me is that the plane could fly such speeds with such accuracy at such low elevations.
//
x70 Maxwell C. Bridges : point, question or argument was not addressed within the allowed time frame
2014-01-30
On January 27 at 12:44 pm (72 hours or more ago), the following was posted. This is Rule #8 "good faith effort to remind the other side that their point, question or argument was not addressed within the allowed time frame and that the points will be conceded within 48 hours if they are not addressed."
- Please explain the horseshoe and arch beams under your beliefs of no bombs whatsoever, nuclear or otherwise.
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQC5LScG5mXt3MYJ&w=398&h=208&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Fbent-girder_1477855i.jpg&cfs=1
- Please explain the under-rubble hot-spots burning for literally months, most of the time without oxygen.
- Please explain the toasted vehicles yet not trees, leaves, flags, and people.
- Please explain the Uranium and other trace nuclear elements in the USGS dust.
- Please explain the tritium. Why did they re-define trace/background levels? Why didn't they measure it promptly? Why didn't they measure it systematically and thoroughly?
- Please provide the reports that promptly, systematically, and thoroughly measured for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation all over the WTC and came up with each sampling being at or below trace background levels.
//
x71 Maxwell C. Bridges : Keoki's rebuttal not up to the requisite standards
2014-01-30
Part 1/2
Sorry, Ms. Keoki, your flippant response doesn't cut it, as will be dissected below.
----
- Please explain the horseshoe and arch beams under your beliefs of no bombs whatsoever, nuclear or otherwise
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsP7M-3aYJoqCGw86yOT_uzcSR9M2O-gcqbQGXwc_n0lRVDEZ6grIJA6TnvT2LBRHtBI717Y9PkOCb8W9NvsXdIdmfyYoyvFULfye_2VM5IX1LEkn6L2T-D_6Cvdqbg0Vdw31zyittx8U/s1600/DSCN0941_s.jpg
Keoki wrote: "Pressure and stress, and heat. You know, what caused the towers to collapse. Please google Sherman's Neckties"
Keoki loses points by not making her own argument, for relying on just citing links, and for not summarizing or relating its content.
Here is a quote from Wikipeidia (that I provided, not Keoki): "Sherman's neckties were a railway-destruction tactic used in the American Civil War. Named after Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army, Sherman's neckties were railway rails destroyed by heating them until they were malleable and twisting them into loops resembling neckties, often around trees."
How long do you have to heat a piece of steel until it can be bent? The answer depends on how hot the heat source is. Given that Keoki appears to be defending the OCT, then the only sources of heat were jet fuel and office furnishings. The official reports state that the jet fuel had largely burned off within the first 10 minutes, leaving therefore only office furnishings (and Ron Morales unsupported claim of diesel fuel) fires to explain it.
How can heat from office furnishing fires be great enough to bend steel?
Bonus question: Normally, a wall assembly consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. All three of the following images have examples of "steel doobies." None were found under the rubble, ergo neither under-rubble fires nor pressure from the pile were working on them to deform them.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s320/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
Thus, how were the "steel doobies" created if no nukes or bombs were used?
----
- Please explain the under-rubble hot-spots burning for literally months, most of the time without oxygen.
Keoki wrote: "who says that there wasn't oxygen? Its wasn't as if the debris pile was completely sealed off. Please google Underground fires and Centralia, Pennsylvania"
First of all, Keoki needs to read more closely: "most of the time without oxygen." How quickly can a fire in a mostly enclosed space consume its oxgyen and smother itself?
Secondly, the rules state that Keoki must provide words and understanding to support her position, not just telling an opponent to google something. More points lost.
I did google what she asked. Mines are dug with numerous extra air shafts precisely so that fresh air can be delivered to workers underground. Thus, the Centralia, Pennsylvania mine fire is a lame strawman that involves unlimited oxygen and unlimited coal. It does not apply the under-rubble fires at the WTC that had both limited supplies of air and limited supplies of combustible content.
----
- Please explain the Uranium and other trace nuclear elements in the USGS dust.
Keoki wrote: "None were found."
Because Ms. Keoki speaks with such definitive authority on the matter as more a hypnotic suggestion, we're entitled to call her what she is: ~~LIAR~~.
Whereas Paul Lioy Report lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U).
https://archive.org/details/CharacterizationOfTheDustsmokeAerosolThatSettledEastOfTheWorldTrade_552
"The United States Geological Survey (USGS) report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance. ... The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products." From Jeff Prager's "Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis"
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html
//
Part 2/2 in trashing Keoki's rebuttal as not up to the requisite standards.
----
- Please explain the tritium. Why did they re-define trace/background levels? Why didn't they measure it promptly? Why didn't they measure it systematically and thoroughly?
Keoki wrote: "The tritium as explained by Jeffrey? That is found in most emergency devices like neon signs (exit signs), and self powered lighting that pretty much littered the entire WTC complex?"
I don't know who "Jeffry" is, and this could be another example of Keoki letting slip on purpose private information.
In any event, what Keoki writes is wrong. Tritium was never attributed to being in neon exit signs. No. It was attributed to being in aircraft exit signs, some weapon's gun sights, and time piees. And the report that does this had many errors and a stilted scope.
The report in question is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center"
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf
"Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as ~~possible~~ sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights"
The report was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. It re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
Keoki did not address these questions: Why did they re-define trace/background levels? Why didn't they measure it promptly? Why didn't they measure it systematically and thoroughly?
Thus, Keoki fails again.
----
Please provide the reports that promptly, systematically, and thoroughly measured for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation all over the WTC and came up with each sampling being at or below trace background levels.
Keoki wrote: "your last question is pure fantasy and unrealistic to answer."
This is a very clever hypnotic suggestion.
For vastly different reasons, I agree that this is unrealistic. I believe that such a report exists, because this would have been standard operating procedure. But owing to the report's actual findings being unsupportive of the OCT and probably an inability to juke "trace/background levels" and/or actual measurements into acceptable levels (unlike with the Tritium Report), it will be a very long time before it sees the light of day.
However, if the OCT was as they described it, such a report would have no anomalies and could have been made public a decade ago.
But as it stands, without such a report that documents conclusively no radiation, then all hypnotic statements about "there being no radiation" are unsubstantiated bullshit.
Yes, bullshit, because even the stilted Lioy report states:
"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."
Before Keoki cherry picks this, here are known issues with their techniques:
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces. Radiation from a neutron device would dissipate within 24-48 hours.
Because Keoki (a) lied, (b) used a strawman, (c)_ didn't put her own explanation around a google reference she made, and (d) didn't research the true sources for Uranium, tritium, and other radiation, the 48 hour clock for an accurate and sourced rebuttal remains in effect before she forfeits the debate.
//
x72 Ron Morales : they aren't trained metallurgists
2014-01-30
"The key phrase is "some of them (may have) interpreted." Mr. Morales is making his own interpretation of their testimony. Given that fire fighters undergo lots of ongoing training in the area of fires and building materials and that they might even have hobbies that involve metal working and welding, Mr. Morales himself is making faulty assumptions about the validity of fire fighter observations. "
Maxwell, firefighters are trained to fight fires and rescue people. They aren't trained metallurgists nor are they trained to assay the metallic composition of metal by sight alone. Your suggestion that some of them "might" have welding hobbies is unsupported speculation and hence irrelevant. So since the only "expertise" ever cited of theirs is fire fighting, they are not relevant experts regarding assaying the metallic composition of molten material.
"Most welders and foundry workers aren't metallurgist either, but that doesn't mean they can't tell the difference between metals even when red hot or molten."
Can they? Prove it. But since not one of the people cited who claimed that what they saw was molten steel was a foundry worker, your point here is irrelevant.
" Fire fighters went through extensive training"
To fight fires and rescue. Not to assay the metallic composition of molten material by sight alone. If I'm wrong, please proving support for the contention that fire fighters are trained to assay the metallic composition of molten material by sight alone. Can you? How often are fire fighters exposed to molten metal at all in their professions?
"each year they continue their education into types of fires and building construction; who's to say what additional hobbies they might have that involves heat and metals."
Unsubstantiated speculation and hence irrelevant.
"Mr. Morales faulty rationalization is disproven by evidence. Type into Google "9/11 meteorite". How did this occur?"
Pressure. The potential gravitational energy of each Tower was equivalent to over 1/4 KILOTON of high explosives. That's a lot of pressure. Can you prove that steel melted in that so-called "meteorite?" If you can't, then you have provided no "disproof."
"According to Mr. Morales, if you aren't a meallurgists, you don't know what hot molten metal looks like even if it would run like liquid down steel rails and trickle onto your boots and burn a hole in your foot. "
Right, because molten metals can look very similar. If you don't know that, then you aren't qualified to assay molten metal either.
"The two bigger issue for Mr. Morales OPINION are these two accidental acknowledgements: (1) "There were under the rubble fires" and (2) "the rubble fires... burned for months.""
Nothing accidental about them. I addressed them directly.
"The only fires that the OCT admits were from jet fuel and office furnishings some 80 or 90 stories in the air"
Wrong. There were well known debris fires afterwards. Why else do you think that approximately 3 million gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris after 9/11? You think they were watering their plants?
cont.
"which would have put them (if they survived the gravity-driven pile-driver) under 30 or 20 stories of smothering debris. Therefore, how was it even possible for this to happen UNDER all the rubble."
The fires were extensive and falling burning debris fell and started fires in other buildings. There's no reason to suppose that the falling burning debris couldn't have started fires in the debris itself.
"Secondly, jet fuel and office furnishing fires require oxygen from air to burn, which would have been in short supply under the smothering rubble and certainly would have been exhausted after days, let alone months."
Unsubstantiated speculation. Your point makes little sense anyway. How are you aware of witnesses claiming to see molten metal? Obviously because witnesses saw molten metal. This molten metal was seen in the basements. If there were holes in the debris big enough for human beings to work their way to where the molten metal was, then obviously there were holes big enough for oxygen to get in. The molten metal obviously wasn't hermetically sealed. Since there were holes big enough for people to make their way down and thus big enough for air to get down there, then the fires would burn as long as there was fuel. Landfill fires and coal fires have burned for far longer in ground far more impacted than the debris at WTC, so your premise is falsified by experience.
"However, if we assume just office furnishings and building content under smothering dust and debris, such fires could burn, what, like a few hours without exhausting its oxygen source?"
Nope. Again, there were eye witnesses to the molten material, and thus obviously there were hole leading up to where the molten material was big enough for human beings to get through, and thus obviously big enough for air to get through. Again, landfill fires and coal fires have survived for months and even years (in the case of coal fires) with far less access to air.
"Yes, it might have smoldered and kept burning a little bit under neath, but not to the point where it would melt one's aluminum beer can."
Can't melt an aluminum can in a camp fire huh? Funny how they were able to do that here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0rSxsDM7qs
And your notion that debris on top of an underground fire would put it out tells me that you clearly don't know about landfill fires.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lxIeeoXtE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSdMl5DZcrc
And an underground coal fire began in 1962 and still burns today. Funny how all that dirt on top of it doesn't suffocate it.
http://www.treehugger.com/.../massive-underground-coal...
"All in all, my OPINION is that Mr. Morales is mischaracterizing the testimony of the fire fighters and unfairly discrediting their experience with fires (and foundries). "
Nope. I said nothing to discredit their experience with fires. Experience with fires does not equate with experience ascertaining by sight alone the metallic composition of molten metal, so your OPINION is irrelevant and based on a false premise.
"Mr. Morales should PROVE that "the molten material could have been aluminum."
There were over two thousand tons of aluminum in the building debris, mostly from the aluminum facades of the Towers. The melting point of aluminum is 1,221°F. Fires burning building materials can reach between 1,500°F to 1,800°F
http://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1996
"Prove this contention, Mr. Morales."
OK
"On September 11th, 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel and transformer oil stored in tanks underneath the WTC site ruptured and caught fire, creating a giant underground inferno beneath the pile on which the rescue workers toiled."
http://www.911healthnow.org/.../Environmental%20Exposures...
"The only mention of diesel fuel storage playing a role was in WTC-7, and the official conclusion was that it didn't."
WRONG. The NIST report said that diesel fuel didn't contribute to the COLLAPSE of WTC7. It said nothing about whether it contributed to underground fires after 9/11.
"No where does anybody mention diesel fuel burning under the towers or contributing to the under-rubble fires (to the point of keeping them burning for weeks)."
Because the NIST reports were about the collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, not subsequent debris fires.
cont.
" No where do those same experienced fire-fighters mention smelling burning diesel fuel with regards to those molten findings."
Really? You can attest to everything they said?
First responder John Sferazo: "Since 9/11, the smell of gasoline and diesel fuel is such that I don't get out and even fuel my own vehicles. I don't even want it on my hands because of the odor.
"Mr. Morales doesn't think far enough into his diesel fuel premise. How is the burning of the diesel fuel regulated so that it could last for many weeks?"
Apparently you haven't thought far enough Maxwell. Ruptured diesel fuel tanks would saturate the debris. the debris itself provided thousands of tons of fuel. The saturation of diesel fuel would only contribute to the fires.
" If the tanks were breeched in the destruction, the tendancy of fire would be to consume as much as possible as fast as possible, like the fire-balls from the impacting jets."
Wow, you really are enamored with unsubstantiated speculation. There were thousands of tons of flammable debris in those fires, and debris fires (such as landfill fires) are notoriously hard to put out. Here's a landfill fire that burned for weeks.
http://waste360.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire
"In order for diesel fuel to burn, it requires oxygen from the air. Not only were millions of gallons of water poured on the pile from firemen (and rain), but they also poured high-tech fire-fighting chemicals on it. Had it been a diesel fire, it would have been snuffed out well before the six week mark."
Wrong. Again, the diesel fuel was only some of the fuel in that debris field. It is very difficult to put out underground or under debris fires.
"Subsurface landfill fires also, unlike a typical fire, can not be put out with water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_fire
http://waste360.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire
"Finally, when one correlates the expected location of the diesel tanks to the numerous hot-spots, one will find no such correlation."
Now you're just making crap up. Here's a diagram of hot spots. Hot spots D,G,F, A and B are all where the basements where the stored diesel fuel would have been.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/.../wtc_hotspot.key.tgif...
"Mr. Morales does a valient attempt"
I wish I could say the same for you.
"at a wild-ass explanation"
Ha! So says the guy promoting wild ass nuclear explanations laughed at even by truthers.
"Neutron nuclear DEW and nuclear fizzling remnants of the same much more easily explains"
Well, obviously you can't back up such an absurd "explanation."
Will address the rest later.
x73 Maxwell C. Bridges : the credibility of the observer as opposed to addressing what they observed
2014-01-30
Part 1 of 2
Mr. Morales, I give you credit for taking the time to make your responses. However, an ongoing theme of the regulars on this forum is to say "what was observed and given in testimony is irrelevant, because that person does not have credentials in such and such." This is the very definition of ad hominem, whereby you attack the credibility of the observer as opposed to addressing what they observed.
You don't have to work in a foundry to know what one looks like.
And if one's profession is fire-fighter, between training and real-life experiences, one has a good idea of what to expect. The issue has always been that these fire fighters observed hot-spots that were completely anomalous in nature to what they were used to and to the official explanations being given.
... And before long, a gag order came down preventing them from talking to the public or press. ... Although they gave testimonies, how long was this held back from the public? And when the official government reports are released, how much of that testimony was not included, not addressed?
Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:
"They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ... "
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm
COVER UP, plain and simple.
Mr. Morales writes: "Pressure. The potential gravitational energy of each Tower was equivalent to over 1/4 KILOTON of high explosives. That's a lot of pressure. Can you prove that steel melted in that so-called "meteorite?" If you can't, then you have provided no 'disproof.'"
Nice mis-use of science, there. The towers debris was scattered over a large area and is being used by debunkers to explain the smoldering crater in WTC-6, the leveling of WTC-3, the leveling of the main edifice of WTC-4, etc. Ergo, if there was any validity to your "potential gravitational energy of each Tower was equivalent to over 1/4 KILOTON of high explosives", it is proven inapplicable because that mass and potential energy were not directed at one spot (the meteorite.)
Mr. Morales says "molten metals can look very similar" in order to imply that trained observers were mistaken in what metals were involved, and to steer thinking that it was a lower temperature molten aluminum instead of steel. The issue remains, what was the fuel source.
Mr. Morales says I'm wrong when I wrote: "The only fires that the OCT admits were from jet fuel and office furnishings some 80 or 90 stories in the air."
He wrote: "Wrong. There were well known debris fires afterwards. Why else do you think that approximately 3 million gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris after 9/11? You think they were watering their plants?"
Debris fires composed of building content can be put out with water and chemical fire suppressants in a few days. Fires with more exotic and anomalous fuel sources, can't.
--- begin quote
For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
- Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles
From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials"
http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf
--- end quote
The above is an important quote.
//
Part 2 of 2
Mr. Morales wrote: "The fires were extensive and falling burning debris fell and started fires in other buildings. There's no reason to suppose that the falling burning debris couldn't have started fires in the debris itself."
Mr. Morales should be mor specific regarding which buildings had fires and when those fires were first reported. Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, the extent of building fires was contained within the WTC complex not neighboring Banker's Trust, etc. that should have been burning if we keep to this premise. The WTC-7 had fires and explosions before either tower came down. Likewise, the burning of WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 is something to be investigated. If the fires were so extensive in the towers as implied and still flaming amist the smothering dust of the decimation, much more would have been torched.
I wrote: "jet fuel and office furnishing fires require oxygen from air to burn, which would have been in short supply under the smothering rubble and certainly would have been exhausted after days, let alone months."
Mr. Morales says: "Unsubstantiated speculation."
Because Mr. Morales will get burned if he tries to argue that jet fuel and office furnishing fires require oxygen from air to burn, I therefore assume that his denying comment relates to air being in short supply under the smothering rubble.
Mr. Morales then goes on to frame it as: "witnesses saw molten metal... in the basements. If there were holes in the debris big enough for human beings to work their way to where the molten metal was, then obviously there were holes big enough for oxygen to get in."
I agree for that particular hotspot, but there were many hot-spots, and they weren't all with gaping holes to fuel them with fresh oxygen.
Mr. Morales provides evidence of land-fill and coal mine fires, where obviously pathways for the air exist in those instances to keep the fire going. I agree that pathways for air existed in the WTC debris files. My point is that had they been building content fires, limitations in the air flow would have them smolder and not burn as hot as they were reported for as long.
Mr. Morales writes: "There were over two thousand tons of aluminum in the building debris, mostly from the aluminum facades of the Towers. The melting point of aluminum is 1,221°F. Fires burning building materials can reach between 1,500°F to 1,800°F"
Under ideal conditions, which the WTC under-rubble fires were not.
I give Mr. Morales kudos for finding this gem: "On September 11th, 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel and transformer oil stored in tanks underneath the WTC site ruptured and caught fire, creating a giant underground inferno beneath the pile on which the rescue workers toiled."
http://www.911healthnow.org/911healthnow/The_9_11_Health_Crisis_files/Environmental%20Exposures%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
I'm going to dismiss it as disinformation. It has only one source. Try to find a reference to this giant underground inferno caused by diesel fuel and transformer oil prior to about 2010, and you'll come up short.
I wrote: "The only mention of diesel fuel storage playing a role was in WTC-7, and the official conclusion was that it didn't."
Mr. Morales wrote: "WRONG. The NIST report said that diesel fuel didn't contribute to the COLLAPSE of WTC7. It said nothing about whether it contributed to underground fires after 9/11."
Exactly. And you could bet that if NIST would have determined that diesel fuel contributed to the underground fires, they would have written about it and substantiated. This is why I deem that the underground diesel fires as disinformation.
I wrote: "No where does anybody mention diesel fuel burning under the towers or contributing to the under-rubble fires (to the point of keeping them burning for weeks)."
Mr. Morales wrote: "Because the NIST reports were about the collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, not subsequent debris fires."
Which is a glaring weakness in those reports, proving them a cover-up.
I again give Mr. Morales kudos for the quotes from John Sferazo about the stench of diesel fuel.
Still, I maintain that the under-rubble fires were not as Mr. Morales suggests: the result of ruptured diesel fuel tanks saturating the debris. Why? Because of the nature of the smoke steaming off of the pile, the nature of the fire fighting efforts, the nature of the debris pile, and the duration of the hot-spots.
//
x74 Maxwell C. Bridges : otherwise you might have a point
2014-01-30
I wrote: " Yes, the plane did appear to have something affixed to its under-belly"
Mr. Morales jokes: "It's called "landing gear." Planes usually have it to avoid crashing when they land."
Har, har. Too bad the picture does not show the landing gear deployed, otherwise you might have a point.
What I was referring to on the under-belly of the plane was part of the controversy from years ago known as "pods on planes." The pictures of this aircraft, particularly from underneath, show a pod extending a significant length of the aircraft on the fuselage.
I wrote: "Yes, there was an unexplained flash from multiple angles when the 2nd plane impacted"
Mr. Morales wrote: "No. It's been explained. It was an expected result from high impact of the aluminum nose cone."
No. The flash is offset from the nose cone. My recollection is that it happens a frame or two before the nose cone touches.
Back in the day when I was promoting "pods on planes", the theory was that the pod was either a missile launcher or laser, ergo the the flash. A laser might still be on order. In fact Dr. Steven Jones speculated that his famous super duper nano-thermite, if sprayed on, might well be ignited by a laser. Whether or not true, I no longer believe that it could have ignited such thermite in time to help the plane enter the building like a road-runner cartoon due to the fact that its ignition and burning would have been too slow.
(Also, I am now a firmer believer in physics and the power of velocity-squared in the energy equation. When velocity is great ~500 mph, the energy is much greater than the materials in the airplane, causing it to decimate and shred into the wall.)
//
x75 Baz Yat : critical mass
2014-02-01
Baz Yat 6:49pm Jan 31
When it comes to nuclear weapons, you need something called 'critical mass' - meaning you need either a lump of nuclear material above a certain size, or you need to use large amounts of precisely-detonated explosives to compress a hollow sub-critical mass above a certain density.
A nuclear weapon above critical mass would have levelled a good wedge of Manhattan. The explosives required to compress a sub-critical mass would have blown large chunks of the towers to fragments. This is completely regardless of ANY and ALL 'DEW' or 'Neutron' side-effects; simple blast pressure would have created huge craters simply from the physics of the weapons involved.
Ergo, no nuclear weapons were used as a) manhattan is intact and b) only a limited number of weapons were used and the WTC towers weren't blone to flinders.
I have no numbers on this as they're probably classified, I will admit, this is all educated guesswork. I will delete this if it's not acceptable to throw in an argument like this.
Baz Yat 6:52pm Jan 31
And perhaps I exaggerated with 'massive heat'. Hot enough to soften, but not melt, steel. That's pretty massive heat to me, but... I start to go crispy at around 150 Celsius.
x76 Ron Morales : how does molten steel at the top of the towers end up below the debris piles?
2014-02-02
"Such a lovely strawman that Mr. Morales builds."
Not a strawman Maxwell. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the term before you misuse it again. I was responding to those arguing that thermite took down the Towers, whether or not you believe in such a thing.
"If Mr. Morales assumes that thermite was used at the top of the towers, why does he all of a sudden assume that thermite wouldn't be everywhere THROUGHOUT the towers including the basement? In for a penny, in for a pound in destroying the towers."
I assumed nothing. The Towers obviously and visibly started collapsing from the top down. If thermite initiated the collapses, then obviously there would have been thermite at the top of the towers melting and severing the steel. But the molten material was observed in the basements. How does molten steel at the top of the Towers end up BELOW the debris piles? I won't repeat my further demonstration that thermite couldn't have been the source of that molten material since you apparently don't believe in thermite anyway, but rather some nonexistent magical nuclear death rays or some such silliness.
cont.
12 hours ago
"Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "And that molten material could not have been molten steel because molten steel produces massive explosions when in contact with even a small amount of water. However, millions of gallons of water fell on the WTC debris pile during this time and yet there were no reports of massive explosions."
Does it really explode? I would assume that it would just turn the water instantly into steam."
Once again Maxwell your amateur speculation is belied by reality. Yes, it does explode, as you would have discovered if you had bothered to do five minutes of Internet research, and it explodes violently. Here's one case in point:
"The major cause of explosions is the entrapment of liquid, water or moisture beneath the surface of molten metal. When this occurs, hot particles of molten metal become finely dispersed in water or moisture and instantaneously turn to steam or vapor. The rapid heat transfer from the hot particles to the water can cause a violent explosion. Water, the most common cause of molten metal explosions, expands to 1,600 times its original volume."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/21+ways+to+avoid+molten+metal+explosions%3A+a+proper+safety+plan+for...-a0233126304
and here's one case in point:
"45 kg molten steel of 1560 C dropped into 295 l water. By calculation only 16 l water evaporated, but the explosion that occurred had the effect of about 5.4 kg TNT. Cratering and explosive devastation were observed, and up to 53 m away brick walls were affected; more than 6000 windows were broken."
http://docs6.chomikuj.pl/508686962,PL,0,0,Review-on-the-Assessment-of-Safety-and-Risks.pdf
For context, here is video of 5 kilos of TNT exploding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhTiRYwJqHY
And this discusses the risks of explosions when water contacts molten metals
http://www.hse.gov.uk/moltenmetals/safetyalerts.htm
Here is a video of the explosive effects of some idiot throwing a bottle of water into molten steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oeuSQXU26k
Here is another video of an explosion from molten steel coming into contact with water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_HvLvcTMUQ
"Molten steel isn't the same thing as hot oil"
No shit. It's only A LOT HOTTER. Why don't you study such matters before wasting time with your amateur speculation Maxwell?
Since molten steel coming into contact with even a small amount of water causes huge explosions, then if that was molten steel under there at the WTC, there would have been huge explosions from coming into contact with some of the millions of gallons of water that fell on it. But there weren't. No huge explosions means no molten steel.
"I think that some wide definitions of "molten material" are at play, here. One definition would suggest a liquid form."
Uhm, that's what "molten" means. When a metal reaches its melting point, it starts to turn fluid. The fluid metal is then called "molten."
"mol•ten
?mo-ltn/
adjective
1. 1.
(esp. of materials with a high melting point, such as metal and glass) liquefied by heat."
https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=molten+definition
" Another definition would be "red hot" such that it could be almost bent and formed."
Nope. That's not molten. Steel becomes red at temperatures that occur well within normal building fires, but that doesn't make it molten, as you can see from this chart.
http://www.sweethaven.com/sweethaven/BldgConst/Welding/lessonmain.asp?lesNum=2&modNum=3
Steel, like metals in general, loses 50% of its strength at about 60% of its melting point. At that point it would be red and more pliable, but not molten. Seriously, are you going to bother researching anything before you repeat such nonsense?
cont.
"The salient point is that fire fighters described certain underground WTC areas from the early days as being like a foundry. "
It was like a foundry because there were fires creating molten material. That doesn't make it steel though.
"And it is political weasel-wording and plausible deniability. "
Saying you are not aware of any witness reports of molten steel is not "weasel-wording." It's stating a fact. If he wasn't aware of such, what exactly would he say? He's supposed to take the word of some looney truther in the audience?
"Reports would imply something written and published. "
Nope. A report could just be spoken.
"Ergo, given that they controlled exactly such official reports, slow-walked them, suppressed them, juked them, then certainly Mr. Gross uttered no lies. He was unaware of such (published) reports."
Nonsense. Obviously not all reports came from NIST. You yourself are relying on reports of fire fighters at the scene.
"An office fire that was oxygen starved and waning as was evident by the black sooty smoke could not reach that high end. "
First of all, the fires at the tops of the Towers were not oxygen starved. There were those matters of jetliner sized holes in the sides of the buildings providing more than enough oxygen to feed those fires. Black sooty smoke does not necessarily mean oxygen starved. Black soot could come from either the burning of hydrocarbon or other fuels that have not been fully exhausted. The notion of black smoke equating with oxygen starved is just one of the many ignorant myths coming out of the truther movement.
Nevertheless, the "swiss cheese" likely didn't come from the fires prior to collapse but from being exposed to weeks of under the debris fires and high concentrations of sulfur dioxide from the burning of diesel fuel and dry wall.
"As for thermite, nuclear heat wave, or nuclear fizzle, which presumably would all be very hot, you can achieve the estimated 1800 F degrees for the Swiss cheese corroded metal by increasing the distance from the heat source."
Or such temperatures could just be caused by normal office debris fires and so we don't have to bother speculating about silly fantasies like thermite or nuclear weapons.
" Neutron nuclear DEW devices is my contribution."
I though you were asking for science literate explanations? This is just nonsense fantasy.
"Interesting that you shoot down Robertson's credentials as not being a metallurgist when you later essentially say it wouldn't matter whether he was or wasn't, because the reports came from others. Pretty tacky."
What's "tacky" and disingenuous is trying to put words in my mouth. I never tried to shoot down Mr. Robertson's credentials. He's a structural engineer and a good one, but not a metallurgist, and he later said that he didn't recall saying "steel" which makes reference to his reference irrelevant.
"It was not irrelevant, because it is a piece of evidence that needs to be addressed, even with the lame diesel-tanks."
Nope. Speculation by amateurs about something about which they have no expertise is not evidence. Speculation is not evidence.
" an ongoing theme of the regulars on this forum is to say "what was observed and given in testimony is irrelevant, because that person does not have credentials in such and such." "
You didn't cite testimony. "Testimony" refers to statements made under oath, not snippets from television interviews.
"This is the very definition of ad hominem, whereby you attack the credibility of the observer as opposed to addressing what they observed."
That's not an ad hominem Maxwell. You should probably look the term up if you are going to use it. An ad hominem is a fallacious diversion from an argument by attacking the person making the argument, which is logically irrelevant because it doesn't address the weight of the argument itself, and instead tries to change the subject. However, by citing what fire fighters said you are not presenting any argument from them. You are merely citing what they said as evidence that what they said is true. That puts their credibility as witnesses at issue. By your reasoning every time an attorney questions the reliability of a witness he's engaging in an ad hominem. But that's nonsense. Since you are merely citing what they thought they saw as evidence that what they described was as they described it, then the relevant question becomes how did they know it was steel? Obviously they did no testing of it. If those reports were actually made in court any half decent opposing attorney would object that the fire fighters were speculating and ask what basis the fire fighters would have for calling it "steel" rather than some undetermined molten substance. Since the fire fighters are not metallurgists (or at least no one has provided any evidence any of them were) and many molten metals and materials look similar depending on the temperature, the fire fighter accounts could only be assessed as unjustified speculation. A witness can only testify to what they literally saw or what they are expert in. All that would be admissible in a court would be that the fire fighters saw molten material, unless a fire fighter could demonstrate that he was an expert in assaying the metallic composition of molten material by sight alone (which would be an amazing skill since the assaying of metal usually requires often expense electron microspopy).
Since neither you nor anyone else has ever cited any evidence that any of those firefighters had any expertise in assaying the metallic composition of molten material by sight alone, then your citing them as "evidence" is the very definition of an appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.
"You don't have to work in a foundry to know what one looks like."
Really? Can you prove that you can assay the metallic composition of molten material by sight alone? Go ahead and try (which I doubt you will), because I already know the answer: No.
"And if one's profession is fire-fighter, between training and real-life experiences, one has a good idea of what to expect. "
They are trained in fire fighting, rescue, and perhaps giving immediate medical attention, not in metallurgy of discerning the metallic composition of molten metal, particularly when fire fighters don't often come across pools of molten metal. I believe I asked you for evidence that fire fighters are trained to assay the metallic composition of molten material by sight alone. Not surprisingly you came up with nothing.
"The issue has always been that these fire fighters observed hot-spots that were completely anomalous in nature to what they were used to and to the official explanations being given."
None of these fire fighters had ever been exposed to fires and collapsing buildings remotely on this scale. Can you provide evidence that these fire fighters encountered no hot spots from fires before? I doubt it.
" Although they gave testimonies"
No they didn't. Testimony is in court or under oath. I'm not saying they lied. I believe they saw molten material. But if they made such claims of "steel" in court, they would have been asked for the basis of their assessment of the nature of what they saw.
Imagine a witness say he saw Jones drinking a glass of vodka. How would he know it was vodka? Vodka is a clear liquid and Jones could have been drinking water. If the witness admits that he just assumed it was vodka (maybe Jones is an alcoholic on the wagon and liked vodka and the witness just assumed that it was vodka), then the reference to "vodka" would have been objected to by a decent attorney and it would have been stricken from the record as unfounded speculation. Same with any reference to molten "steel" made by non-experts.
cont.
"Mr. Morales writes: "Pressure. The potential gravitational energy of each Tower was equivalent to over 1/4 KILOTON of high explosives. That's a lot of pressure. Can you prove that steel melted in that so-called "meteorite?" If you can't, then you have provided no 'disproof.'"
Nice mis-use of science, there. The towers debris was scattered over a large area and is being used by debunkers to explain the smoldering crater in WTC-6, the leveling of WTC-3, the leveling of the main edifice of WTC-4, etc. Ergo, if there was any validity to your "potential gravitational energy of each Tower was equivalent to over 1/4 KILOTON of high explosives", it is proven inapplicable because that mass and potential energy were not directed at one spot (the meteorite.)"
Nice misunderstanding of the data involved, as well as a failure of logic. There was a massive amount of mass involved. Most of the mass went straight down with gravity crushing and pulverizing other mass on the way down. Anyone actually watching the collapses could see that. That was a massive amount of kinetic energy being produced. Just because a fraction of that mass falling to the sides of the building were sufficient to destroy local buildings does not mean that there was no mass to crush other material straight downward. Obviously since the mass falling straight down was much more than the debris falling to the sides, then the mass falling straight down would have produced more straight down kinetic energy than that which destroyed local buildings. If only 10% of the kinetic energy was diverted to the sides towards side buildings, the energy of that would have been equivalent to 28 TONS of TNT. You don't think that 28 tons of TNT could destroy or severely damage buildings? Imagine what 9 times that much could do.
"Mr. Morales says "molten metals can look very similar" in order to imply that trained observers were mistaken in what metals were involved"
Once again Maxwell erroneously and without any evidentiary basis assumes that the fire fighters were trained in assaying the metal composition of observed molten material. Once again Maxwell is engaging in a blatant appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.
", and to steer thinking that it was a lower temperature molten aluminum instead of steel. The issue remains, what was the fuel source."
Already stated and Maxwell not surprisingly ignores. Office debris and thousands of gallons of diesel fuel were sufficient to feed under the debris fires.
"Mr. Morales says I'm wrong when I wrote: "The only fires that the OCT admits were from jet fuel and office furnishings some 80 or 90 stories in the air."
"Debris fires composed of building content can be put out with water and chemical fire suppressants in a few days. "
Once again Maxwell simply ignores sources that I provide to contradict his wild speculation and instead hopes everyone trust his amateur postulations. As I've already supported, underground and under debris fires are notoriously hard to put out. Landfill fires have similarly burned for weeks and coal fires have burned for decades. No "exotic" material required. Maxwell provides absolutely no evidence nor authority to support his amateur speculation that the WTC fires could have been put out within a few days.
"For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts."
And as I pointed out and Maxwell once again simply ignores, it wouldn't have been the first time underground or under debris fires burned for weeks and were notoriously hard to put out. Are landfill fires generated by magical nuclear death rays or thermite?
"- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings."
That's supposed to be impressive? Landfill fires have burned for weeks with several feet of compacted dirt on top of them.
"- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile."
And as I pointed out (with support, which Maxwell rarely uses) and Maxwell AGAIN simply ignored, it is extremely difficult to put out underground fires with water. Often impossible.
"- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles "
Chemical fire suppressants have been used on landfill fires and they STILL burned. You think they hadn't used chemical fire suppressants on those underground coal fires that have burned for DECADES? You think those fires in 50 years ever had rainfall on them?
"Mr. Morales should be mor specific regarding which buildings had fires and when those fires were first reported."
Uhm, the Twin Towers had massive fires before they collapsed. Surprised Maxwell didn't notice.
" Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, the extent of building fires was contained within the WTC complex not neighboring Banker's Trust, etc. that should have been burning if we keep to this premise."
Why would it have necessarily started a fire in The Deutsche Bank Building (the actual name of the building)? Just because falling burning debris started fires in some local buildings doesn't mean it had to have started some in the Deutsche Bank Building. What kind of bizarre argument is this?
" The WTC-7 had fires and explosions before either tower came down. "
No it didn't. Once again Maxwell doesn't know what he's talking about. The fires at WTC7 happened as a result of the collapse of WTC1. There were burning cars around Wtc7 AFTER the North Tower's collapse, and fires weren't even visible at WTC7 until noon. And there's no good evidence that there were explosions at the WTC7. Though even if there were, explosions wouldn't be surprising in a burning building housing over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel.
"If the fires were so extensive in the towers as implied and still flaming amist the smothering dust of the decimation, much more would have been torched."
More unsubstantiated, amateur speculation. What basis does Maxwell have to provide such analysis of the nature of fires?
I therefore assume that his denying comment relates to air being in short supply under the smothering rubble. "
Obviously, as well as Maxwell's claim that the oxygen would have been quickly exhausted, even though there were apparently holes in the debris big enough to allow human beings to get down there and witness the molten material. So human beings can make their way down there but oxygen can't? That is just laughable.
"I agree for that particular hotspot, but there were many hot-spots, and they weren't all with gaping holes to fuel them with fresh oxygen."
Again, hot spots and fires have occurred in landfills with much more compacted earth over them and yet they seem to have been able to find oxygen. And we were talking about observations of molten material. If someone could observe them, then obviously oxygen could get to what was being observed.
" My point is that had they been building content fires, limitations in the air flow would have them smolder and not burn as hot as they were reported for as long."
More amateur speculation contradicted by the fact that landfill fires with much more restricted access to oxygen have burned for weeks before.
"Under ideal conditions, which the WTC under-rubble fires were not."
More unsubstantiated, amateur speculation, and hence worthless. It would be nice if just ONCE Maxwell would provide actual evidence or some kind or relevant authority to back up his wild, amateur speculation of how he thinks fires should operate.
"I'm going to dismiss it as disinformation."
Of course Maxwell is going to dismiss evidence that undercuts his wild fantasies as "disinformation." That's what truthers do when they are exposed to reality that contradicts their fantasies.
"Exactly. And you could bet that if NIST would have determined that diesel fuel contributed to the underground fires, they would have written about it and substantiated."
Maxwell simply ignores my point addressing this specific claim and just repeats himself. NIST was tasked with assessing the collapse mechanisms of the Towers and WTC7. They weren't tasked with discussing fires that burned under the debris after the buildings collapsed, so there's absolutely no reason why they should have discussed it. More unsubstantiated speculation by Maxwell.
"This is why I deem that the underground diesel fires as disinformation."
The real reason is that truthers often dismiss facts and information that contradicts their absurd theories and what theyw ant to believe.
"Mr. Morales wrote: "Because the NIST reports were about the collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, not subsequent debris fires."
Which is a glaring weakness in those reports, proving them a cover-up."
Given that the reports were about the collapses of the buildings and not fires afterwards in the debris, then that proves that NIST was precisely addressing what they were tasked to address and not waste time and resources on irrelevant events after the collapses. Maxwell again doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Still, I maintain that the under-rubble fires were not as Mr. Morales suggests: the result of ruptured diesel fuel tanks saturating the debris. Why? Because of the nature of the smoke steaming off of the pile, the nature of the fire fighting efforts, the nature of the debris pile, and the duration of the hot-spots."
This is not an argument nor evidence. It's just hand waving speculation by an amateur who seems to like to speculate about things he doesn't understand.
x77 Maxwell C. Bridges : reeks like a cover-up
2014-02-03
Part 1/4
Dear Mr. Morales,
Kudos to your six postings during Super Bowl XLVIII, a much better use of your time even if the game had been competitive.
This short rebuttal is based on the assumption that Mr. Morales defends the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and heavily leveraged by the Bush Administration to enact the plans that the neo-con's had outlined in 1999 in their PNAC (Project for a New American Century) document "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
If the OCT wasn't fiction, then how come at every twist and turn it reeks like a cover-up? When Mr. Morales starts making excuses for the OCT, the problems only get worse.
He writes: "The Towers obviously and visibly started collapsing from the top down. If thermite initiated the collapses, then obviously there would have been thermite at the top of the towers melting and severing the steel. But the molten material was observed in the basements. How does molten steel at the top of the Towers end up BELOW the debris piles? I won't repeat my further demonstration that thermite couldn't have been the source of that molten material since you apparently don't believe in thermite anyway, but rather some nonexistent magical nuclear death rays or some such silliness."
Let's take thermite out of this picture and repeat his question assuming office furnishing fires at levels 80 and 90: "How does molten steel at the top of the Towers end up BELOW the debris piles?" Mr. Morales appears to be admitting that "molten steel" was visible at the top of the towers, which fires from office furnishings can't really account for. Even if we change the premise to "molten aluminum" being visible falling out from the top of the towers prior to their decimation, fires from office furnishings still have difficulty accounting for it. The question remains how these really hot fires seemingly weren't snuffed in the decimation and found themselves below everything and under the rubble burning away?
Mr. Morales doesn't question NIST in its WTC-1/2 analysis that had its scope limited to the INITIATION OF THE TOWERS' DECIMATION. Why doesn't Mr. Morales acknowledge that this by itself is proof of a cover-up?
Neither pan-cakes nor pile-drivers acting under gravity alone are capable (a) pulverizing lower-portions of the tower, (b) throwing vast amounts of debris laterally, and (c)_ passing through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration. This defies physics and explains why the NIST report was scope limited to the initiation, so they wouldn't have to speculate into where the extra energy came from to pulverize content and structure just ahead of the pan-cakes or pile-drivers in order to allow them to continue falling without resistance at near gravitational acceleration.
Until Mr. Morales and his cast of regulars deviate from the OCT and acknowledges that extra energy was added, he taints everything else that he writes.
In previous postings, Mr. Morales makes a big issue of underground storage tanks for diesel fuel. He said that these were the reasons for the under-rubble fires that burned for months.
I do not doubt the existence of such storage tanks or that they could have played a role in the under-rubble fires (although Mr. Morales hasn't explained how they could have caught on fire under the OCT premise.) I question the voracity of this diesel fuel argument, because had it been true, it would have been discussed in the public domain since 2002. The 9/11TM would have taken this up as a nugget of truth and championed it much sooner. Instead, my googling on the matter first brings it out as an echo-chamber talking point in 2010.
Unregulated diesel fires have very dark smoke. Spilt fuel is consumed quickly, as exhibited by the jet fuel fireballs of the airplanes. When the smoldering remains at the WTC are viewed a week or two later, very little about it suggests an uncontrolled diesel fire.
Mr. Morales wrote: "First of all, the fires at the tops of the Towers were not oxygen starved. There were those matters of jetliner sized holes in the sides of the buildings providing more than enough oxygen to feed those fires. Black sooty smoke does not necessarily mean oxygen starved. Black soot could come from either the burning of hydrocarbon or other fuels that have not been fully exhausted. The notion of black smoke equating with oxygen starved is just one of the many ignorant myths coming out of the truther movement."
One of the towers (WTC-2) got to the point where it had comparatively little smoke coming out of it. The combustible materials had been consumed. The fires were waning. The first fire-fighters on the scene radioed what it would take to know the two pockets of fires down.
The other tower (WTC-1) was billowing much darker black smoke. The black soot is an indication of incomplete burning of the materials, which then reflects back on the relative heat of the fire.
Mr. Morales speculates: "Nevertheless, the 'swiss cheese' likely didn't come from the fires prior to collapse but from being exposed to weeks of under the debris fires and high concentrations of sulfur dioxide from the burning of diesel fuel and dry wall."
My understanding is that the hot-spots didn't migrate significantly, as would be expected by diesel fuel fire consuming dry wall (and office furnishings). "Weeks" is a very long time.
Mr. Morales referenced at one point "9/11: Anatomy of an Environmental Disaster World Trade Center Dust" and this passage: "On September 11th [2001], 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel and transformer oil stored in tanks underneath the WTC site ruptured and caught fire, creating a giant underground inferno beneath the pile on which the rescue workers toiled. These fires burned and smoldered until late into January 2002, releasing vast amounts of toxic chemicals and petroleum emissions."
http://www.911healthnow.org/911healthnow/The_9_11_Health_Crisis_files/Environmental%20Exposures%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
As near as I can tell, it came into existence on 9/11/2010. Most of the PDF can probably be accepted at face value except for the artistic license that attributes "giant underground inferno" to diesel fuel and transformer oil.
"Diesel fuel is not easy to set on fire. It has to have a good wick, or be vaporized to be quickly set on fire. You can put out a match in a pool of diesel fuel, but you wouldn't want to drop a match into a tank that holds it, as enough may have evaporated to cause it to ignite. It is not as volitile as gasoline."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_diesel_easy_to_set_on_fire
//
Part 2/4
How fires got from "above" to "below" and to igniting the pooled diesel fuel, Mr. Morales doesn't speculate, but let's stick with this premise for the sake of discussion.
Neither the report nor Mr. Morales specifies how many tanks there were, where they were located, or what the proportions were of diesel fuel and transformer oil. For the sake of discussion, let's assume it was ~all~ diesel fuel. (Similiar calculations can be performed for transformer oil and then for combinations of the two. They won't change the findings significantly.)
200,000 gallons = 757,082 liters
density of diesel = 850 grams/liter
757,082 liters => 673,730 kg
Using a 0.045 [kg/[[m^2]-sec] of mass loss rate for diesel fuel in open fire conditions from http://code.google.com/p/fds-smv/issues/detail?id=2000 . Loss rate is dependent on surface area, which we'll call X in square meters. What is the burn time?
Burn Time = ( fuel / area) [kg/m^2] / (burn rate [kg/[m^2]-sec]])
Burn Time = (673,730 [kg] / X [m^2]) / (0.045 [kg/[m^2]-sec]])
Burn Time = (14,971,777 / X) [sec] = (4,158.8 / X) [hours]
X=1 square meter => Burn Time = 173 days
X=10 square meters => Burn Time = 17.3 days
X=100 square meters => Burn Time = 1.73 days
The events of 9/11 implied an uncontrolled rupture of the diesel fuel tanks. Many hot-spots were produced whose combined surface area was how many square meters? Let's conservatively assume between 10 and 100 square meters.
The point of this math is that even 200,000 gallons of diesel cannot easily explain several under-rubble hot-spots lasting four weeks or more.
Yes, other things in the rubble would have added to the available fuel, assuming that air for combustion under the rubble was not a limiting factor. How long can a steel building burn on a fire fueled by office furnishings? Here's a good example Paraphrased from Wikipedia: "The Windsor Tower was gutted by a huge fire on 02/12/2005... Firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it." Gutted means that all combustible office furnishes were consumed.
In the aftermath of WTC, the entirety of the WTC-1/2 footprints were not a hot-spot. Nor would the entire contents of each building have been available to burn in each's respective hot-spots. Under ideal conditions, how long could buildings' contents have lengthen the burn time from the alleged diesel fuel fires? Let's be generous and say 3-5 days. The total is still short of the observed hot-spot duration that had active fire-fighting techniques deployed to quench.
Mr. Morales wrote: "Already stated and Maxwell not surprisingly ignores. Office debris and thousands of gallons of diesel fuel were sufficient to feed under the debris fires."
Not ignored. Second sentence is true, but not for the observed duration of the hot-spots. Fuel would have been spent. Plus, let's re-iterate:
+++ begin quote
For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles.
+++ end quote
Landfill fires have only limited applicability to 9/11. It can be guestimated the types, quantities, and distribution of materials to be expected at the WTC that could contribute to hot-spots (if limiting thinking to the OCT). A landfill doesn't have such predictability.
I wrote: "... to the best of my knowledge, the extent of building fires was contained within the WTC complex not neighboring Banker's Trust, etc. that should have been burning if we keep to this premise."
Mr. Morales replied: "Why would it have necessarily started a fire in The Deutsche Bank Building (the actual name of the building)? Just because falling burning debris started fires in some local buildings doesn't mean it had to have started some in the Deutsche Bank Building. What kind of bizarre argument is this?"
To the best of my knowledge, fires were not started in any non-WTC buildings or pedestrian cross-overs. Yet according to the OCT, falling flaming debris caused car fires along West Broadway, in car parks, and other places not that close. One would think that the carpeting alone in those other buildings would have been brought them into flames.
I wrote: "The WTC-7 had fires and explosions before either tower came down."
Mr. Morales spouts a hynotic suggestion: "No it didn't. Once again Maxwell doesn't know what he's talking about. The fires at WTC7 happened as a result of the collapse of WTC1."
No, Mr. Morales doesn't know what he's talking about. The fires in WTC-7 happened (allegedly) as a result of flaming aircraft parts hitting the building after being expelled from WTC-1. Please review the testimony of Mr. Barry Jennings and Mr. Hess with regards to explosions in WTC-7 that happened at around 9:30 am, prior to either tower getting decimated.
Consider this INFRACTION #1.
//
Part 3/4
Mr. Morales continues: "There were burning cars around Wtc7 AFTER the North Tower's collapse, ..."
Agreed.
Mr. Morales continues: "... and fires weren't even visible at WTC7 until noon. And there's no good evidence that there were explosions at the WTC7."
Wrong twice in row. Again, refer to the Jennings/Hess testimonies.
Consider this INFRACTION #2.
Mr. Morales continues: "Though even if there were, explosions wouldn't be surprising in a burning building housing over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel."
Except that the NIST reports had to reluctantly admit that WTC-7's storage of diesel fuel played no significant role in WTC-7's demise.
Mr. Morales continues: "More unsubstantiated, amateur speculation. What basis does Maxwell have ..."
Ah, yes. How embarrassing for "amateur" Mr. Morales that he isn't familiar with all of the evidence.
Mr. Morales continues: "The real reason is that truthers often dismiss facts and information that contradicts their absurd theories and what theyw ant to believe."
Mr. Morales wrote: "Because the NIST reports were about the collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, not subsequent debris fires."
I replied: "Which is a glaring weakness in those reports, proving them a cover-up."
Mr. Morales comes back with: "Given that the reports were about the collapses of the buildings and not fires afterwards in the debris, then that proves that NIST was precisely addressing what they were tasked to address and not waste time and resources on irrelevant events after the collapses. Maxwell again doesn't know what he's talking about."
Wrong again. The NIST reports were not "about the collapses of the buildings". They were scope limited to "the INITIATION of the collapses of the buildings." They did not discuss energy requirements for pulverization; they did not discuss meaningfully why the collapses were near gravitational acceleration; they did not discuss debris being ejected; they did not discuss the demolition wave down the face of the towers preceding the destruction.
Fire investigators were not allowed to investigate.
Consider this INFRACTION #3. Third time is a charm in pointing out your hypnotic assertions that are so wrong, they verge on being lies. Purposeful and all that jazz...
//
Part 4/4
And after all of this time, has Mr. Morales addressed the "steel doobies"? Nope. First brought to his attention on January 28, 2013. Then again on January 30, 2013 (for Keoki's and your benefit.)
An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. A "steel doobie" is one of these wall assemblies rolled up around the beams with bent spandrels acting like bands around a cigar.
Here's a hint. One of them rested against a building on Liberty Street and was augered into the ground a little bit. In order for this to have been possible, the steel doobie had to be rolled at some point in time prior to hitting the ground.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_gTXU5ZcbXg_4ru2h5Hx6ONEStLtl727iGSri2Od6SjpUC-mSG5Z5nQ7M_6DdcKJTLEHxLTE6DKKjd8-9LlQfbIMYJU1XdukUGBlOO8hY1a6CneVApCNbxKb4HIweelIudtTgpYAEIW0/s320/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKJA40-wxwydEMPyDJ1xJwqeTpGrksxFO4f9XThIOUPDU5t4h_IIAXKx-Pa5_nywKBcnReVMxr8gvbrUr3honETaUK9KQSH9YQdad0GluQPVX2rU0coPwypc5FZNIpnpACt3AGYCBnfM/s320/LibertyDoobies.png
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/5320.jpg
Please, explain to me how downward-acting gravity managed to apply horizontal forces on these vertical assemblies to get the steel doobies to roll up (and wilt its ends in last picture).
According to my count and allow for the weekend and all, you're past the 72 hour mark, got your notification thereof, and are well into the last 48 hours. Chop Chop.
My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground.
//
x78 Maxwell C. Bridges : clock has run out
2014-02-05
As per Rule #8, the clock has run out for Ron Morales, Keoki George, and Elizabeth Tague to explain how gravity-driven pile-drivers accounts for various pieces of evidence, such as the "steel doobies".
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
Not only do they cede the point that their OCT can't explain the above, but they ultimately end up ceding the neutron nuclear argument.
They haven't addressed all [*] points from the original posting. And when valient attempts at addressing some of them were made (by Mr. Morales), they were countered by me. The clock has run out on the counter-to-the-counter.
Neutron nuclear DEW remains very much a viable theory to explain what happened at the WTC on 9/11.
To make my victory more complete, here is a new-found document from 1980 by Michael A. Aquino, PhD on "The Neutron Bomb." My work was arrived at independently, but has striking parallels to how things were in 1980.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111026110252/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
+++ begin quote
What is the neutron bomb? Descrbed most simply, it is a thermonuclear device which kills by "enhanced radiation" (ER), i.e. a relatively more deadly emission of radiation during the initial detonation of the warhead.
The advantages of such a warhead are twofold: It is theorectically a clean nuclear weapon, and it is theoretically a surgical nuclear weapons.
As a clean nuclear device which does not contaminate the areas around the target with residual radiation or fallout, the neutron bomb could be used to kill or incapacitate a large attack formation of enemy soldiers, whether on foot or in armored vehicles. Minutes after the detonation, friendly forces could enter the target area without risk to themselves - something quite impossible in a situation in which old-style "dirty" tactical nuclear warheads were used.
The second advantage of the neutron warheads is also related to the limitations of their effects. Since the bomb kills with a single burst of radiation, and since the size of that burst of radiation can be controlled, field commanders could use the wapon under conditions containing restrictions on "collateral damage", i.e. the incidental effects of a nuclear explosion on nearby population centers and/or structures. This controlled-burst aspect of the neutron bomb is hereafter referred to as its surgical characteristic.
The term "thermonuclear" refers to bombs incorporating the fusion principle, as opposed to the fission principle of Hiroshima-style atomic bombs.
... [F]usion bombs employ ... the heavier isotopes of hydrogen ..., known respectively as deuterium and tritium. Since tritium in particular is expensive and highly radioactive, it is generally stored in warheads as lithium-6 - a less-expensive and non-radioactive substance that is converted to tritium when the fusion process begins.
...
An ideal tactical nuclear weapon, therefore, would minimize the blast and residual radiation effects and enhance initial radiation effects. Thus its application would be primarily antiforce and not anticity. As it was originally conceived, the neutron bomb was intended to meet this requirement by incorporating the following characteristics:
- Its neutron emission would be enhanced to a level sufficient to penetrate all armor or built-up structures in a predetermined area, sparing only persons in cellars or A-bomb-type shelters.
- Its blast and heat effects would be substantially less than those of normal atomic weapon of equivalent power.
- Residual radiation would be elimininated or at least greatly reduced.
- The size of its neutron emission could be controlled precisely enough to enable it to be used surgically against targets of varying size such as troop formations, enemy supply centers, etc.
- The neutron emission would have the practical capacity to neutralize (i.e. destory all life in) an area larger than that of a non-nuclear weapon of equal weight.
- The non-thermonuclear effects of a neutron warhead could possible enable it to be regarded as a weapon whose use would not be subject to the Presidential-level controls of existing tactical nuclear weapons.
- The neutron bomb's development and production costs would be competitive with those of comparable tactical nuclear and conventional warheads.
+++ end quote
The above is talking about a "neutron warhead" to be used in the theatre of war, which has different application goals than that of 9/11. Between tweaking the neutron emission and aiming it away (DEW), a different type of surgical nuclear weapon could be achieved.
Since the publication of the above document, Star Wars happened, which became SDI and other names. Much money was invested into research, most of it classified.
//
++++ Rule #8 https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/635782343132241/
8. In the interests of preventing individuals from endlessly dodging points, questions and arguments, members have 72 hours (not counting weekends) to reply to a point, question or argument. If there is not an attempt to answer a point, question or argument within 72 hours, then participants may then make good faith efforts to remind the other side that their point, question or argument was not addressed within the allowed time frame and that the points will be conceded within 48 hours if they are not addressed. If the other side still declines to answer the point, question or argument, then the person or side initially making the point, question or argument will have the right to declare such points conceded or, in the case of a question, unanswerable by the opposing side. This can include a request to substantiate a claim made by an opponent. Within the context of the time frame and the good faith efforts to get someone to substantiate a contentious claim, if the person making the claim still declines to substantiate the initial claim, the initial claim will be considered null, void, and effectively waived.
x79 Matthew Barancho : one wall-of-text after another
2014-02-06
Good Lord, we seem to have one wall-of-text after another from Maxwell Bridges. He's going to be pretty embarrassed about all of this once he finally decides to open his mind a bit more.
Simply put:
- There is no evidence such a weapon at the alleged scale was ever in existence at the time of 9/11.
- There is no evidence that such a weapon has ever been tested at this scale.
- There is no evidence that such a weapon was physically installed.
- Due to the vulnerable "open office space" (OOS) design of the Towers, it was completely unnecessary to have employed such risky, cutting-edge technology.
- Tritium levels are mostly accounted for by police gun-sights and other tritium-containing materials that were destroyed in the attacks (e.g. emergency exit signs, tritium watches, etc.). See here: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xq88667.pdf At 55 times "normal" background levels, this measured quantity is still generally low and not of any outstanding significance.
- The collapse progression mechanism implied by this theory does not account for observed ejections below the collapse front in both Towers, nor many of the other observable features of collapse.
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'Mini-nukes' of any kind and 'DEW variations' are both extraordinary claims without a consistent narrative to be upheld.
x80 Maxwell C. Bridges : yep, I've shredded that report
2014-02-06
Part 1/2
Dear Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "Good Lord, we seem to have one wall-of-text after another from Maxwell Bridges."
Good Lord, Mr. Barancho! Got a problem with well researched, well sourced, well written substantiation to my premises? Or is your problem with tackling them point by point? Admittedly, Facebook is a piss-pour forum to have such a technical discussion, even more so when the page is moderator and controlled by others.
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "He's going to be pretty embarrassed about all of this once he finally decides to open his mind a bit more."
Or vice versa. I suggest you do a little bit more reading, like into the posting above and into my blog.
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- There is no evidence such a weapon at the alleged scale was ever in existence at the time of 9/11."
And what exactly would you consider evidence of such? This is a rather disingenuous argument. Ever hear the phrases "classified" and "ways and means"? The USA was/is torturing prisoners and would not even comment on the techniques deployed under the dubious argument that this would "aid the enemy" and was giving away their "classified ways and means" despite the fact that literally hundreds of prisoners could independently testify and collaborate what techniques were used.
Would you know it if a neutron nuclear DEW device were deployed elsewhere in the world? One of the chief military tenants of modern warfare is to control the media, control the message. I can think of a couple surgical strikes elsewhere in the world as well as OKC that could fall into this category. (And the same clowns who gave us the debunked pancake theory johnny-on-the-spot were also the same clowns who wrote the reports and controlled the message from OKC that had the world believing a manure Ryder truck bomb did it.)
If you'd read my "wall-of-text" from yesterday (February 5) beginning with "As per Rule #8..." and then followed its reference links, neutron bombs in deployed warheads was a done-deal in the 1970's. You don't think hundreds of billions invested into Star Wars and SDI could have tweaked that some in 20 years?
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- There is no evidence that such a weapon has ever been tested at this scale."
So? As if the public knows the extent and nature of every single nuclear test in Nevada. "At this scale?" Dude, each device was rather tactical in nature with a blast radius less than half the width of the WTC. Not too hard to conceal in a massive, restricted testing ground.
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- There is no evidence that such a weapon was physically installed."
There's no evidence that super-duper nano-thermite and a laundry list of chemical based explosives and incendiaries were physically installed, either. But we know from Newton that only extra energy can account for the decimation of the towers, which is why the energy source is being sought and speculated about. (NT and its helpers comes up short in addressing all the evidence.)
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- Due to the vulnerable 'open office space' (OOS) design of the Towers, it was completely unnecessary to have employed such risky, cutting-edge technology."
Nonsense on many levels. Everything that could be contemplated had risk. You imply the devices were never tested before hand, despite many decades of classified research in nuclear weapons. You imply that "cutting-edge technology" is always bad, always unreliable, and never tested. Poor arguments.
As for the "open office space", the center core area where the elevators were was not.
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- Tritium levels are mostly accounted for by police gun-sights and other tritium-containing materials that were destroyed in the attacks (e.g. emergency exit signs, tritium watches, etc.). See here: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xq88667.pdf At 55 times "normal" background levels, this measured quantity is still generally low and not of any outstanding significance."
Yep, I've shredded that report here:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x10
It was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. Re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
In short, that tritium report achieved its goals of ~SPECULATING~ into possible sources of tritium haphazardly measured at a few far-flung WTC drainage locations as coming from building content, but they didn't do so conclusively. This report in no way can serve as the final, authoritative word on what tritium was present.
//
Part 2/2
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- The collapse progression mechanism implied by this theory does not account for observed ejections below the collapse front in both Towers, nor many of the other observable features of collapse."
What are you talking about? You certainly aren't referencing my neutron nuclear devices that did not act alone and likely had conventional explosives to assist and as back-up.
Mr. Matthew Barancho wrote: "- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'Mini-nukes' of any kind and 'DEW variations' are both extraordinary claims without a consistent narrative to be upheld."
Nonsense. I'm not promoting "mini-nukes", because this frames it inappropriately in many regards. I'm promoting neutron devices. Neutron bombs have been operational since the 1970's, because they were being put into warheads. Excalibur was part of SDI and documented more than just working theories about how radiation and side-effects from nuclear detonations could be controlled and targeted. The thesis from 1980 presented in my last "wall-of-text" posting also documents this.
Contrary to your hypnotic suggestion, a consistent narrative does exist to uphold the neutron nuclear DEW which -- strange as it may sound -- actually gets fortified and substantiated by the GLARING OMISSIONS OF MENTIONING NEUTRON "ANYTHING" by even leaders of the 9/11TM (at least one with PhD's in nuclear physics) in their faulty debunking of 9/11 nuclear considerations.
But you call for "extraordinary evidence"? I must have been reading your mind with my last "wall-of-text" posting -- that you obviously didn't read and didn't even look at the pictures, one of which is displayed as a preview -- because the "steel doobies" certainly qualifies as one such.
Obviously, the gravity-driven pile-drivers can't explain it, otherwise the regulars here would have attempted it.
However, chemical-based explosives and incendiaries (including nano-thermite) can't explain the steel doobies either. Why?
Such explosives (catch-all term for any combination of all of the above) -- if used as primary mechanism for the sake of this discussion -- would have been placed in more strategic places, like at the bolts that connect the wall assemblies with one another. The wall assemblies were three stories high. Why and how were the spandrel pieces heated to the point where they were easily bendable? What heat source was present in the destruction that could EXTREMELY RAPIDLY heat them without ripping them apart or cutting them? Based on their locations on-top-off the debris pile or next to adjacent buildings (augered into the ground), the doobies were created before they hit the ground.
My premise is that the tactical heat wave from a neutron DEW would have been ~many~ orders of magnitude hotter than "explosives/incendiaries" to allow such spandrel's at three different stories to be heated INSTANTLY into a pliable state, such that a "horizontal push" from the tactical blast against it (with one of its three beams still afixed to something else in the structure) could have the assembly wrap itself into a doobie.
//
x81 Maxwell C. Bridges : validated descriptions of their actions and truthful character assessments
Dear Ms. Keoki George,
I don't even know why you're commenting under my article. Based on your dismissive attitude towards me, you should have blocked me long ago whereby you would never have known that I made further comments here.
Be that as it may, your ~TWO~ cry-baby tattle-tale postings to Mr. RM and Ms. ET are excellent examples of you obstructing, spamming, and not debating in good faith. Are you incapable of editing the first comment with the tags to the names you forgot after hitting "enter"? Why two comments? Because they spam and push meaty comments out of view on purpose. (It's a mis-use of the forum.)
Secondly, when substantiation is provided for when a participant makes a statement contrary to fact or to their previous statements, or when they avoid the points, calling them "liar" and/or "weasel" become VALIDATED descriptions of their actions and truthful character assessments. (It is only when substantiation isn't provided that quick-draw calling someone a "liar" and/or "weasel" ventures into the realm of ad hominem.)
My postings from January 28 at 3:32pm and January 30 at 2:58pm have substantiated examples of Ms. Keoki ~lying~. The ~TWO~ postings in a row to the same thread with almost the same wording substantiate "cry-baby tattle-tale" and "spamming" accusations against Ms. Keoki. I have yet to see a thoughtful explanation into how the "steel doobies" came into existence despite my bringing it several times and to her attention, so such "weasel" actions need to be called out for what they are.
Furthermore, Ms. ET on January 28 at 1:17am in this very thread gave an order to ignore me.
Mr. Keoki, why don't you follow that advice? Ignore me. Block me. You have neither the chops, nor the facts, nor the science, nor the underlying 9/11 premise to take me on, anyway. Stay out of my face, cry-baby. And yes, "STFU" on my thread if you aren't going to debate in good faith and address rationally my points.
//
x82 Keoki George : you are making spam up as you go along
2014-02-06
Keoki George "nice strawman that you set up. "
He didn't set up a strawman (which proves you don't know what you are talking about)
"I don't have to prove there was significant levels of radioactive debris, "
actually, YOU do. Your claim, the onus is on you to prove it.
about an hour ago · Like · 1
Keoki George "(a) the design of my neutron device doesn't leave significant levels of such"
care to provide your expertise in designing neutron bombs?
seeing as every neutron bomb created DOES leave behind radioactive debris, I'm sure that nations across the world would love to pay for YOUR design.
about an hour ago · Like
Keoki George "(b) the published reports on radioactivity did not measure things promptly or thoroughly"
which proves that you don't know what you are talking about.
about an hour ago · Like
Keoki George "You obviously aren't reading things. "
Its obvious you are making stuff up as you go along.
about an hour ago · Like
Keoki George "And if you are, your avoidance of the issues that I bring up (e.g., the steel doobies), combined with your strawman argumentation on other things that we've already covered, is becoming rather glaring. '
Since he isn't creating a strawman (ask you to prove YOUR theories is not a strawman) you show that you don't know what you are talking about.
about an hour ago · Like
Keoki George "Sure, I'll be able claim -- and have claimed -- VICTORY BY DEFAULT, but that is a small matter compared to the combined efforts of you all that undermine the credibility of this entire discussion group."
which proves you are here not to debate, but spam your theories and dismiss outright anyone who calls you out on them.
x83 Maxwell C. Bridges : run interference
Ms. Keoki Geoge's job is to run interference here, not to debate with rational arguments. Particularly when inconvenient facts about 9/11 are being pointed out, she'll do what she can to obstruct and to gorde an opponent into calling her a name, which she'll immediately tattle-tale to the moderators as an infraction on the rules in an attempt to get them banned. Control the message and win-at-any-cost.
Case in point, why did Ms. Keoki George just SPAM the comments of my thread with SIX in row with an average length of two sentences? If she forgot to add something (or press enter by mistake), she could have edited the first comment.
Because Facebook has a two or three comment preview limit when this page is first visited by readers. Six in a row pushes up and separates the salient points from others.
Ms. Keoki starts with a lie: "[Mr. Morales] didn't set up a strawman (which proves you don't know what you are talking about)."
A strawman "is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of the topic of argument."
Mr. Morales' strawman (and that of most of the participants in 9/11 Debates) is essentially "nukes are nukes and all have the exact same side-effects in the exact same measure." Mr. Morales and the regulars of this forum always want to paint my neutron nuclear DEW with the same brush as "mini-nukes."
I wrote: "I don't have to prove there was significant levels of radioactive debris, "
Ms. Keoki countered: "actually, YOU do. Your claim, the onus is on you to prove it."
Actually, I do ~not~, because:
(a) The original context of the discussion was Mr. Morales' *cough* ~lie~ that "there was no radiation." The onus was on him to prove that there was no radiation on 9/11. And I said that I would accept as proof a published report that systematically and thoroughly measured radiation IN A TIMELY FASHION from all over the WTC and conclusively documented all measurements at or below trace/background levels without juking the definition of such in the process, as was done with tritium.
(b) The nature of my neutron nuclear DEW by its very design would not leave lingering levels of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation, thus you'd get zippo if not measured promotely. I pre-empt findings of the Lioy report that did measure for such radiation DAYS TOO LATE and from a tiny set of samples all taken only to the East of the WTC. Nowhere in my arguments do I promote proof of conventional radiation as one of the pillars of my nuclear premise, as it would be the case if I were advocating Mr. Morales' strawman of mini-nukes.
I wrote: "the design of my neutron device doesn't leave significant levels of such."
Ms. Keoki writes: "care to provide your expertise in designing neutron bombs?"
Does my expertise matter when it is spelled out in a 1980 paper by a PhD? When relevant unclassified information can be found in quickly by Google in far-flung internet repositories for the pieces to be pulled together?
Ms. Keoki writes: "seeing as every neutron bomb created DOES leave behind radioactive debris, I'm sure that nations across the world would love to pay for YOUR design."
Seeing how Ms. Keoki knows so much about neutron devices, she should qualify the amounts and nature of the radioactive debris they would leave behind. She fails if she doesn't provide her sources. Why? Ms. Keoki has a proven track record of deceit in her debating skills. We can bet that she'll leave out any information that is inconvenient to her agenda.
I wrote a verifiable statement of fact and have provided links to the sources many times: "The published reports on radioactivity did not measure things promptly or thoroughly."
Ms. Keoki counters with: "which proves that you don't know what you are talking about."
Very convincing. (Not.)
Because I find myself copying-and-pasting my own words to address another carousel spin, I wrote to Mr. Morales: "You obviously aren't reading things."
Ms. Keoki counters: "Its obvious you are making stuff up as you go along."
This is called "projecting your own weaknesses onto your opponent."
I continued to Mr. Morales: "And if you are [reading things], your avoidance of the issues that I bring up (e.g., the steel doobies), combined with your strawman argumentation on other things that we've already covered, is becoming rather glaring."
Ms. Keoki tries to defend Mr. Morales: "Since he isn't creating a strawman (ask you to prove YOUR theories is not a strawman) you show that you don't know what you are talking about."
Mal-framing my nuclear devices into his pre-conceived notions about what nukes are was the straw man. Mr. Morales uttered the ~lie~ that there was no radiation. The tables have been turned in asking repeatedly for him to prove his contention about no radiation.
When I'm stating that my nuclear devices are comparatively clean in terms of their radioactive fall out, it becomes yet another strawman for me to prove that there was radiation. Regardless, I can still prove there was radiation: tritium.
I wrote: "Sure, I'll be able claim -- and have claimed -- VICTORY BY DEFAULT, but that is a small matter compared to the combined efforts of you all that undermine the credibility of this entire discussion group."
Ms. Keoki writes: "which proves you are here not to debate, but spam your theories and dismiss outright anyone who calls you out on them."
Gee, my "wall-of-text" multi-part postings that address my opponents' arguments point-by-point runs a bit counter to the claim that I am not here to debate.
As for spamming accusations, again Ms. Keoki projects her weaknesses onto me, as is proven by the SIX comments from her directly in front of this comment that themselves have been shredded by this.
"Steel Doobies" Ms. Keoki? You've run out the clock.
Please run along and SPAM someone else's thread. You contribute nothing worthwhile to the debate and only undermine the credibility of those you run with.
//
x84 Maxwell C. Bridges : private message: consider my complaints about spamming
2014-02-06
Mr. Morales, I ought to have the right to have you fairly consider my complaints that Ms. Keoki has been spamming my thread, hasn't contributed worthwhile content, has been provoking participants all over your forum (e.g., baiting them to call her JUSTIFIED names), and has been caught telling ~LIES~ on more than one occasion.
I ought to have the right to have you fairly enforce your own rules, because her baiting comments also ventured into the personal:
"... you don't know what you are talking about."
"... you are making stuff up as you go along."
Or how about this beauty from January 27 at 12:57pm and the second posting in this thread: "I suggest that you READ rule #5 until you have it memorized, {redacted}..ooops sorry... 'maxwell'."
Can't get any more personal than outing them against their consent, now can you? Mr. Morales, you still haven't required her to fix it or delete it.
Because Ms. George doesn't understand what spamming it, you should spell it out. One of the definitions should be:
"SPAMMING is more than two successive comments in a row to the same thread in a short span of time, such as less than 24 hours apart. The exception is when successive comments are multiple parts of a detailed response that limitations of Facebook necessitated being broken apart."
//
x85 Maxwell C. Bridges : spamming is more than two successive comments in a row to the same thread in a short span of time
2014-02-06
Mr. Morales writes:
"And repeated posts to a thread is not per se spamming."
I disagree and ask you to reconsider my partial definition as worthy to be applied to the group, for reasons which I will provide.
"SPAMMING is submitting more than two successive comments in a row to the same thread in a short span of time, such as less than 24 hours apart. The exception is when successive comments are multiple parts of a detailed response that limitations of Facebook necessitated being broken apart."
Reason #1. When a reader visits the 9/11 Debates page, discussions with lots of comments get truncaded to the last three or four. When a SPAMMER posts several comments in a row in a short span of time that weren't necessitated by limitations to posting length, the dubious effect is to push other people's comments off and into the "View previous comments" realm. It is a dubious tactic to control the top-level view.
Reason #2. When Facebook notifications are turned on and when a discussion is being followed (e.g., "liked"), individual emails are generated for each and every comment no matter how short or long. Successive comments in a row comes can indeed have the effect of SPAM to the inboxes of email programs on computers and mobile devices.
Reason #3. Multiple short comments in a row without any give-or-take from other opponents inbetween takes on the appearance of hasty, knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip, gotta-be-first, SPAMMING reactions that is antithetic to well-thought out, reasoned discourse and debate. Participants should be encourage to write off-list in an editor (e.g., Notepad, Word) that permit more efficient wordsmithing, doesn't insert accidental "Enter" keystrokes to publish a comment prematurely, and allows the author to save their words locally.
Ms. George claimed that long comments were spam. Not true. They only generate one email notification to those following the discussion. To those reading the blog, lengthy comments get compressed by "See More" links to only the first several lines, making them easier to skip over if appropriate. Individual lengthy comments do not unfairly push neighoring comments into the "View previous comments" realm.
//
x86 Ron Morales : Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is wrong once again
2014-02-06
"If the OCT wasn't fiction, then how come at every twist and turn it reeks like a cover-up? "
Maxwell's amateur, unfounded suspicions and desires for there to be a conspiracy do constitute evidence of anything other than that conspiracy theorists like Maxwell would really like there to be a conspiracy.
"Mr. Morales appears to be admitting that "molten steel" was visible at the top of the towers"
Nope. Never did. Maxwell needs to read posts he's responding to more carefully. I was critiquing the hypothesis that the molten material observed in the basements were from thermite melting steel which allegedly cacused the collapses. Critiquing a hypothesis doesn't require one to believe that any part of the hypothesis were true.
" Even if we change the premise to "molten aluminum" being visible falling out from the top of the towers prior to their decimation, fires from office furnishings still have difficulty accounting for it."
Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is wrong once again. Aluminum melts at 1,221°F.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=melting+point+of+aluminum
Building fires can reach 1500-1800°F.
http://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1996
Thus, the office fires in the Towers could easily have reached temperatures sufficient to melt aluminum.
"The question remains how these really hot fires seemingly weren't snuffed in the decimation and found themselves below everything and under the rubble burning away?"
All that would be necessary would be for fires to begin in the debris from the massive buildings falling down.
Fact: There were storage tanks with tens if not hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the basements and lower sections of the buildings.
Fact: the potential gravitational energy of each building was equivalent to approximately 280 tons of TNT.
So the collapse could have caused fires in a number of ways. The massive pressure of the collapses could have caused the sealed tanks to explode, spraying aerosolized diesel fuel through the falling debris. Heat from the pressure of the collapses could have ignited that fuel. Molten aluminum could have ignited it. Sparks from clashing steel and metals could have ignited it. Sparks from friction from steel can reach 2500°F, etc.
http://ehs.unl.edu/sop/s-hazards_flam_gases_liq_aeros_risk_min.pdf
After that, normal office debris could have fueled the fires. Maxwell, like countless truthers before him, appears enamored with the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. He doesn't understand it, therefore it couldn't have happened. That's obviously illogical and can be dismissed out of hand as such.
cont.
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales doesn't question NIST in its WTC-1/2 analysis that had its scope limited to the INITIATION OF THE TOWERS' DECIMATION. Why doesn't Mr. Morales acknowledge that this by itself is proof of a cover-up? "
Regarding WTC7, NIST did give a full account of the collapse. Regarding the Towers, given that gravity was sufficient to cause the buildings to fully collapse once the collapses began (see Verinage collapses), the only significant point to research was what caused the top sections of the buildings to begin to fall. After that, NIST acknowledged that accounting for the precise and complete way the buildings collapsed would have been impossible given the countless unknown variables that would have occurred in the chaos of the collapse. That's just logical and thus no need for speculation of "cover-up", except in the minds of amateur conspiracy mongers desperate to find conspiracy everywhere.
"Neither pan-cakes nor pile-drivers acting under gravity alone are capable (a) pulverizing lower-portions of the tower"
Again, Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is wrong, since we know this occurs with Verinage collapses.
"(b) throwing vast amounts of debris laterally"
More than enough potential gravitational energy to do this, as I've already explicated and Maxwell simply ignored. Again Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation conflicts with reality.
" passing through the path of greatest resistance"
Straight down is where gravity pulls things. In what other direction are things supposed to fall? Again, Verinage collapses fall straight down in precisely the same way. Again, Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation conflicts with reality.
"at near gravitational acceleration. "
Which is a myth as I've already pointed out and Maxwell simply ignored. Apparently Maxwell's fantasies don't just require bad logic, crap science, and sheer ignorance of reality. It also requires his repeating demonstrably false myths made up by truthers who apparently don't know how to watch a video of the collapses with a timer.
"This defies physics"
Truthers just LOVE this silly, unsubstantiated shibboleth. It's an emotionally satisfying mantra to them, like carrying a stuffed tiger and believing that it will protect them. Unfortunately not a single one of them can remotely support it.
" and explains why the NIST report was scope limited to the initiation, so they wouldn't have to speculate into where the extra energy came from to pulverize content and structure just ahead of the pan-cakes or pile-drivers"
There's obviously no serious evidence that any concrete was pulverized ahead of the collapse wave. Again, potential gravitational energy equivalent to 280 TONS of high explosives would have been more than enough to pulverize concrete.
"in order to allow them to continue falling without resistance at near gravitational acceleration."
Obviously there was resistance and obviously the collapses were nowhere near gravitational acceleration. Once again Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation doesn't know what he's talking about. First of all Maxwell is contradicting himself. If there were NO resistance as he claims, then the collapses would have been at gravitational acceleration, not "near" gravitational acceleration.
Second, note the following video of the North Tower collapse. The collapse begins at the one second mark. If there were no resistance, gravitational acceleration would have put the roofline on the ground in 9.22 seconds, and the collapse wave (which began several floors beneath the roofline) would have reached the ground in less than 9 seconds. However, freeze the video at 11 seconds into it, or 10 seconds into the collapse. If Maxwell is correct, the collapse wave should have reached the ground by then. But it hasn't. It's still above the top of the 47 floor Solomon building in the foreground to our left. And the core is still standing 30 seconds into the collapse! So much for Maxwell's "no resistance" and "near gravitational acceleration" nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVs97TRFP1k
cont.
Ron Morales " I question the voracity of this diesel fuel argument, because had it been true, it would have been discussed in the public domain since 2002. The 9/11TM would have taken this up as a nugget of truth and championed it much sooner. Instead, my googling on the matter first brings it out as an echo-chamber talking point in 2010."
lol. Maxwell, like many truthers, seems to believe that if they can't find it online, it must not exist. Obviously this is yet another argument from personal ignorance fallacy that can be dismissed out of hand. Here's a study written in 2003 referencing the WTC debris pile's "intense fire" that "was propelled by 180,00 gallons of fuel."
http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdf
Here's an article written two months after 9/11 that talks about the various fuel sources feeding the under the rubble fires, including "reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels" in addition to massive amounts of other combustible materials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/nyregion/nation-challenged-firefighters-with-water-sweat-fighting-most-stubborn-fire.html
And again, I never said that diesel fuel was the only source of what propelled the fires. Like the fires in the towers after the plane crashes, the diesel fuel could have initiated the fires and the fires afterward could have easily been fed by normal combustible materials in office buildings.
Nevertheless, we KNOW that landfill fires have burned normal debris for weeks if not months, just like the WTC debris fire. So we know of a possible model for such fires. Does Maxwell point to a single alternative cause known to create fires that burn for weeks? No. Does Maxwell point to a single alternative cause that that is known to pulverize concrete at all, much less hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete? No. Does Maxwell point to a single alternative cause known to create pools of molten steel as he claims existed, much less ones that stayed molten for weeks? No.
What Maxwell is doing then is what countless truthers before him have done and currently do: a massive Argument from Ignorance fallacy. They point to various things they don't understand and then make a gigantic, illogical leap that somehow such strange things must support their fantasies somehow. But neither logic nor science works that way. Just because they don't understand something does not count as evidence for any particular hypothesis of theirs. It's only evidence that they don't understand something.
"One of the towers (WTC-2) got to the point where it had comparatively little smoke coming out of it. The combustible materials had been consumed."
Lol. "little" smoke huh? Once again Maxwell prefers to just make crap up. Here's video of the "little" smoke coming out of WTC-2 just prior to collapse. Funny how there's so much smoke if all the combustible materials had been burned up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2VcxDzWk4
Here's video showing smoke and visible flames coming out of WTC-2. Funny how you can have flames when all the combustible materials have been consumed already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
Here's video showing fire and a lot of smoke coming out of WTC-2 just before and during collapse (from the 16 second mark on).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOXJUgppl1w
" The first fire-fighters on the scene radioed what it would take to know the two pockets of fires down. "
Just because a fire fighter came across a smaller fire when he was going up a stairwell doesn't mean that there weren't larger fires elsewhere, particularly when the planes disbursed thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel throughout the building.
cont.
Ron Morales "The other tower (WTC-1) was billowing much darker black smoke. The black soot is an indication of incomplete burning of the materials, which then reflects back on the relative heat of the fire."
Again, Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation doesn't know what he's talking about. ONCE AGAIN (Maxwell, like so many truthers, appears to believe that if he ignores facts that have already been stated they'll conveniently go away), there could be multiple reasons for black smoke. It's not just heat (Maxwell's new theory) nor lack of oxygen (Maxwell's previous theory – notice how Maxwell conveniently changes his theories at whim when faced with reality).
Here's a refinery fire billowing not only black smoke but also gigantic balls of fire, contradicting Maxwell's fantasy that black smoke means little heat or oxygen or a dying out fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP0KbSxThQY
Here's an actual fire authority contradicting Maxwell's unsubstantiated, amateur speculation:
"As a material dries out and breaks down, the color of the smoke changes. Wood materials change to tan or brown, whereas plastics and painted/stained surfaces emit a gray smoke, as a result of the mixing of moisture and hydrocarbons (black). As materials are further heated, the smoke leaving the material eventually becomes all black. When flames touch a surface, the surface off-gases black smoke almost immediately. Therefore, the more black the smoke, the hotter the smoke. Black smoke that is high velocity and very thin (low density) is indicative of flame-pushed smoke-the fire is nearby."
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-158/issue-9/features/the-art-of-reading-smoke.html
"My understanding is that the hot-spots didn't migrate significantly"
"My understanding" translates as "Maxwell is making this up", since he has nothing better to contradict the facts I've presented. Let's see him actually back this up with facts. Nobody should risk asphyxiation by holding their breath waiting.
"as would be expected by diesel fuel fire consuming dry wall (and office furnishings). "
"would be expected" translates as "Maxwell and his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation."
Then, referencing my previous link to a report of the burning diesel fuel in the underground tanks:
"As near as I can tell, it came into existence on 9/11/2010. Most of the PDF can probably be accepted at face value except for the artistic license that attributes "giant underground inferno" to diesel fuel and transformer oil. "
Let's see Maxwell's gymnastics explaining the 2003 report and the article written three months after 9/11 I just posted referencing the same. Whenever reality confronts truthers and comes crashing down on their cherished mythology, it's always "disinformation!"
"Diesel fuel is not easy to set on fire. It has to have a good wick, or be vaporized to be quickly set on fire".
I imagine that a half million tons of debris massively and rapidly smashing down on a diesel fuel tank is one good way of aerosolizing the fuel.
cont.
"How fires got from "above" to "below" and to igniting the pooled diesel fuel, Mr. Morales doesn't speculate"
Already discussed.
"Using a 0.045 [kg/[[m^2]-sec] of mass loss rate for diesel fuel in open fire conditions"
Maxwell's analysis fails almost immediately. An "open fire" is an above ground, unenclosed fire. We're not talking about above ground, unenclosed fires, so Maxwell's subsequent analysis is irrelevant, in addition to the fact that diesel fuel, as alreaady pointed out, was not the only combustible material to feed under the debris fires.
"Wikipedia: "The Windsor Tower was gutted by a huge fire on 02/12/2005... Firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it." Gutted means that all combustible office furnishes were consumed."
Once again Maxwell with his unsubstantiated, armchair, amateur speculation is making crap up. ""To gut" means to remove the guts. It's slang. Regarding a fire, it's a metaphor meaning that the fire burned the guts out of the building:
"To destroy the interior of: Fire gutted the house."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gutted
It's not a technical term meaning that all combustible materials were consumed.
Nevertheless, the Windsor Tower was much smaller and carried much less combustible materials than either Twin Tower. Furthermore, the Windsor fire was an open air fire that was fought openly until it was put out. As I've already pointed out, underground fires are much harder to extinguish.
"In the aftermath of WTC, the entirety of the WTC-1/2 footprints were not a hot-spot."
So what? Irrelevant red herring.
"Nor would the entire contents of each building have been available to burn in each's respective hot-spots. "
Another irrelevant red herring.
"Under ideal conditions, how long could buildings' contents have lengthen the burn time from the alleged diesel fuel fires? Let's be generous and say 3-5 days. "
No, let's ignore Maxwell's armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation. Where did he get his "3-5" numbers? He made it up. Without support, we can dismiss it just as easily, since obviously (particularly given the number of times I've proven Maxwell wrong), he doesn't know what he's talking about. There were millions of tons of debris in the WTC debris field. That's unprecedented. Maxwell has absolutely no basis for assuming that the combustible office material in that debris, fed by tens of thousands of gallons of previously stored fuel, should have burned out in 3 to 5 days.
" Plus, let's re-iterate"
Once again a truther repeats claims already addressed and ignore the replies.
"Landfill fires have only limited applicability to 9/11."
Since Maxwell is an amateur, we can easily dismiss his armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation on this. Why do they have limited applicability? Why, because Maxwell says so, even though we already know that he doesn't know what he's talking about and has nothing to back up his armchair, amateur speculation.
"It can be guestimated the types, quantities, and distribution of materials to be expected at the WTC that could contribute to hot-spots (if limiting thinking to the OCT). A landfill doesn't have such predictability."
Distribution of materials in a massive, chaotic collapse with the kinetic energy of many tons of TNT? Once again, Maxwell's amateur, unsubstantiated speculation means nothing. He has nothing to back up his claim that the fires at the WTC should have been put out earlier nor, for that matter, does he offer any other plausible explanation for the fires. There is no known directed energy weapon that creates fires that last for months.
cont.
"To the best of my knowledge, fires were not started in any non-WTC buildings or pedestrian cross-overs."
Once again Maxwell seems to believe that if he can't find it, it must not exist. And once again Maxwell with his armchair, unsubstantiated, amateur speculation is wrong:
Re the 90 West Street building, which was not part of the WTC complex: "The building was severely damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed directly across the street. Scaffolding which had been erected on the facade for renovation work did nothing to stop the fiery debris from raining into the building and tearing a gash deep down its northern face.[4] Two office workers were killed when they were trapped in an elevator. The firestorm raged out of control for several days; the building, which had housed businesses including Hanover Capital, Frost & Sullivan, and IKON Office Solutions, was completely gutted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_West_Street%2C_New_York
There was also fires in the 130 Cedar Street Building
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf
It's frankly getting tiring having to repeatedly prove Maxwell wrong when he could find this information out on his own if he did a modicum of his own homework.
"No, Mr. Morales doesn't know what he's talking about. The fires in WTC-7 happened (allegedly) as a result of flaming aircraft parts hitting the building after being expelled from WTC-1. "
No. Maxwell again doesn't know what he's talking about. Since Maxwell is addressing what he calls the "official" explanation, here is what NIST themselves have to say about the question:
"4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces."
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
"Please review the testimony of Mr. Barry Jennings and Mr. Hess with regards to explosions in WTC-7 that happened at around 9:30 am, prior to either tower getting decimated."
I said there was no good evidence. Given that half million ton buildings collapsing combined with huge debris hitting WTC7 would likely make big sounds, the "explosions" allegedly heard could and likely was either the collapse of a tower and/or debris hitting WTC7, particularly as those "explosions" occurred hours before WTC7 collapsed and (coincidentally?) about the time of the Tower's Collapse. In fact, Mr. Hess later acknowledged that the sounds were not really explosions.
Hess: "There were no explosions. That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half of our building."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html
There were many people around WTC7. If there were really demolition explosions, more people would have heard them, and they would have been audible on video of the collapses, as they are on every video of real demolitions. Except no one else speaks of explosions in WTCz nor is any such explosion audible on any video of any collapse of any WTC building.
"Consider this INFRACTION #1."
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Should I count as "infractions" all the times I've caught Maxwell in demonstrable falsehoods?
x87 Maxwell C. Bridges : propelled by 180,00 gallons of fuel
2014-02-06
Part 1/2
The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires.
Mr. Morales writes: "Here's a study written in 2003 referencing the WTC debris pile's 'intense fire' that 'was propelled by 180,00 gallons of fuel.'"
http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdf
The context for Mr. Morales extract is a section titled "A 'pollution event'".
++++ begin quote
First there was the plume created by the initial fire that rose to 1000 degrees C. that sent up a mushroom cloud of some 91,000 liters of exploding jet fuel containing benzene and other toxic chemicals as well as billowing smoke.
Then there was the downward implosion of the building, which shook and toppled nearby
structures and spread pulverized cement, glass and other dust for miles in a widely dispersed pattern.
Finally, heated by an intense fire, which was propelled by 180,00 (sic) gallons of fuel, the massive buildings became an incinerator that rendered building materials that would not be considered immediately hazardous into flying toxins—volatilized combustion products.
++++ end quote
The context of this passage does not have any reference to duration, and in fact the first two "pollution events" were over in a couple of hours. The question becomes: how long can 180,000 gallons of fuel burn in an intense fire.
Calculations were made in Part 2/4 of my February 3 posting, but they used 200,000 gallons that came from a report from 2010. The difference doesn't alter the results significantly, so the previous calculations are repeated.
+++ begin calculations
200,000 gallons = 757,082 liters
density of diesel = 850 grams/liter
757,082 liters => 673,730 kg
Using a 0.045 [kg/[[m^2]-sec] of mass loss rate for diesel fuel in open fire conditions from http://code.google.com/p/fds-smv/issues/detail?id=2000 . Loss rate is dependent on surface area, which we'll call X in square meters. What is the burn time?
Burn Time = ( fuel / area) [kg/m^2] / (burn rate [kg/[m^2]-sec]])
Burn Time = (673,730 [kg] / X [m^2]) / (0.045 [kg/[m^2]-sec]])
Burn Time = (14,971,777 / X) [sec] = (4,158.8 / X) [hours]
X=1 square meter => Burn Time = 173 days
X=10 square meters => Burn Time = 17.3 days
X=100 square meters => Burn Time = 1.73 days
The events of 9/11 implied an uncontrolled rupture of the diesel fuel tanks. Many hot-spots were produced whose combined surface area was how many square meters? Let's conservatively assume between 10 and 100 square meters.
The point of this math is that even 200,000 gallons of diesel cannot easily explain several under-rubble hot-spots lasting four weeks or more.
+++ end calculations
//
Part 2/2
Because I used a 0.045 [kg/[[m^2]-sec] of mass loss rate for diesel fuel in open fire condition, Mr. Morales counters:
"Maxwell's analysis fails almost immediately. An 'open fire' is an above ground, unenclosed fire. We're not talking about above ground, unenclosed fires, so Maxwell's subsequent analysis is irrelevant, in addition to the fact that diesel fuel, as alreaady pointed out, was not the only combustible material to feed under the debris fires."
Contrary to Mr. Morales' hypnotic suggestion, the above calculations remain relevant. They just need to be tweaked appropriately for enclosed fires. What burn rate does Mr. Morales suggest be used?
It is noteworthy that Mr. Morales did not propose any new burn rate nor did he perform any calcultions. Why? Because the math still comes up short to supporting his premise that diesel fuel was the source of the under-rubble hot-spots burning for months.
Even though just prior to this new tact, Mr. Morales was arguing that the under-rubble hot-spots were being fed plenty of oxygen and that the framing of the 2003 report says "heated by an intense fire, which was propelled by 180,00 (sic) gallons of fuel, the massive buildings became an incinerator", let's set these contradictions aside.
Let's consider that the hot-spots weren't burning efficiently. Instead of 0.045 [kg/[[m^2]-sec], let's assume a different burn rate Y that would be less than the open-air amount. In order to cancel the previous burn rate and apply the new burn rate, we can create the factor (0.045/Y) and apply it directly to the previous results.
X=10 square meters => Burn Time = 17.3*(0.045/Y) days
X=20 square meters => Burn Time = 8.6*(0.045/Y) days
X=50 square meters => Burn Time = 3.5*(0.045/Y) days
X=100 square meters => Burn Time = 1.7*(0.045/Y) days
If we consider a worst-case scenario (that is contrary to the "intense fire" description) of the under-rubble burn-rate (0.023 [kg/[[m^2]-sec]) being half the open-air rate, then the burn times doubles:
X=20 square meters => Burn Time = 17.3 days
X=50 square meters => Burn Time = 6.93 days
X=100 square meters => Burn Time = 3.46 days
Thus, for any reasonable X square meter saturation of diesel fuel under the rubble using a very poor burn-rate that contradictions the "intense heat" and "incinerator" descriptions, the DURATION still comes up short of the observed hot-spots durations.
And reducing the burn times even more should have been (a) the inconsistent supply of oxygen under the rubble and (b) the fire fighting efforts that pumped large amounts of water and chemical file-suppressents onto the pile.
Mr. Morales should vary the burn rate Y as well as the assume square meters X of diesel fuel saturation to learn what the numbers reveal. Although combinations of the two can be input to achieve long durations, such can quickly be contrary to the evidence of "intense heat" and/or could define a localized tiny fire that would have been easy to snuff out.
//
x88 Ron Morales : no "good" evidence
2014-02-06
"Wrong twice in row. Again, refer to the Jennings/Hess testimonies."
I said there was no "good" evidence. Hess, in a BBC interview, insisted that what he initially said were \explosions were not actually explosions but rather debris from the collapse of WTC1 hitting WTC7. And given that he also describes power going out and the collapse of a Tower with a rushing of wind and a dust cloud, his interpretation makes more sense than Jennings' timeline. Nevertheless, since there is a conflict between Jennings and Hess' accounts, relying on one while excluding the other is weak evidence.
"Mr. Morales continues: "Though even if there were, explosions wouldn't be surprising in a burning building housing over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel."
Except that the NIST reports had to reluctantly admit that WTC-7's storage of diesel fuel played no significant role in WTC-7's demise. "
Irrelevant red herring. I never suggested that they had a role in WTC7's collapse. Just because the fuel or other things in the building exploded (explosions are not uncommon in building fires) does not mean they contributed to the collapse of the building. Maxwell is clearly reaching for the Hail Mary passes here.
"Mr. Morales continues: "More unsubstantiated, amateur speculation. What basis does Maxwell have ..."
Ah, yes. How embarrassing for "amateur" Mr. Morales that he isn't familiar with all of the evidence."
My reference was to an unsubstantiated claim made by Maxwell. Since there's absolutely no reason to accept Maxwell as an expert on anything relevant, any claims he makes without evidence can be summarily dismissed. Maxwell's unsubstantiated, amateur speculation is evidence of absolutely nothing relevant.
"Wrong again. The NIST reports were not "about the collapses of the buildings". They were scope limited to "the INITIATION of the collapses of the buildings." "
Wrong again. The reports were about the collapses. Their WTC7 report gave an account of the entire collapse. But NIST said that they could not give a detailed account of the Towers' collapses after they had initiated because there would have been too many unknown variables to provide a complete, detailed account of the entire collapse. But once the collapses began, gravity and the forces involved would explain the rest of the collapses in general.
"They did not discuss energy requirements for pulverization"
Much smaller buildings gravitationally collapsing have pulverized concrete. Much more massive buildings would obviously have more energy to do so even more completely. So this is irrelevant.
"they did not discuss meaningfully why the collapses were near gravitational acceleration"
They were clearly not near gravitational acceleration. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
"they did not discuss debris being ejected"
They wouldn't need to since that would have nothing to do with why the building collapsed, and such lateral ejection is easily understandable given the gravitational energy involved.
"they did not discuss the demolition wave down the face of the towers preceding the destruction."
Perhaps because there was no such thing.
"Fire investigators were not allowed to investigate."
Prove it.
"Consider this INFRACTION #3. Third time is a charm in pointing out your hypnotic assertions that are so wrong, they verge on being lies. Purposeful and all that jazz..."
Again, back off the personal Maxwell.
3 hours ago · Like
Ron Morales "And after all of this time, has Mr. Morales addressed the "steel doobies"? Nope. First brought to his attention on January 28, 2013. Then again on January 30, 2013 (for Keoki's and your benefit.)"
What "steel doobies?" I Googled the expression and found nothing.
"An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. A "steel doobie" is one of these wall assemblies rolled up around the beams with bent spandrels acting like bands around a cigar."
So what?
" One of them rested against a building on Liberty Street"
So what?
" and was augered into the ground a little bit."
Obviously Maxwell can't prove this.
"In order for this to have been possible, the steel doobie had to be rolled at some point in time prior to hitting the ground. "
Once again since Maxwell is an amateur who has been proven wrong in his claims time and time again, there's no reason to accept any claim of his as to what was or what was not possible. The images he links prove nothing, and obviously don't point to directed energy weapons. Once again Maxwell is grasping at straws and relying on his trusty "I don't understand this, therefore it somehow supports directed energy weapons somehow" argument from ignorance fallacy.
"Please, explain to me how downward-acting gravity managed to apply horizontal forces on these vertical assemblies to get the steel doobies to roll up (and wilt its ends in last picture)."
Maxwell has already noted laterally ejected debris. Lateral trajectories involve horizontal force. Duh. Once again, the massive kinetic energy involved could easily account for lateral trajectory of debris.
Take a look at this video of a plane hitting a wall at 500 miles per hour. That would have produced less than 1/1000th the kinetic energy of the Tower collapses, and we can see debris flying not only laterally but backwards.
"My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground."
Any blast wave near the building sufficient to pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete would have wiped out people standing around nearby. That obviously didn't happen. And except for the fantasy world of Judy Wood and Maxwell, there is no such thing as a directed energy weapon that pulverizes concrete and starts fires that last for weeks.
3 hours ago · Like
Ron Morales "What is the neutron bomb? Descrbed most simply, it is a thermonuclear device which kills by "enhanced radiation" (ER), i.e. a relatively more deadly emission of radiation during the initial detonation of the warhead."
Yup. That would have killed a lot of people by radiation in the area. Since no one died from radiation poisoning, then we can exclude a neutron bomb from being used on 9/11.
And they also don't pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete while leaving steel mostly intact except for some bending.
Maxwell can't decide what caused the collapses. Sometimes he talks about nuclear bombs. Sometimes he talks about directed energy weapons. Sometimes he talks about nuclear directed energy weapons that don't exist.
Next.
Ron Morales "The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires. "
Already addressed many times.
"The context for Mr. Morales extract is a section titled "A 'pollution event'"."
Yes, and they cited burning fuel as a source of the underground fires.
"The context of this passage does not have any reference to duration, and in fact the first two "pollution events" were over in a couple of hours."
Changing the subject, a favorite truther technique. My citation of this study was to counter Maxwell's claim that the earlier reference to a 2010 paper citing 200,000 of burning diesel fuel from ruptured storage tanks was some "disinformation" (as he claimed) manufactured in 2010. I then cited a study in 2003 and a news article three months after 9/11 that repeated the same thing. I obviously contradicted Maxwell's claim and the best he can do here is change the subject.
" The question becomes: how long can 180,000 gallons of fuel burn in an intense fire."
Already addressed. Once again, I never claimed that only diesel fuel burned.
"Calculations were made in Part 2/4 of my February 3 posting, but they used 200,000 gallons that came from a report from 2010. "
His calculations were based on an open fire, which obviously is irrelevant to an enclosed underground fire. i pointed that out already but true to form Maxwell just ignores the facts.
Aside from Maxwell's irrelevant calculations based on an erroneous assumption of an open diesel fire, Maxwell once again engages in amateur, unsubstantiated speculation.
3 hours ago · Like
Ron Morales "Contrary to Mr. Morales' hypnotic suggestion, the above calculations remain relevant. They just need to be tweaked appropriately for enclosed fires. What burn rate does Mr. Morales suggest be used?"
Not my burden to provide. Maxwell is the one claiming that the diesel fuel should have burned out quickly, so he has the burden of proving his claim. Since his calculations erroneously assumed an open fire and I've already pointed out that enclosed underground fires last far longer than open fires, his calculations are irrelevant and thus Maxwell has failed to justify his claim.
Additionally, for the umpteenth time, I never claimed that diesel fuel was the only source of fire, so all that's really necessary is that the diesel fuel saturated debris, helped initiate the fires, and and the debris fed the fire.so his entire numbers game here is not only unsubstantiated but irrelevant.
" Because the math still comes up short to supporting his premise that diesel fuel was the source of the under-rubble hot-spots burning for months."
More unsubstantiated, amateur, armchair speculation from Maxwell that of course can be dismissed out of hand until he provides some relevant evidence to support his claim.
"Even though just prior to this new tact, Mr. Morales was arguing that the under-rubble hot-spots were being fed plenty of oxygen and that the framing of the 2003 report says "heated by an intense fire, which was propelled by 180,00 (sic) gallons of fuel, the massive buildings became an incinerator", let's set these contradictions aside."
Not a contradiction at all. Being fed by oxygen does not mean the same thing as being an open fire. Once again Maxwell doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Let's consider that the hot-spots weren't burning efficiently. Instead of 0.045 [kg/[[m^2]-sec], let's assume a different burn rate Y that would be less than the open-air amount. In order to cancel the previous burn rate and apply the new burn rate, we can create the factor (0.045/Y) and..."
Maxwell then proceeds to invent values out of whole cloth. Once again Maxwell's armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is based on nothing other than his own imagination and thus can be dismissed out of hand. Unsubstantiated speculation by an amateur is evidence of nothing.
x89 Maxwell C. Bridges : no reason to accept as an expert on anything relevant
2014-02-07
Debate Issues:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-debates/debate-issues/621888681188274
The four part response Mr. Ron Morales is located on the following thread in 9/11 Debates:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/662698580440617/
It was placed there, because (a) Mr. Morales brings up the nuclear topic and (b) the hot-spots are evidence of nuclear means.
By my moving my response, Mr. Morales and the participants here get the added benefit of (c)_ my "bat-shit crazy" comments being moved out of sight and off of their actively defended posting.
In exchange for this favor (c), I ask that Mr. Morales and Ms. George give me no reason to make further comments on this thread here. Thank you.
//
+++++++++++++++++++++
Part 1/4. Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Since there's absolutely no reason to accept Maxwell as an expert on anything relevant, any claims he makes without evidence can be summarily dismissed. Maxwell's unsubstantiated, amateur speculation is evidence of absolutely nothing relevant."
Turnabout is fair play. But the executive summary is that Mr. Morales' grasp of high school algebra and physics is demonstrated to be so weak that it permits summarily dismissing any opinions of his into fire durations or the viability of nuclear mechanisms. Much worse for Mr. Morales, is that he demonstrates response-after-response major flaws in his debating techniques that are a discredit to his character and to the entirety of this "9/11 Debates" forum, AS WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED.
I wrote: "The NIST reports were not 'about the collapses of the buildings' (as phrased by Mr. Morales.) They were scope limited to 'the INITIATION of the collapses of the buildings.'"
Mr. Morales countered: "The reports were about the collapses. Their WTC7 report gave an account of the entire collapse."
The NIST report on WTC-7 has major issues in its own right that are a topic unto itself. The one I like best is when they use averaging of the accelerations of three stages to be able to report how the first 18 stories collapsed slower than free-fall in order to disguise the fact that the second of these stages represented 8 stories and over 100+ feet of downward acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall.
Mr. Morales continued: "But NIST said that they could not give a detailed account of the Towers' collapses after they had initiated because there would have been too many unknown variables to provide a complete, detailed account of the entire collapse. But once the collapses began, gravity and the forces involved would explain the rest of the collapses in general."
Bad sign: Mr. Morales swallows NIST's lame excuses unquestioned and unchallenged.
I wrote: "[NIST] did not discuss energy requirements for pulverization."
Mr. Morales countered: "Much smaller buildings gravitationally collapsing have pulverized concrete. Much more massive buildings would obviously have more energy to do so even more completely. So this is irrelevant."
No, it remains relevant. Pay attention to the words "gravitationally" and "pulverized". The first word implies under the forces of gravity. Certainly, much smaller buildings when assisted at the start by earthquakes or controlled demolition at the foundation have then used gravity to destroy the remainder.
"Pulverization" is a subjective term and implies "to turn into powder or fine dust." The finer the dust, the more energy is required to create it. The ratios of fine dust to course dust is what should attract one's attention. The ratio of fine-to-course are always vastly smaller when controlled demolitions were not involved, but 9/11's ratios are excessively large even by controlled demolition standards.
I wrote: "[NIST] did not discuss meaningfully why the collapses were near gravitational acceleration."
Mr. Morales countered: "They were clearly not near gravitational acceleration. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true."
Here's where Mr. Morales gets his reputation dinged.
WTC-1: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)
WTC-2: 1,362 ft (415.0 m)
gravity: a = 9.8 m/(s^2)
d = (1/2)a(t^2)
t = sqr(2*d/a)
t1 = sqr(2*417/9.8) = 9.22 seconds
t2 = sqr(2*415/9.8) = 9.2 seconds
The upside of the high school math above is that gravity acting on an object (e.g., billiard ball) dropped from the top of each tower would have that object reach the ground in t1=9.22 seconds and t2=9.2 seconds, respectively.
NIST reports that the two towers collapsed in 11 seconds (WTC-1) and 9 seconds (WTC-2). "These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A)."
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
NIST confirms my statement: WTC-1 fell at ~NEAR~ gravitational acceleration. But what's up with WTC-2 falling ~AT~ gravitational acceleration?!!
Indeed, Mr. Morales, "repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true."
The significance of "gravitational acceleration" in this discussion is that ~all~ of the potential/kinetic energy of a tower's collapse is consumed by its acceleration to the earth at 9.8 m/(s^2). None of the energy of the collapse is available to (a) destroy structure in the path of greatest resistance, (b) pulverize content, or (c)_ eject content laterally. Thus, energy had to added that heretofor hasn't been accounted for by NIST and the government.
I wrote: "[NIST] did not discuss debris being ejected."
Mr. Morales countered: "They wouldn't need to since that would have nothing to do with why the building collapsed, and such lateral ejection is easily understandable given the gravitational energy involved."
In for a penny, in for a pound. Mr. Morales demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for high school physics in his uttered falsehoods. If no additional energy is added to the system and if kinetic energy from the collapse is used to eject debris, the collapse would be slowed from its gravitational acceleration.
I wrote: "Fire investigators were not allowed to investigate."
Mr. Morales counters: "Prove it."
Based on the deceit displayed above, this challenge appears to be just busy work. But here's an entrance to the rabbit-hole:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html
// End Part 1/4
Part 2/4. I wrote: "And after all of this time, has Mr. Morales addressed the "steel doobies"? Nope. First brought to his attention on January 28, 2013. Then again on January 30, 2013 (for Keoki's and your benefit.)"
Mr. Morales responds: "What 'steel doobies?' I Googled the expression and found nothing."
Let's ignore Mr. Morales' surely attitude, because he ultimately found the comments from me that explain what they were: "An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. A "steel doobie" is one of these wall assemblies rolled up around the beams with bent spandrels acting like bands around a cigar."
Mr. Morales analysis thereof consisted of: "So what?" Not surprising given his demonstrated grasp of high school physics. What is surprising is that he quotes from posting that spells out the significance.
I continued: "One of [the steel doobies] rested against a building on Liberty Street and was augered into the ground a little bit."
Mr. Morales analysis thereof consisted of another "So what?" in the middle followed by the challenge: "Obviously Maxwell can't prove this."
Ho-hum. Obviously, Mr. Morales didn't look at the picture. Or he is playing games.
I wrote: "In order for this to have been possible, the steel doobie had to be rolled at some point in time prior to hitting the ground."
Mr. Morales oh so cleverly and masterfully responded: "Once again since Maxwell is an amateur who has been proven wrong in his claims time and time again, there's no reason to accept any claim of his as to what was or what was not possible. The images he links prove nothing, and obviously don't point to directed energy weapons. Once again Maxwell is grasping at straws and relying on his trusty 'I don't understand this, therefore it somehow supports directed energy weapons somehow' argument from ignorance fallacy."
Woo-hoo!!! How quaint? Mr. Morales sinks to new lows in discrediting himself and his beloved 9/11 Debates forums.
NIST, as shown above, has proven my claims to be correct and Mr. Morales' claims incorrect. Therefore using his own reasoning, there's no reason to accept any claim of Mr. Morales. And this revelation into Mr. Morales' character can be applied directly to the other sentences within the very same paragraph.
For instance, my images prove that anomalous "steel doobies" were created, to be sure, before they hit the ground. The directional forces required to do so are not readily apparent if one limits their thinking to energy only coming from gravity.
Mr. Morales writes: "[The images of the steel doobies] obviously don't point to directed energy weapons."
Without further qualification, this is a purposeful complete misrepresentation of my views and is an attempt to lump me into Dr. Wood's DEW camp. No, my position is that "neutron nuclear DEW" devices were the primary mechanisms of destruction, whereby the side-effects of the neutron bomb portion of such devices being intense heat and a tactical blast wave easily explains how the steel doobies were created. [The DEW portion of the device had the task of directing the highly energitic neutrons out of the way.]
I offered the respectful challenge: "Please, explain to me how downward-acting gravity managed to apply horizontal forces on these vertical assemblies to get the steel doobies to roll up (and wilt its ends in last picture)."
Mr. Morales incoherent response that further demonstrates no understand of basic physics was: "Maxwell has already noted laterally ejected debris. Lateral trajectories involve horizontal force. Duh. Once again, the massive kinetic energy involved could easily account for lateral trajectory of debris."
At the risk of repeating myself, the massive kinetic energy involved from gravity has already been 100% accounted for in the gravitational acceleration. Only extra energy from other sources (that neither Mr. Morales nor the government will admit to) can account for the lateral trajectory of debris.
I wrote: "My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground."
Mr. Morales counters this with a strawman: "Any blast wave near the building sufficient to pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete would have wiped out people standing around nearby. That obviously didn't happen."
Mr. Morales demonstrated poor grasp of high school physics makes him a very poor candidate to trust for his views on nuclear physics. The deceitful frame he tries to build is around much larger mini-nukes, and doesn't go near any conceivable variants of "neutron bombs"
Mr. Morales attempts a pitch-perfect smearing of me by associating me with Dr. Wood, whose book and website he's probably never read: "And except for the fantasy world of Judy Wood and Maxwell, there is no such thing as a directed energy weapon that pulverizes concrete and starts fires that last for weeks."
Neutron nuclear DEW devices have not been proposed or promoted by Dr. Judy Wood. They are my premise though. And it is precisely the nuclear component thereof that has a side-effect that can pulverize concrete. The probability was large of some of the tandem devices failing to reach their expected yields and going into "nuclear fizzle", which explains hot-spots that lasted for months. Fukushima, anyone?
In the next posting from Mr. Morales, he tries to get more on board with neutron devices. I wrote: "What is the neutron bomb? Descrbed most simply, it is a thermonuclear device which kills by "enhanced radiation" (ER), i.e. a relatively more deadly emission of radiation during the initial detonation of the warhead."
Mr. Morales responded with: "Yup. That would have killed a lot of people by radiation in the area. Since no one died from radiation poisoning, then we can exclude a neutron bomb from being used on 9/11."
Agreed. We can exclude conventional battlefield neutron bombs from being used on 9/11.
Mr. Morales continued with: "And [neutron bomb] also don't pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete while leaving steel mostly intact except for some bending."
In the framework of Mr. Morales strawman about battlefield neutron bombs, what he writes is true.
But the proper framework is "neutron nuclear DEW" that has the capability of directing the highly energetic neutrons and by extension portions of the heat and blast wave. Think of it as a shaped nuclear charge with a tactical yield.
Mr. Morales wrote: "Maxwell can't decide what caused the collapses. Sometimes he talks about nuclear bombs. Sometimes he talks about directed energy weapons. Sometimes he talks about nuclear directed energy weapons that don't exist."
The above is a deceit filled paragraph. Since entering this forum, I have consistently only championed "neutron nuclear DEW." If I've talked about nuclear bombs, it was to inform by way of comparison, but not to propose as theories for 9/11. Likewise for DEW without any qualifiers. I have ~NEVER~ talked about "nuclear directed energy weapons."
// End Part 2/4
Part 3/4. I wrote: "The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires."
Mr. Morales offered the hypnotic suggestion: "Already addressed many times."
I wrote: "The context for Mr. Morales extract is a section titled "A 'pollution event'"."
Mr. Morales responded: "Yes, and they cited burning fuel as a source of the underground fires."
I clarified: "The context of this passage does not have any reference to duration, and in fact the first two "pollution events" were over in a couple of hours."
Mr. Morales responded with deceitful games: "Changing the subject, a favorite truther technique. My citation of this study was to counter Maxwell's claim that the earlier reference to a 2010 paper citing 200,000 of burning diesel fuel from ruptured storage tanks was some "disinformation" (as he claimed) manufactured in 2010. I then cited a study in 2003 and a news article three months after 9/11 that repeated the same thing. I obviously contradicted Maxwell's claim and the best he can do here is change the subject."
No. Let's unwind Mr. Morales' spin. I repeat the original subject: "The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires." Mr. Morales cited a 2010 paper that attributed those fires to burning diesel fuel from ruptured storage tanks. I didn't trust that piece of information from that 2010 source [but worked with it anyway], so Mr. Morales then cited a 2003 that repeated the same thing. Kudos to Mr. Morales for being able to locate sources further back in time. Only in Mr. Morales mind, however, was the subject changed from "under-rubble fires."
I wrote: "The question becomes: how long can 180,000 gallons of fuel burn in an intense fire."
Mr. Morales continues with his faulty hypnotic suggestion: "Already addressed. Once again, I never claimed that only diesel fuel burned."
I never said that Mr. Morales claimed that only diesel fuel burned, so Mr. Morales is deceitfully putting words into my mouth, but let's ignore this.
Here's the simplification to the "he-said, she-said."
A. Mr. Morales stated that diesel fuel and office furnishing were what caused under-rubble fires that lasted for months. He supports his belief with the aforementioned 2010 citation.
B. I applied science and math to the claimed amounts of diesel fuel, and the ball-park estimates proved it coming up short to account for the duration of under-rubble fires.
C. Mr. Morales points to the burn-rate for an open-fire used in my ball-park calculations, claims it is inapplicable, doesn't review any more calculations, and claims pre-mature victory on the issue.
D. I do what Mr. Morales probably can't do. I apply more science and math to the the burn-rate factor that tweaks it to extremes from an open-fire's burn rate, and the calculations still come up short.
E. Mr. Morales doesn't review the calculations. Claims he already addressed it.
F. This comment is F and is shredding Mr. Morales response E (and C and A).
I wrote: "Calculations were made in February 3 Part 2/4 posting, but they used 200,000 gallons that came from a report from 2010. "
Mr. Morales responds: "His calculations were based on an open fire, which obviously is irrelevant to an enclosed underground fire. i pointed that out already but true to form Maxwell just ignores the facts."
Mr. Morales wants to have his truth many ways. Although my argument for a long-time was that oxygen supplies under-the-rubble would have been limited to support combustion fires, Mr. Morales offered up examples of landfill fires, coal mine fires, etc. to imply that oxygen could still have seeped in and serviced such fires. Between his sources and mine, the description of the fires has been "like a foundry," "intense heat," "incinerators," "producing molten metal," etc.
When limiting our assumptions to diesel fires which was the exercise, these descriptions alone imply "plenty of oxygen." Therefore, using a diesel burn-rate for an open-fire is more than appropriate for a starting point.
This is where Mr. Morales wants to change his truth and contradict his sources: "Aside from Maxwell's irrelevant calculations based on an erroneous assumption of an open diesel fire, Maxwell once again engages in amateur, unsubstantiated speculation."
In other words, Mr. Morales says that the diesel burn rate for an open-fire cannot be used, because it wasn't an open-fire (e.g., oxygen sources were limited), which was my original contention that he is spinning back around to.
The problem for Mr. Morales is that if oxygen sources are limited such that they reduce the burn-rate, descriptive features of the fire and anomalous evidence attributed to the fire start to loose their applicability to diesel as the source.
// End Part 3/4
Part 4/4. Worse for Mr. Morales, I wrote: "Contrary to Mr. Morales' hypnotic suggestion, the above calculations remain relevant. They just need to be tweaked appropriately for enclosed fires. What burn rate does Mr. Morales suggest be used?"
Mr. Morales weasels: "Not my burden to provide. Maxwell is the one claiming that the diesel fuel should have burned out quickly, so he has the burden of proving his claim."
What I discovered too late from going over his poor grasp of high school physics, was that Mr. Morales is a bit math/science-challenged. Otherwise, he would have seen from my simple algebra equations that he could have plugged in numbers representing 1/2 or 1/4 the open-air burn rate of diesel and calculated the burn time for a variety of saturated areas.
Mr. Morales tries to cover over his ignorance: "Since his calculations erroneously assumed an open fire and I've already pointed out that enclosed underground fires last far longer than open fires, his calculations are irrelevant and thus Maxwell has failed to justify his claim."
Wrong, the second set of equations did not assume an open-fire and allowed someone who had algebra to compensation with a slower burn-rate. Not only do the equations remain relevant, but the ball-park calculations continue to prove that alleged diesel fuel could not have maintained the hot-spots for the duration observed.
Mr. Morales continues his confident dodging: "Additionally, for the umpteenth time, I never claimed that diesel fuel was the only source of fire, so all that's really necessary is that the diesel fuel saturated debris, helped initiate the fires, and and the debris fed the fire.so his entire numbers game here is not only unsubstantiated but irrelevant."
A distinguishing feature of all science/math-literate people is their ability to perform "ball-park estimates" as a sanity check on what is being considered. For instance, they don't need to calculate to four significant digits that a chemical process produces exactly 2.345 liters when it is sufficient to approximate that the output would be much less than the 4 liter container to be used for the outcome.
The simple calculations for boundary conditions and for features in isolation can offer insight into a more complex situations. In the case of the under-rubble fires, knowing how long & hot a diesel fuel fire can burn without intervention (A) in open-air and (B) in limited air helps rationally frame what to expect, as would be estimating the same for office furnishings fires.
The science and math suggests when the most stubborn portion of the intense fires -- namely what was propelled by diesel fuel -- would burn itself out if without intervention. Because the actual hot-spots exceeded the ball-park time-frame despite active fire-fighting efforts involving both water and chemical fire suppressant [that would have handled office furnishing and diesel types of fires], then the conclusion has to be that another heat source was at play.
Mr. Morales writes: "Being fed by oxygen does not mean the same thing as being an open fire."
Mr. Morales should substantiate from other sources what it does mean and what the difference is, because his aptitude in science (and math) is not up to the challenge of explaining it on his own.
To prove my contention with regards Mr. Morales' math aptitude, he wrote:
"Maxwell then proceeds to invent values out of whole cloth. Once again Maxwell's armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is based on nothing other than his own imagination and thus can be dismissed out of hand. Unsubstantiated speculation by an amateur is evidence of nothing."
I'll explain the math as simply as I can for Mr. Morales, who must have failed the math portion of the military's ASVAB.
Let's say that A/B=C and B=0.045. Let's assume numbers were plugged in for A as well to get a resulting number C. Later you determine that B was not the correct number, but that Y was, what factor can you multiple directly to C to nullify the incorrect B and apply the new number Y? Answer is (B/Y) = (0.045/Y).
At the conclusion of Mr. Morales error filled posting, Ms. Keoki George wrote: "Ron he is just going to handwave all of that away, say that you never answered his question, call you names and repost the same thing over again, telling YOU that you are wrong."
Mr. Ron Morales replied: "Of course. But for the record I over and over demonstrated that he was making factually incorrect claims. And if he challenges me on this I will be happy to list his numerous, factually incorrect claims."
ROFLMAO! The only thing that Mr. Morales "demonstrated over and over" was his ability to fart and hypnotically tell everyone it doesn't stink.
Oh, yes, I'm sure Mr. Morales is just cheery as all get out to discover who needs to have listed "his numerous, factually incorrect claims."
I most certainly know where I stand: |<-this_far->| from being banned. And not because I called anyone any names, despite the masterful attempts by Ms. Keoki George, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, and Mr. Ron Morales in crafting such faulty, idiotic comments designed to egg any sane person into crossing the line. Nope. I'm going to be bounced because I have so thorough trounced their arguments (when they had one that wasn't flame-bait) that their personal credibility as well as that of this forum that they moderate have been run into the rocks.
// End Part 4/4
x90 Maxwell C. Bridges : he can't follow his own rules
2014-02-08
Evidently, Mr. Morales wants my efforts here.
Let's see if he's more effective at addressing ~WHY~ prudent readers would judge his words as "deceit" as opposed to making faux outrage that his abilities in high school algebra and physics were legitimately challenged and proven wanting.
//
======
Twenty (20) SPAMMING comments in a row from Mr. Morales, Ms. George, and Ms. Tague that did not address a single point in my four part response. Good teamwork!!!
For Ms. George's benefit, that particular team effort is "flooding" and "spamming" by just about anyone's standards. Mr. Morales portion of the opus could easily have been consolidated into one, single comment.
My four comments that dissected Mr. Morales position point-by-poit weren't flooding and would have been a single comment easy to skip right over, had that been technical possible.
Your team gives the impression that you don't really want to debate. And what I'm discovering, Mr. Morales is the only one with half the chops to even attempt a decent, substantiated debate. His problem is that he has to defend the OCT and all of its nonsense, which in turn gets reflected on him.
I substantiated why I called various passages from Mr. Morales "deceit". If Mr. Morales thinks that what he wrote was the God's honest truth and that I am mistaken, he should prove that what he wrote is true and valid.
He should address ~WHY~ any reader could classify is efforts as "deceit" and not ~THAT~ it was called "deceit" in order to play the cheap game that -- only very loosely and inconsistently -- it was ad hominem in order to pull out a red card.
Mr. Morales did a good job of cherry-picking my postings. To prove that he is inconsistent and hypocritical, here's some equivalent cherry-picking from Mr. Morales work.
+++ begin quotes from Mr. Morales
Since there's absolutely no reason to accept Maxwell as an expert on anything relevant, any claims he makes without evidence can be summarily dismissed. Maxwell's unsubstantiated, amateur speculation is evidence of absolutely nothing relevant.
...
They were clearly not near gravitational acceleration. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
Once again since Maxwell is an amateur who has been proven wrong in his claims time and time again, there's no reason to accept any claim of his as to what was or what was not possible. The images he links prove nothing, and obviously don't point to directed energy weapons. Once again Maxwell is grasping at straws and relying on his trusty "I don't understand this, therefore it somehow supports directed energy weapons somehow" argument from ignorance fallacy.
...
And except for the fantasy world of Judy Wood and Maxwell, there is no such thing as a directed energy weapon that pulverizes concrete and starts fires that last for weeks.
Maxwell can't decide what caused the collapses. Sometimes he talks about nuclear bombs. Sometimes he talks about directed energy weapons. Sometimes he talks about nuclear directed energy weapons that don't exist.
...
Changing the subject, a favorite truther technique.
...
i pointed that out already but true to form Maxwell just ignores the facts.
Aside from Maxwell's irrelevant calculations based on an erroneous assumption of an open diesel fire, Maxwell once again engages in amateur, unsubstantiated speculation.
...
More unsubstantiated, amateur, armchair speculation from Maxwell that of course can be dismissed out of hand until he provides some relevant evidence to support his claim.
...
Once again Maxwell doesn't know what he's talking about.
...
Maxwell then proceeds to invent values out of whole cloth. Once again Maxwell's armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is based on nothing other than his own imagination and thus can be dismissed out of hand. Unsubstantiated speculation by an amateur is evidence of nothing.
+++ end quotes from Mr. Morales
Oh, boo-hoo! *Sniff* *Wipe tears from eye*
Mr. Morales went personal with me, and that's against the rules! He should be banned, because he can't follow his own rules.
Oh, wait. He classifies the above not as "personal"? Then I demand consistency in the rulings. Let's be honest, if Ms. George or Ms. Tague had written what I wrote and aimed it at me (as opposed to me writing it about Mr. Morales), she would have gotten a pat on the back.
//
x91 Maxwell C. Bridges : discrediting themselves and their forum
2014-02-09
Not too long ago in another thread on "9/11 Truth Movement - All Theories Welcomed" [that I no longer easily find], I mentioned how "legacy" was an important facet in the disinformation game. For those agents who practice disinfo, have your words hang out too long in the public sphere can be used against them. Sometimes "going nuclear" on the discussion, on the very forum is the only way to save face.
The very "Neutron Nuclear DEW" article above was also posted to another group (call it, "ABC") where I tried to engage in discussion against those who defend the official conspiracy theory (OCT). One of our topics was the duration of the under-rubble fires, which they attributed to 200,000 gallons of diesel stored in tanks under the WTC.
The details of my shredding argument are in the series of comments that I've re-posted here. The executive summary is that between my solid arguments and their own antics in "debating me", they were discrediting themselves and their forum. I figured that they were going to ban me sometime very soon. In fact, one of the final comments to me at 8:11pm Feb 8 -- wrapped in spin about "my" alledged personal attacks -- was ... "I gave him a final warning... Goodbye Maxwell Bridges."
Sure enough, when I log into FaceBook this morning, I no longer see "ABC" as part of my membership group.
This morning, I can't get to these:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/911-debates/debate-issues/621888681188274
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/permalink/662698580440617/
x92 Tag-Teaming : the gripping conclusion and farewell
https://www.facebook.com/groups/602197473157395/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911.debates/
Keoki George yup, that's all i see. a huge dimismissive by Maxwell and no evidence provided.
he's not here to debate. He's here to argue by flooding.
February 7 at 6:39pm · Like · 2
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales' grasp of high school algebra and physics is demonstrated to be so weak "
Maxwell, my patience is getting thin. Back off the personal.
February 7 at 9:51pm · Edited · Like
Ron Morales "Based on the deceit displayed above"
Are you angling to get booted Maxwell so you don't have to face my proving you wrong over and over again?
February 7 at 9:51pm · Like
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales responded with deceitful games"
More personal attacks
February 7 at 9:52pm · Like
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales sinks to new lows"
More personal attacks
February 7 at 9:55pm · Like
Ron Morales " And this revelation into Mr. Morales' character "
More ad hominems
February 7 at 9:55pm · Like
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales incoherent response that further demonstrates no understand of basic physics"
More personal attacks, albeit in a grammatically tortured way.
February 7 at 10:18pm · Edited · Like · 1
Ron Morales "The above is a deceit filled paragraph"
More personal attacks
February 7 at 9:58pm · Like
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales responded with deceitful games"
More personal attacks.
February 7 at 9:59pm · Like
Ron Morales "so Mr. Morales is deceitfully putting words into my mouth"
More personal attacks
February 7 at 10:00pm · Like
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales weasels"
Weasels Maxwell Bridges? Well, clearly you are attempting suicide by mod to avoid having your nonsense refuted over and over again. I'm not bothering with any more warnings. Insult me or anyone else again and you're out. If you can't defend your beliefs without engaging in personal attacks, then that speaks volumes regarding the vacuousness of your theories.
February 7 at 10:04pm · Like · 1
Ron Morales "What I discovered too late from going over his poor grasp of high school physics, was that Mr. Morales is a bit math/science-challenged. "
More personal attacks.
February 7 at 10:04pm · Like
Keoki George Just boot him.
February 7 at 10:10pm · Like
Keoki George 20 personal attacks, not including the personal attacks he did against me. Really ron, yuo are being far too lenient.
February 7 at 10:10pm · Like
Ron Morales "I'll explain the math as simply as I can for Mr. Morales, who must have failed the math portion of the military's ASVAB."
More personal attacks.
February 7 at 10:13pm · Like
Ron Morales "I most certainly know where I stand: |<-this_far->| from being banned. "
Ah. Maxwell shows his hand. He IS vying to get himself banned. Yet another truther trying to get himself banned so he won't have to face having his demonstrably false nonsense exposed any more.
February 7 at 10:15pm · Like · 1
Ron Morales "despite the masterful attempts by Ms. Keoki George, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, and Mr. Ron Morales in crafting such faulty, idiotic comments"
Oooh, he really is desperate to get himself booted, isn't he? I guess his patience for watching his amateurish absurdities exposed has run out.
February 7 at 10:17pm · Like
Keoki George Ron just boot him. he insulted me, he name called me, called me a liar and essentially to STFU. He is not here to debate. he's here to spam his "fantasy" and not deal with refutations. He's just looking for google hits, and that is why he has posted his same diatribe on every corner of the net.
February 7 at 10:35pm · Like · 1
Elizabeth Tague Indeed, every post is basically a thinly veiled attempt to garnish hits for his site.
Boot him Ron, he has gone way past skirting the rules . ,
February 7 at 11:22pm · Like · 1
Matthew Barancho I think when 100% of the group (truthers and swallowers alike) agree that his 'theory' is completely without merit and consistent only of word salads, it's about time to let him go. Let him find a group where people will be fascinated by someone spending hours typing out sheer nonsense. He has been refuted over and over again, so much that it's not worth getting into any further. Goodbye 'Maxwell'.
February 7 at 11:50pm · Like · 1
Ron Morales But his "nuclear ray gun" fantasy is so entertaining!
February 8 at 7:59am · Like
Maxwell Bridges Twenty (20) SPAMMING comments in a row from Mr. Morales, Ms. George, and Ms. Tague that did not address a single point in my four part response. Good teamwork!!!
{edited}
//
February 8 at 12:26pm · Like
Keoki George to maxwell answering questions is spamming. and the continued personal insults.
February 8 at 12:27pm · Like
Maxwell Bridges Ms. George, address the substance of my four part posting that your assistance is spamming and flooding has now scrolled it way up. Or STFU. This is a debate forum. Duh!
I bet you didn't even read my four part comment. And if you did, how did you like the part where I quoted Mr. Morales' hypnotic suggestion that the towers did not fall at near free fall acceleration, and then I turn around with the high school physics and algebra AND quotes from NIST to prove his statement as purposeful deceit?
Come on, darling. Let's see you admit that the towers fell at near free fall acceleration. This is a great starting point. Failure to do so will tell ~everyone~ exactly where you and this forum stands.
Step up to the plate with substance pertaining to the subject of my article and its offshoots, or STFU. This is a debate forum, and Monty Python style arguments don't cut it.
//
February 8 at 12:38pm · Like
Keoki George sorry no. I will nto address something you will just dimiss away as you have done with Ron's posts that already asnwered your illogical and unsupported claims
February 8 at 12:39pm · Like
Keoki George As demonstrated you are not here to debate, but to spam your website for google hits. How much are advertisers paying yu for clicks to your site?
February 8 at 12:39pm · Like
Maxwell Bridges If you won't address how NIST documents the towers falling at near gravitational acceleration, then please block me and get the hell off of this thread, because otherwise your comments are just SPAM in every sense of the word, making you a SPAMMER. //
February 8 at 12:43pm · Like
Keoki George maxwell advocates for blocking (violation of the rules) and telling us who and who cannot participate in threads here (also against hte rules) and of course insulting
February 8 at 1:30pm · Like
Keoki George Ron Morales Elizabeth Tague
February 8 at 1:30pm · Like
Ron Morales None of what Maxwell posted of mine was a personal attack. Given his bald faced declarations of presumed fact with nothing to support his claims other than that he's declaring them true, he's presenting himself as an authority on such matters, thus opening the door for me to challenge his personal authority by noting that he's just an amateur who doesn't know what he's talking about.
February 8 at 5:38pm · Like · 1
Ron Morales I'll respond to Maxwell's four recent posts addressing some (but obviously not all) of my refutations of his nonsense in the thread in which the discussion began. i see no reason to migrate the discussion to Maxwell's thread, unless Maxwell is trying to create a situation where he can then delete analysis that once again rebuts his nonsense.
February 8 at 8:01pm · Like
Ron Morales "I substantiated why I called various passages from Mr. Morales "deceit""
"To prove that he is inconsistent and hypocritical"
Well, look at that. More personal attacks from Maxwell after I gave him a final warning after over a dozen personal attacks from him in the span of four posts.
Goodbye Maxwell Bridges.
February 8 at 8:13pm · Edited · Like · 2
Keoki George thank you!!!
February 8 at 8:12pm · Like · 1
Ron Morales Yet another intellectually incompetent coward who tries to get himself booted so as to avoid being further embarrassed by having his delusions debunked by reality.
Yesterday at 7:05am · Like
No comments:
Post a Comment