2014-07-15
Religiously fanatic to Truth that I am, inspiration comes from a partial verse to a hymn:
... How to gather, how to sow, how to feed Thy sheep...
I am so honored to have Mr. Rogue devote two threads to me: Carnival d'Maxifuckanus [started 2013-03-06] and MAXWELL BRIDGES: AGITPROP DISINFORMANT [started 2014-07-08].
Alas, "the gathering and sowing" efforts could use much refinement.
Mr. McKee wrote July 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm:
I’m (not) necessarily hostile to the (nuclear) topic. I’m hostile to how this topic ruins threads on this blog.
The deceitful Mr. Rogue writes July 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
As a participant that had a great number of comments deleted, ... my point always being that the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned. It has been a disruptive matter for quite awhile.
Mr. Rogue did have "a great number of comments deleted." Rough estimate: More than FIFTY (50) between June 26 and July 8.
Me? I had all of FIVE (5) postings deleted, not counting the accidental posting (through email) and not counting a 2014-07-08 comment that did not make it out of the moderation queue.
2014-06-26 couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel
2014-06-26 unable to satisfy the least and slightest request
2014-06-27 Why does Agent A.Wright ignore me so?!!!
2014-07-06 the Kevin Ryan paradox redux
2014-07-07 Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi
2014-07-08 quality of the fine comment [never published]
2014-07-08 email into an accidental comment [shouldn't have been published]
The ratio TEN-to-ONE (or SEVEN-to-ONE) ought to be indication enough about who was purposely trying to ruin threads on T&S. And Mr. Rogue's hostile activities will assure that "the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned".
We can expect Mr. Rogue to try the old mustelid manuever: "It's not about the posting count, but the word count!" One comment, however long, can be easily skipped. But when a participant launches a hostile attack with ten responses to each comment from another, spanning a whole range of sociopathic attacks; when that participant commands 52.9% of the 523 published comments: some other defarious agenda is afoot.
And talk about crank, crank, crank! On top of all of this, as near as I can tell, Mr. Rogue made ~84 comments to his Carnival posting (6/26-7/9), ~50 comments to his Disinformant posting (7/9-7/13), and ~7 postings to his "Controlled Demolition" posting (6/29-7/13)... mostly in dubious preparation for later.
Mr. Rogue writes 2014-07-12:
Justified Ad Hominem: A person’s arguments define that person. When a person’s arguments are found to be constantly disingenuous, it is justified to point such out, to describe such an MO. It becomes a new level in argumentation when this happens. It is not that the issues and points are ignored, it is that they are combined with the history of spurious game playing with such points and illustrating this.
Exactly.
//
x106 Señor El Once : Kevin Ryan's book's motive
And just what is the motive for "maintaining much of the official account"?
As one of the few who actually read Mr. Kevin Ryan's book, the motive for this is the age-old "state hypothesis, test hypothesis, conclude validity (or not) of hypothesis." Another way of looking at it is as one big phrase: "for the sake of discussion, let's assume this, that, and the other thing from the official account."
The result is that even when "this, that, and the other thing" are taken at face value, too many coincidental, anomalous, and inconvenient truths are dragged into the disinfecting sunlight, which not only shoot full of holes the over-arching official account, but also invalidate many of the "this, that, and the other thing" assumptions swallowed at the onset just to get discussion going.
The activities of the alleged hijackers -- even their travel to and within the US -- together with the "back-off orders" to FBI agents raising red flags suggest a high level of enabling and legitimate finger-pointing by Mr. Ryan at deep, insider connections. These shouldn't be ignored. The additional 19 culprits that Mr. Ryan has investigated are legitimately pegged with 9/11 issues and truly are the most likely additional suspects. [L. Paul Bremer -- coincidentally the author of the USA PATRIOT ACT, coincidentally involved with database al queda, coincidentally with offices right at the WTC impact levels, coincidentally part of PNAC, coincidentally handling things on the ground in Iraq that enabled corporate invasion -- is one bad-ass player.]
Here's an analogy. Assumption: 2+3=6.4. Mr. Ryan did not lay down mathematical proofs to debunk this: Known: 2+2=4. Known: 2+1=3. Known: 4+1=5. Thus, 5=[4]+1=[2+2]+1=2+[2+1]=2+3. 5<>6.4. Therefore, hypothesis 2+3=6.4 is wrong.
Instead, Mr. Ryan assumed "2+3=6.4" and tried to build with this inherent calculation error. The final product had ends that didn't meet, corners that weren't square, and sides that weren't parallel: these were the signs of something wrong in the original premise. Mr. Ryan did not attempt to speculatively tweak the assumption (e.g., "2+3=4.7") to achieve something with fewer flaws. He let the original assumption skewer itself and the official story.
After thoroughly exposing guilty, insider suspects that shreds the official story, Mr. Ryan's failing would be in not circling back around to invalidate assumptions.
I think everyone who stepped forward as a leader to the 9/11 TM was gotten to in one way or another at some point, such that they were forced to stop (or detour) where their research and efforts were naturally headed: "thus far and no further; not into this realm."
It is almost as if Ryan is trying to best to tell us by code that the plane crash was faked, while appearing to argue against it.
September 2012 from Dr. Steven Jones:
Something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite.
Dr. Judy Wood: 9/11 Gatekeeper Extraordinaire
... [N]othing in Dr. Wood's book is evidence. They are facts, but they are not evidence. As Dr. Fetzer explained, facts are only evidence if they contribute to showing the truth or falsity of a theory or hypothesis. Since Dr. Wood says she has no theory or hypothesis, therefore, by definition, she has no evidence.
P.S. From a comment sent to the moderation queue.
I'm glad that Mr. OSS [June 27, 2014 at 10:00 am] had the foresight to apply the "GOTO" links to Mr. A.Wright's looping rhetoric.
//
x107 Señor El Once : disorganized, poorly formatted, confusing farse
2014-07-0
Those who claim that the WTC was destroyed by anything other than controlled chemical demolition must by the same token hand-wave and dismiss many times more the witnesses at the Pentagon, but they must dismiss the audiovisual evidence also, which is available in thousands of images.
As for analyzing this evidence in a proper deductive sequence my page on this very blog does that in great detail:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/controlled-demolition-and-the-demise-of-wtc-on-911/
Actually the "proper deduction sequence" is that this work is a disorganized, poorly formatted, confusing farse involving only one voice and accepting no constructive criticism. Rarely does the author seem to understand quotations that it grabs from other sources, because if the author did, the author would acknowledge limits to their applicability.
Most of this work is associated with "controlled demolition", which is fine. When the word "chemical" is inserted between "controlled" and "demolition" to restrict the PR marketing, it fails to match the hype with substance.
The effort can't be relied upon as the definitive word that everything thrown into the controlled demolition was chemical-based, much less that other means can be so confidently excluded. That is the PR trick.
As but one example, this work purposely ignores the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and the inability of chemical-based mechanisms "to go the distance" in accounting for them, which high school math & chemistry easily expose. Moreover, calculated quantities to achieve observed pulverization and hot-spot duration introduce a massive logistics hurdles that "proper deductive" reasoning suggests would be unreasonable in the few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took holidays prior to 9/11, aside from also woefully exceeding decibel levels of the actual observed destruction.
Even Dr. Jones writes: "Something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite." Yet this massive clue is ignored by the author.
In a few blind back-handed swipes at other mechanisms, this shoddy effort relies on untrustworthy and skewed reports with many deficiencies -- scope-limit, data collection, data analysis, and speculative conclusions -- making such reports entirely unsuitable to be hoisted up (by Dr. Jones) as debunking later other mechanisms. Not only does Dr. Jones give such blatant deficiencies a pass, he has fresh skew and omissions.
The author has known of such deficiencies in his sources and these premises over two years before duct-taping this forgettable work together.
Its creation and marketing promotion do not live up to its promises.
//
x108 hybridrogue1 : my critic's sneaking cheat
2014-07-02
hybridrogue1
2014-07-02
I suggest that it is best left to those who wish to read the work of "this author" decide for themselves, as the proceeding review above comes from an extremely biased commentator.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-02
I also suggest this addendum to the work in question:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-02
I will also point out to the forum that I would not have pursued this issue further had it not been for my critic's sneaking cheat of breaking his most recent agreement – here on this very thread – by making a link to the Donald Fox article which is entirely about the subject that the anonymous entity agreed with Mr McKee not to breach.
I consider this some low down underhanded bullshit. And as most here know I am totally fed up with the bullshit from this anonymous character of ill repute.
\\][//
x109 Señor El Once : If action A is performed, then consequence B could be performed
Craig McKee wrote on June 26, 2014 at 2:09 pm:
I have removed the last several comments because I have no interest in another installment of the war between Señor El Once and Hybridrogue1. Please, no more mention of nukes and no more mention of either of these contributors by the other or the comment will be removed.
If action A is performed, then consequence B could be performed, at moderator's discretion. Participants are bound to this only as far as they want to gamble having their words sent back to the moderation queue. Such are the limits of any perceived agreement, let alone its breach.
Context in question described scenarios in the 9/11 Truth Movement where leaders seemed to have "thus far and no further" limits imposed on their research and discussion topics. Examples included where Mr. Kevin Ryan (the topic of discussion), Dr. Steven Jones, and Dr. Judy Wood. Included with each example was a relevant quotation. Due to the two URL limit per comment, only one of these quotations supplied a source link to where the quotation came from. [A funny second-hand quotation of Dr. Fetzer talking about Dr. Wood having only facts but no evidence, because she has no theory.]
The URL provided remains a valid reference URL for the quotations regardless of what other and separate context to which the URL brings curious readers. In breach of nothing.
Furthermore, I maintain that URL inclusion within a comment is a separate playing field that allows participants to substantiate, deviate, advertise, vent, and even detour mercilessly... whereby rules of safe-internet-sex dictates that mouse-clickers-on-links should *always* be wary.
[Readers: don't forget before clicking that T&S might be considered in some circles a "conspiracy theory forum", thus for this very reason could be target to some psyops to keep it and its discussion topics in-line.]
Without irrelevant-to-the-topic URLs floating above the relevant typed words, how else can alert readers and passionate T&S followers get "another installment of the war between Señor El Once and Hybridrogue1" -- albeit boot-leg and off-list -- without such an installment actually breaking out here? Geesh.
//
x110 Señor El Once : The accused "Thread Hijacker"
{mcb: At this point, comments were already juked. This was posted twice in an attempt to position it as the last comment, unsuccessfully. A request was made to have one sent back to the moderation queue.
2014-07-03
and
2014-07-03
}
Four hundred and seventy-six total comments so far, but this number may or may not include comments relegated to the moderation queue.
The accused "Thread Hijacker" made thirteen comments, three of which are in the moderation queue, for a whopping, thread-derailing TWO-POINT-SEVEN PERCENT of the total!!! Woo-hoo!!! I'm a winner!!!
... Uh, but wait a second. How come the stats tell a different story?
Mr. Adam Ruff made fifteen comments (3.2%).
Mr. Craig McKee made twenty-two comments (4.6%).
Mr. A.Wright made forty-eight comments (10.1%).
Mr. Adam Syed made fifty-five comments (11.5%).
Mr. OneSliceShort made sixty-five comments (13.7%).
"The accuser" made has TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE comments: not counting any in the moderation queue; not counting Tourette comments to his blog. That is a meager FIFTY-POINT-THREE PERCENT.
The accused would need to up his output by 3.7 times just to match Mr. A.Wright's, and crank it up by whopping 18.6 times just to match the accuser.
... Hmmm... 2.7% (SEO) versus 10.1% (A.Wright) or 2.7% ("the accused thread hijacker") versus 50.3% ("the accuser") seems not just a bit counter to the claim of a "thread-hijacking". It verges into the realm of purposeful deceit and projection, particularly when [June 26, 2014 at 10:46 am] every effort was made by the accused to have his comment(s) passed-by, unaddressed, specifically by the accuser so that the accused could fulfill his obligation to Truth in a hit-and-run fashion sans any significant detours into the weeds and thereby not obtain new opportunities for engagement. Awe, shucks!
As far as having read his book or not is as irrelevant as having read or not another book which is infamous on this blog. Both books are take offs on material already published on the author's websites. And having digested enough of those websites to understand the arguments and positions therein is enough to speak to either subject.
Mustelid. Whether book or website, when cornered for specifics involving quotations and source page numbers or URLs, all that was output was indeed "digested", usually two or three times via 2nd- or 3rd-hand sources. Little proof has been offered of 1st-hand study of the source and original thought. And the understanding? Limited only to the bad; no acknowledgment of good. Most unbalanced in a very stilted way, as if following an agenda. Worst of all, "arguments and positions" is a red-herring for avoiding clear perception of "facts and evidence" contained in such works that transcend any (dubious) "arguments and positions" contained therein and in need of rescue.
P.S. I'm off-line for the weekend after posting this. Let's revisit the posting counts for "the accused thread-hijacker" versus "the accuser" next Monday to see if stats should be updated.
Meanwhile, according to "the accuser's" logic: Woo-hoo!!! I'm a thread-hijacking winner at 2.7%!!!
//
x111 hybridrogue1 : Forum Flooding by the true thread hijacker
2013-07-03 thru 2014-07-06
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
Go fuck yourself Señor.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
55×3 nCi = 965 nCi
25billion – 965 = 24,999,999,035 nCi less than a single tritium EXIT sign.
Get the picture?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is rather like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles' broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938.
Neither happened…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
Suppose we accept Ed Ward's 55 times greater number:
55×3 nCi = 965 nCi
25billion – 965 = 24,999,999,035 nCi less than a single tritium EXIT sign.
Even if we give him the wash, and rain, and allow his 16billion number, which in itself is just supposition on his part; we still end up with billions of units less tritium than what is in a single tritium EXIT sign.
We need not be nuclear scientists to see that the tritium situation cannot be an indication of a nuclear device.
Unless of course we are going to refer to EXIT signs, weapons siting systems and tritium watches as nuclear devices. But no one is going to propose that any such devices had a hand in blowing up the WTC… unless like Ward and his followers they are crazy as shit-house rats.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
Hey, did anyone ever point out to you that a single EXIT sign has 25billion nCi?
Can you say, 25billion? Sure you can. My friends in the neighborhood can say it too,
25billion… with a "B" yup.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
Hey Once, did anyone ever point out to you that a single EXIT sign has 25billion nCi?
Can you say, 25billion? Sure you can. My friends in the neighborhood can say it too,
25billion… with a "B" yup.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-03
Hey Once, did anyone ever point out to you that a single EXIT sign has 25billion nCi?
Can you say, 25billion? Sure you can. My friends in the neighborhood can say it too,
25billion… with a "B" yup.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-04
Lol, boy did I give Ed Ward a huge benefit of the doubt with that simple math error of: 3 x 55 equaling 965.
Yes yes, silly mistake, which means the tritium level was even more inconsequential than my original assertion.
3 x 55 = 165; so 25 billion nCi less 165 = 24,999,999,835 nCi
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-04
It's a crap-shoot where these comments are going to end up now…
But here is that correction for the collection for the beancounter again:
*55×3 nCi = 165 nCi
25billion – 165 = 24,999,999,835 nCi less than a single tritium EXIT sign.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-05
Explaining to the anonymous entity such simple concepts as the idea of "hijacking a conversation" may be futile given his distinct lack of cognitive cohesion, yet the exercise is worthwhile for the benefit of others nevertheless.
Hijacking has to do with steering and direction not with speed or frequency. In our instance, that of commentary and conversation, the issue is to do with topic, and the natural flow of that in it's variance.
How this differs from what the entity does is quite obvious, as he has a prior agenda that he refers to as his "hobby horse", which is rather a rocking-horse. And it is only pretense that this has any relevance to the topic of the current conversation, or on the many other conversations that were taking place when the sales pitch was forced upon those as well.
As with the entity's standard techniques of obfuscation, he has the "beancounter ruse", wherein he pretends that putting things in jive numbers has some special magic relevance. So it is another slight of hand and distracting jabberwank to cite meaningless statistics and make up equations as convoluted allegories that might be more easily understood if put in sentences of plain language. But such transparency of thinking is not the mission of a PR salesman, especially when that mission is to defame what he sees as "competition".
This short little exposition is an explanation of 'Hijacking a blog thread'. More can always be said, but sometimes less is better.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-05
2014-07-05
title: Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
author: Steven E. Jones
"Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for "top-down" demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.
Promoters of the mini-nukes idea have also supported their claim with news stories of nuclear contamination in landfills near New York City, ignoring the fact that the stories were about radium contamination from industrial equipment.
A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used."~Jones
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By Ed Ward, MD – 6-15-7
–"Verifying the Source of Tritium Levels 55 X the Normal Environmental Amount
Certified Laboratory Testing of WTC Debris Currently In Progress."
http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm
What is the definition of "Normal Environmental Amount"?
What was the amount at WTC on September 10, 2001? Are there actual 'control group' numbers that can be cited?
What is the significance of such a minuscule amount as 55 X?
Etc, ad infinitum…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-05
So who is this "physicist" Bill Deagle that is working with Ed Ward?
A prophet, who aliens are interested in because of his extreme intelligence.
Who is one of the witnesses described in the Book of Revelations.
Yea one of the fruitier nutcases that Jeff Rense has on his radio shows for shits and giggles.
The whole core gaggle of the WTC nuke biz are charlatan lunatics.
Preger, Ward, Fetzer, Fox, Duff, Bridges…the whole lot of them.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-05
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread398534/pg1
More on Deagle…
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/02/dr_27.html
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
–"Not only does nanothermite only have an explosive force that is not even equal to 1/13 of TNT, but Professor Niels Harrit, perhaps the most scientifically qualified of its supporters, advised Mark that, by his calculations, a minimum of 29,000 metric tons of nanothermite would have been required to have blown apart a Twin Tower. That would have been more than 100,000 tons of explosives. Indeed, as Mark observes, even 29,000 tons would have been difficult to put in place without being detected."~Fetzer
http://www.veteranstoday.com/…neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle
This is simply untrue. Harrit sent Mark Hightower did not "advised Mark", he asked for the recipients of the calculations to "find the error". It is conjecture to think that there was no error that Harrit was looking to see if any could discover.
The major thing to notice is that the error is not in the math – it is in the assumptions that the math is put to. And this is a major lesson to all researchers to learn that math is only as good as the assumptions that it is set to calculate.
The problems of the assumptions that Harrit describes for his calculations are well known, but rarely considered by such sloppy researchers as Hightower, Fetzer, Fox, and others; and that is the ratio of the materials that were actually the fine dust, nowhere near the amount used in such calculations [see: Jones: WTC CONCRETE DUST TO CHUNK RATIO: May 13, 2014 at 1:57 am - Controlled Demolition - HR1blog]
Furthermore, the "nanothermite" Hightower discusses in only one formula among many; [See: B. J. Clapsaddle et al., "Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,"~Clapsaddle 2005.]
Finally, the "Nukes at WTC" theory is crushed by it's own clearly irrational and false claims.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-05
–"The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 has NOT reached a consensus among the Scholars group" (p. 157)," ~Jones [portion quoted by Reynolds/Wood]
However Jones continues with; –"Here is some evidence: The Penta-lawn was not gouged (argues against B757 at ground level as in the official ASCE report).
Through the next several pages Jones speaks to the "gate-cam" surveillance tape, shows photo's of size of 757 and generally disputes the official story.
http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/060719_AnsQJones1.pdf
But this is not what is intimated in the Reynolds-Woods hit piece on Jones, as they attempt to claim Jones is arguing the same points that Legge and Ryan now do.
See:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-05
In addition to the above, the fact that Legge et al weren't able to get a paper published on a plane hitting the Pentagon until Jones had passed the leadership to Ryan, should indicate that it was Jones himself that wouldn't go along with the "consensus" as it changed upon his departure.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
"Avoidance through stonewalling and prolonged silence will no longer suffice. This will not go away."~Pepper
This assertion by W.F. Pepper in his letter to Mr. Todd J. Zinser U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General; is equally applicable to Ryan, Chandler, Cole, Legge et al, as per their own stonewalling as to our challenge as per the Pentagon event.
Let the "Leaders" involved in the 'Consensus Panel' take heed as well.
\\][//
x112 Señor El Once : the Kevin Ryan paradox redux
{mcb: First Attempt could not be posted.}
When last we left our persistant, masked, Latin-sounding hero, he was accused of using his 2.7% of the total comments to hijack this thread into {-redacted-} topics. Then the accuser -- already at 50.3% of the total comments and on top of several pleasantry exchanges with Mr. Syed -- racks up a solid 12 comments directly into {-redacted-} themes and more than twice that number on his blog oh so worthy of recognition.
To paraphrase a boring tango from above between Mr. A.Wright and -- coincidently
The really bizarre thing about [those spamming comments] is that you are actually serious...
An insightful argument was not present to tie together the hypnotic spam, which wants to make significance about reported amounts of nCi. Later in this exposition, the erroneous thinking from the nano-Courie spam will be shredded... But first here's something on topic and ironic: the Kevin Ryan paradox redux.
What is the 9/11 official story with substantiation with regards to nuclear devices? It doesn't exist. They didn't lend any speculation to this prospect at all, because the "obviousness of destruction causes" [e.g., jet fuel, office furnishing fires, gravity] meant they didn't need to go there, despite (a) USGS measurement of correlated elements & heavy metals in the dust, (b) commissioning measurement and analysis of tritium as attributed to WTC content.
Where are the official reports that properly analyze data sets of systematically and thoroughly measured radiation, air, dust, etc.? Where's the official government report that ties these together to definitively calm the public about nuclear devices ~not~ being used on 9/11? What works has the government published to debunk the notion of 9/11 nuclear devices? When the efforts from the 9/11 Truth Movement are excluded, the portfolio is very thin. A well-read person relying exclusively on the official story cannot say "there was no radiation at the WTC", because nothing was published that systematically measured for this promptly, analyzed it, and determined all levels to be at or below trace background levels.
T&S participants who try to argue down nuclear involvement suffer from the Kevin Ryan paradox redux: "the way to show the 9/11 official story is false is by accepting as much of it as possible." They obviously accept everything the government has ever written about WTC radiation as well as everything the government on purpose hasn't written about it, too. "Nothing to see here, folks! Move along now."
Now let's shred the nano-Courie nonsense. Its fundamental flaw is that it trusts unquestioned and unchallenged the government's commissioned work on tritium, when the poor track record from many government agencies' reports on 9/11 [e.g., EPA, NIST] dictates otherwise. Given the juking of the very definition of trace levels, given the delays and shoddiness in sample taking, can the few nano-Courie numbers themselves be trusted at face value? Certainly, they do not tell the complete tritium story, and contribute to garbage-in / garbage-out in Dr. Steven Jones' "no nukes hypothesis."
Set aside the Kevin Ryan Paradox as well as the untrustworthiness of such reports already shredding the arguments of those who play with nano-Courie, so that it could be shredded again in a different way.
25billion – 965 = 24,999,999,035 nCi less than a single tritium EXIT sign.
The participant offering such numbers should substantiate where they were acquired. Furthermore, in the case of the WTC tritium report that might be the source for one of the nano-Courie numbers, the WTC did not have any tritium EXIT signs. The reason this can be stated so confidentally is that if the WTC did use tritium EXIT signs, it would have been mentioned in the tritium report with factors like "2x" and "110x" in the equation respectively for number of towers and number of floors with such signs.
No, "aircraft EXIT signs" having tritium were allegedly the main concern in the tritium report.
Now let's set this shredding aside with the other two, so that the nano-Courie participant's argument can be trashed yet another way.
The units of importance are "nCi/L", which is an indication of the dissipation levels. The normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer -- if it can be trusted -- was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Note both time and distances as well as rain and firefighting efforts involving water that affect greatly dissipation from original levels. Let's not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively. To fulfill its aim of calming public fears of the ill-health effects of ingesting tritium, the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L). Would not surprise me at all if they moved the decimal point in all of the relatively few samples used in the report, if the samples themselves weren't also cherry-picked to be the least bad.
The accusing participant has often brought up the contamination of landfills with tritium from exit signs, but has sought to deceitfully speculate that this leached back to the WTC to contribute to a higher normal background tritium level and thus the measurements weren't so anomalous. If this leaching backwards were a factor in raising the background level, it would have been postulated in the tritium report before jumping through hoops about aircraft exit signs, weapons sights, and time-pieces. It didn't. So either this is yet another way to shred the tritium report, or to shred that other participant.
Dr. Thomas A. Cahill, an expert on airborne particles, had conducted a study of the particles contained in the thin bluish smoke that rose from the rubble for nearly four months after 9-11. Cahill's air sampling began on October 2 and continued until late December 2001, when the last fires were finally extinguished. [The following quotes I believe come from Bollyn's interviews with Dr. Cahill.]
Cahill's work revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble. Most of the particles in these plumes were in the categories of ultra-fine and nano-particles: from 0.26 to 0.09 microns. The extraordinarily high level of ultra-fine aerosols was one of the most unusual aspects of the data, Cahill said. "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures," he said, "namely the boiling point of the metal."
While Cahill said he was not aware of evidence confirming the existence of molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, his data showing high levels of ultra-fine particles in the smoke plume prove that incredibly intense hot spots, capable of boiling and vaporizing metals and other components from the debris, persisted beneath the rubble for weeks.
I haven't brought Dr. Cahill up before, but this is another data point regarding the nature & duration of the under-rubble fires not being possible by chemical-based destructive means.
To paraphrase the words of the spamming, unhinged, sociopathic participant:
The No-Nuke/No-DEW thesis is pure conjecture based on fallacious reasoning and rhetorical spincraft. In a word it is; BULLSHIT.
At this point, objective readers should ask themselves "why all the spamming" by this one particular participant? Why the unhingement? Why the vitriol? Why the lies... so easily exposed and self-discrediting?
More importantly, why has no sliver of doubt in the correctness of his position ever entered into his mind and argument? Why no acknowledgment of errors, mistakes, omissions, or faulty assumptions in the works of others, particularly when pointed out? Why no waffling?
Hijacking has to do with steering and direction not with speed or frequency. In our instance, that of commentary and conversation, the issue is to do with topic, and the natural flow of that in it's variance.
Hijacking with frequency, whereby a 50.3% participation level is almost one-for-one to everyone else who ventured an opinion, is certainly one unacknowledged way to dominate and control the conversation. The beauty of my comments, thanks to the \\ variance from \\][//, is lurker readers can readily find the beginning and ending, like when they are scrolling right past and/or trying to ignore, such as I have been encouraging this particular participant to do.
Some could argue that my comments circled around but didn't venture in to any verboten topics. The other tangoing participant, in true defiance of Mr. McKee, jumps in with both feet and tons of spam. Were this thread not already dead, it could be considered not just quite the annoyance to those following and those reading this later, but also chumming the waters.
\\
x113 hybridrogue1 : further forum flooding to force consequences
2014-07-06
{mcb: Since last posting of SEO, HR made 22 total postings: 11 to HR's blog and 11 to T&S with some duplication.}
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
–"Not only does nanothermite only have an explosive force that is not even equal to 1/13 of TNT, but Professor Niels Harrit, perhaps the most scientifically qualified of its supporters, advised Mark that, by his calculations, a minimum of 29,000 metric tons of nanothermite would have been required to have blown apart a Twin Tower. That would have been more than 100,000 tons of explosives. Indeed, as Mark observes, even 29,000 tons would have been difficult to put in place without being detected."~Fetzer
http://www.veteranstoday.com/…neutron-bombs-a-major-piece-of-the-911-puzzle
This is simply untrue. Harrit sent Mark Hightower did not "advised Mark", he asked for the recipients of the calculations to "find the error". It is conjecture to think that there was no error that Harrit was looking to see if any could discover.
The major thing to notice is that the error is not in the math – it is in the assumptions that the math is put to. And this is a major lesson to all researchers to learn that math is only as good as the assumptions that it is set to calculate.
The problems of the assumptions that Harrit describes for his calculations are well known, but rarely considered by such sloppy researchers as Hightower, Fetzer, Fox, and others; and that is the ratio of the materials that were actually the fine dust, nowhere near the amount used in such calculations [see: Jones: WTC CONCRETE DUST TO CHUNK RATIO: May 13, 2014 at 1:57 am - Controlled Demolition - HR1blog]
Furthermore, the "nanothermite" Hightower discusses in only one formula among many; [See: B. J. Clapsaddle et al., "Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods,"~Clapsaddle 2005.]
Finally, the "Nukes at WTC" theory is crushed by it's own clearly irrational and false claims.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
Veterans Today is a coven of disinformationists and charlatans.
When Jim Fetzer settled his fat ass into a seat there, I became more convinced than ever, it's a mole-house.
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2012/12/01/veterans-todays-gordon-duff-and-his-elite-bio/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
"Where is my mistake?" asked Niels Harrit about his calculations for huge, unbelievable amounts of explosives to take down the WTC towers. I have just answered his rhetorical question, that everyone else seemed to believe was in the calculations themselves. No the mistake Harrit refers to is the misconceived problem.
It doesn't matter how brilliant your math skills if you answer the wrong questions.~ww
-8/12/2013
The Madness of Jim Fetzer:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18031
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
http://stj911.org/blog/research-faqs/
Niels Harrit and Steven Jones answer questions about their joint paper.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
At the Atomic wedding of Frankenstein's monster to Minnie Mouse, we meet the morbidly stupid guests and their "nukes at WTC" slapstick, while Fetzer pronounces them 'Man and Wife' to the hooting ululations of the poisonous people who tell rumors and lies and stories they made up. "Smoke good!" says Frankie as he tosses Minnie into the cake on the table.
All the while Señor el Zero sits rocking on his horse chanting, "treety yum treety yum!! nookiedoodoo doodoonookie spookiedoodoo! Hehehehe!!"
Too bad they didn't catch it on video…
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
The more I think about the email from Harrit that had Hightower jumping on it:
It was an intentional joke on Hightower, his PR man Fetzer and other obvious charlatans flowing out to the other fruitcakes that are spreading this stupendously stupid story.
Why wouldn't Harrit come out and bust them? Easy, anybody that buys into this shit is going care…they wouldn't miss a beat in making excuses around it – the very same stupid bullshit they are already saying.
As far as they are concerned Harrit's equations stand; regardless of the caveat of him asking; "Where is my mistake?" – to brush this off as rhetorical is to ignore that Harrit and Jones were joined together in a back and forth think-fest. Harrit would have certainly understood the dust to chunk ratio. Yet he wrote the equation to the extreme and false view that the vast majority of the materials were blown to the fine dust size. This information is shown in several studies beyond Harrit or Jones.
The equations fail because they are based on the false assumption of the amount of fine dust.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
But the nuke issue is dealt a death blow, simply by noting that the only historical instances that precede the global destruction of the Towers have been instances of controlled demolition with chemical explosives. It is a tried and true method. On top of that the signature characteristics match perfectly. This, not in theory, but proven by evidence. Beyond Reasonable Doubt the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition.
Others can howl at the moon all they want, but that is all they have is empty howling.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
Certainty is a philosophical question in the realm of metaphysics…
So I will put it like this:
As sure as I'm sitting here. That is as sure that the time/space/continuum and my experience within it. This is not addressed through a lens of metaphysics. This is addressed to Mondo Carne.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
–"Cahill's work revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble. Most of the particles in these plumes were in the categories of ultra-fine and nano-particles: from 0.26 to 0.09 microns. The extraordinarily high level of ultra-fine aerosols was one of the most unusual aspects of the data, Cahill said. "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures," he said, "namely the boiling point of the metal."~Anonymous entity
Note:
"Cahill's work revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble."
This is a strawman argument. The plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble, are an entirely different issue than the dust to chunk ratio in the dust samples that had settled on 9/11 itself:
WTC CONCRETE DUST TO CHUNK RATIO:
"It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise "has been slow to
understand" that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance
are the "supercoarse" variety rather than "fine" particles, and
that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC
rubble.
A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: "The
environmental science community has been slow to understand that
the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of
gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance
(mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-?mdiam)
particles, not the fine (<2.5-?m-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-?mdiam)
particles that are typically measured."
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feature_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table at that URL.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form."~Jones – Jan 2007.
[*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is just two studies, the Lioy study, and the Jones study. More can be cited from my article on HR1blog.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2009/07/final-word-on-tritium.html
The Anonymous Physicist aka 'Spooked':
"It should be noted that this paper ["Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, et al.] contains several bogus and ludicrous attempts to account for the tritium at the WTC on 9/13. Mostly they allege that the tritium came from exit signs on the planes that "crashed into the towers." The paper also alleges that tritium was in the sightings on the guns of police officers killed that day. The first "mechanism" is obviously bogus, as there is not a single video that agrees with reality in that the "planes" are clearly just CGI broadcast on TV, and there was no credible evidence on the ground that any planes had crashed into the towers, and did so with blatantly, obvious impossible crash physics."~Spook
So here we have "the final word on tritium" pronounced by some 'Video Fakery' screwball…Lol
This guy is about as believable as Bill Deagle the Prophet of the End Times..
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! NO! You can't make this shit up!
Everyone of these guys turn out to be fucking lunatics!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-06
Just so, first to the point of hijacking:
The main point of my comment on thread hijacking is of course that before the entity came on wanking his limp noodle, some 90% of my comments were directly to the Pentagon issue, while the other 10% was discussing side issues brought up by other commentators.
So the only comments I made that can reasonably claimed to be out of bounds as per topic are the ones provoked by the entity. Therefore the beancounting is skewed as far as context – which is typical of the entity's PR history.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
Lack of Tritium Exit Signs Control and Contamination of Landfill Leachate
FINAL JULY 2009
ASTSWMO Radiation Focus Group
Federal Facilities Research Center
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
444 North Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 315
Washington, D.C. 20001
Introduction
The Radiation Focus Group of ASTSWMO's Federal Facilities Research Center began
researching tritium issues in 2003. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) began conducting product stewardship activities concerning tritium
containing devices; specifically self-luminescent tritium exit signs.
In 2003, the California Water Board evaluated 50 landfills for the presence of radioactive
materials in landfill leachate. Above-background levels of tritium were found in leachate
at 10 of these facilities.[1]
In 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania began conducting
a comprehensive two-year evaluation of 54 landfills that tested for the presence of
radioactive materials in landfill leachate.[2]
The study was conducted as a follow up to Pennsylvania's new requirements for radiation monitoring at solid waste management facilities and to confirm findings of the 2003 California study. In the Pennsylvania evaluation, above-background levels of tritium were noted in leachate at most facilities.
Pennsylvania has done quarterly sampling for the past two years with similar findings.
Studies in New York and New Jersey also have shown similar results.[3]
The source of higher-than-background levels of tritium found in landfill leachate samples is presumed to originate from the improper disposal of self-luminescent tritium exit signs found in construction and demolition (C&D) waste and other solid waste streams, as there are no other known sources of tritium in industrial or consumer products that would cause elevated levels of tritium in landfill leachate.
A tritium exit sign is distributed as a GL device and may contain up to 25 curies (or
25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium sealed in all the small glass tubes. The manufacturers of generally licensed self-luminous tritium exit signs are specifically licensed and must meet the safety criteria in 10 CFR 32 and in the table of dose limits in 10 CFR 32.24. A general licensee who receives a self-luminous tritium exit sign must appoint a "responsible individual" who is knowledgeable with the regulations and requirements for reporting events, transfer, and disposal of the device.[8]
http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Policies_and_Publications/Federal_Facilities/2009.07_Final-Tritium-white-paper.pdf
"It is apparent that tritium exit signs are entering landfills via municipal or residual waste streams. When new, tritium exit signs may contain up to 25 curies (or 25,000,000,000,000 pCi) of tritium. The 2004 Pennsylvania studies indicate that over 90% of landfills had tritium above the 150 pCi/L normal background level, with over 50% above EPA's MCL for drinking water. Pennsylvania studies also show leachate tritium levels in 2004 and 2005 ranged from hundreds of pCi/L up to 200,000 pCi/L. A single tritium exit sign has the potential to cause the tritium levels observed." -Ibid
Follow-up quarterly sampling in 2007, 2008 and 2009 has noted levels as high as 350,000 pCi/L." – Ibid
"From numerous reports of lost or stolen tritium exit signs by Agreement States and NRC, one can conclude that tritium exit signs are being disposed of in the normal solid waste stream.[19] This is supported by the States that sample landfill leachate and find levels of tritium well above natural background. In addition to the 2004 and 2005 Pennsylvania studies, ongoing quarterly sampling and analysis of landfill leachate has yielded several landfills with concentrations in the 100,000 to 350,000 pCi/L range. As noted above, other surveys in the States of California, New York, and New Jersey have found similar levels." – Ibid
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
–"Cahill's work revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble. Most of the particles in these plumes were in the categories of ultra-fine and nano-particles: from 0.26 to 0.09 microns. The extraordinarily high level of ultra-fine aerosols was one of the most unusual aspects of the data, Cahill said. "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures," he said, "namely the boiling point of the metal."~Anonymous entity
Note:
"Cahill's work revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble."
This is a strawman argument. The plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble, are an entirely different issue than the dust to chunk ratio in the dust samples that had settled on 9/11 itself:
WTC CONCRETE DUST TO CHUNK RATIO:
"It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise "has been slow to
understand" that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance
are the "supercoarse" variety rather than "fine" particles, and
that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC
rubble.
A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: "The
environmental science community has been slow to understand that
the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of
gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance
(mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-?mdiam)
particles, not the fine (<2.5-?m-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-?mdiam)
particles that are typically measured."
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feature_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table at that URL.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form."~Jones – Jan 2007.
[*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is just two studies, the Lioy study, and the Jones study. More can be cited from my article on HR1blog.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
But the nuke issue is dealt a death blow, simply by noting that the only historical instances that precede the global destruction of the Towers have been instances of controlled demolition with chemical explosives. It is a tried and true method. On top of that the signature characteristics match perfectly. This, not in theory, but proven by evidence. Beyond Reasonable Doubt the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition.
Others can howl at the moon all they want, but that is all they have is empty howling.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
Dentchu wanna play the blabla game Señor el Zippo? Your the one who pressed for the free-for-all on T&S – you wanted to test the moderator's patience. Don't deny that is what you said only slightly veiled in the subtext. So now what?_you gonna bitchy moan cuz I brought it home to ya? Well then you just ain't been plunging hard enough toots, go fuck yourself again. Ten on the floor cowgirl.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
The fatal flaw in the argument of where did this infinitesimally tiny amount of tritium come from, is based on the assumption that the tritium present on September 10th was within EPA standards.
The evidence I provide having to do with the lack of containment of tritium in landfill leach fields suggests that it is highly unlikely that the WTC area was within those EPA standards.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
–"Mr. Rogue fails to understand the concept of water flowing under the force of gravity down, as if he didn't know that shit rolls downhill."~Señor El Once – JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . .
This is the entity's response to my proofs of tritium escaping municipal landfills and getting into the water table.
How does this wash?
Yes water flows downhill, it seeks "level" – "sea level". Where do we find sea level? At the coasts. Where is Manhattan? Manhattan is on the east coast. The WTC was at and below sea level [sublevels] this is why "the bathtub" and all of the construction of the retaining walls and revetments.
Mr Seenyor does not comprehend the term ubiquitous when it comes to environmental contaminants; biological, radiological, and chemical. He plays to a pristine environment at WTC prior to the events of 9/11; which is a clearly absurd proposition.
–"The discussion in the source paper was not about just any run-of-the-mill EXIT signs. No. They were "airplane EXIT signs." This is an important distinction for two reasons."
~Señor El Once – JUNE 6, 2014 AT 4:01 PM [same post as above]
I wasn't discussing "the source paper," which the entity should know full well. I was discussing the ubiquitous nature of radiation in the environment, in particular the tritium that is not containable by landfill leachates.
But worse than this is his argument that continues thus:
–"(1) Pilotless, droned aircraft may not even need EXIT signs. And even if the aircraft had them, their total numbers were small, the pathway to the few drainage sampling points speculative, and passage of time before measurement permitted much dilution of tritium."~SEO
Notice; "..may not even need EXIT signs.." Another of the entity's suppositions having no factual basis but his assumption.
And he goes on to speak to the "source paper", which only has relevance that travels as far as it does – which isn't to my point about tritium leaking into the environment as a constant and ongoing problem. If "dilution of tritium" was such a simple matter as flushing it with water, it wouldn't be such a constant problem to the landfill situation. Excess, over EPA standards tritium pollution is a constant, and especially so in the industrial city-scapes such as Manhattan.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
What is astonishing, amazing, in-fucking-credible is that the anonymous entity doesn't seem to get the point about a single EXIT sign having 25 Billion nano-Curies; is that the amount of approximately 3 nano-Curies is utterly minuscule or even 55×3 nCi = 165 nCi… compared to BILLIONS!!!
This amount of tritium is simply Inconsequential. This is the reason no effort is made to mollify "assure" the public about the possibility of a nuke at WTC – the idea is ludicrous, ridiculous, in fact insane.
There are in fact no indications whatsoever as grounds to make such an assertion. Only disinformants like Ed Ward, Jeff Prager, Bill Deagle {the Prophet from the book of Revelations-Lol}, Jim Fetzer, and a certain anonymous entity can spin this empty conjecture as if it had substance.
Yes, it is just amazing that anyone could seriously make up or buy into such bullshit!!
WTF!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
"Some could argue that my comments circled around but didn't venture in to any verboten topics. The other tangoing participant, in true defiance of Mr. McKee, jumps in with both feet and tons of spam."~our "Spanish sounding hero"–Lo!
WTF are you bitching about Señor el hero? You are the one who wanted a free-for-all. You wanted to test Craig's patience, you want this fucking carousel to go round and round and never end.
Well you got it bucko. And your accusations of my "lying, not acknowledging error, etc, are as hollow and insubstantial as your stupid arguments for a nuclear event. You have NOTHING coming or going.
It is all hysterical mania on your part.
\\][//
Count my frequency daddio!
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
–"The participant offering such numbers should substantiate where they were acquired."~Anonymous entity, as to my 25 Curies in a tritium EXIT sign.
This from 'Mr, put scare quotes around anything and put it in your browser"…Lol
Try this URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/rms/agreedown/tritium_exit.pdf
Among 64,800 RESULTS on Bing…
What the entity is suggesting here in the subtext is that 9/11 is it's own little world, and none of the materials or issues dealt with can come from anywhere but studies on 9/11 in particular – as if it is some sort of heresy to look into the larger general world for information.
The entity then goes on with:
–"Furthermore, in the case of the WTC tritium report that might be the source for one of the nano-Courie (sic) numbers, the WTC did not have any tritium EXIT signs. The reason this can be stated so confidentally is that if the WTC did use tritium EXIT signs, it would have been mentioned in the tritium report with factors like "2x" and "110x" in the equation respectively for number of towers and number of floors with such signs."
~Mr Anonymous Covert Op
Right!! The WTC towers did NOT use tritium EXIT signs. So What? I have never argued that they did! Why is the Señor entity so confused as to what I am saying? After shadowing my blog for two years, after this very argument has been going on for the same amount of time – why the fuck can't he at least make an argument against what I have actually said, rather than dicking around with spin after spin of bullshit misdirection and strawman arguments?
Is that a real question I ask there? No, it is rhetorical – because as I have expressed all along here, the Señor entity is either purposely a disinformant, or he is simply nuts.
Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is rather like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles' broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
Now I want the Señor entity to tell the forum what the amount of tritium at the WTC was on September 10, 2001 – yes the day before 9/11.
How much tritium was in the WTC sewers on 9/10/2001?
And let's have a citation to go with that.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
It is expectorate, phlegm, globular and viscous to speak of nukes and DEW at WTC.
Morbid stupidity dumped as agitprop.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
Let me repeat this injunction;
Now I want the Señor entity to tell the forum what the amount of tritium at the WTC was on September 10, 2001 – yes the day before 9/11.
How much tritium was in the WTC sewers on 9/10/2001?
And let's have a citation to go with that.
Because this handwave, is no answer at all:
–"Mr. Rogue brings this up, so he should defend it. What are the tritium measurements today at the WTC and NYC in general? Are those numbers significantly greater than the pre-9/11 trace/background levels [0.065 (nCi/L)]?"
I want to know the actual tritium levels at WTC prior to 9/11, this generalized
"trace/background levels [0.065 (nCi/L)]" is pure conjecture on the entity's part, no proof at all.
So what does "elevated levels of tritium" mean if you don't know what the levels were previously?
It is not my problem to cite the previous levels of tritium, it is the Señor entity's and these other charlatans claiming that the levels were elevated on 9/11; to prove they were elevated.
And once this proof is offered, they should explain how such a minute and insignificant amount is in anyway a proof of a nuclear weapon. We are indeed talking billions of times insignificant here.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
"Mr. Rogue obviously was taking a yellow-card so that he could get the comments shut down. Obsessive. Agenda."~Covert Entity
To the contrary, I am absolutely delighted that Mr McKee has allowed this conversation to proceed. The entity is reiterating with every post made that he has nothing but conjecture, supposition and rhetorical spin.
He has no idea what the tritium levels prior to 9/11 in Manhattan, he is assuming something that cannot be proven. And this is the way it goes with every disconnected step of his argument.
Again the fact that controlled demolition of the WTC has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, negates all vying propositions – especially those with nothing but supposition and spun rhetoric to back them up.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
At the Atomic wedding of Frankenstein's monster to Minnie Mouse, we meet the morbidly stupid guests and their "nukes at WTC" slapstick, while Fetzer pronounces them 'Man and Wife' to the hooting ululations of the poisonous people who tell rumors and lies and stories they made up. "Smoke good!" says Frankie as he tosses Minnie into the cake on the table.
All the while Señor el Zero sits rocking on his horse chanting, "treety yum treety yum!! nookiedoodoo doodoonookie spookiedoodoo! Hehehehe!!"
Too bad they didn't catch it on video…
\\][//
2014-07-07
Cahill and UC Davis Group – South Tower dust cloud sampling:
The UC Davis group acquired dust samples from a cloth carry-bag as well as a shirt that was directly hit by the expanding south tower dust cloud during collapse -
9/11/2001:
Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 85% of sample – Very fine aerosols (0.26 – 0.09 microns), 0.02% of sample
10/3/2001:
Coarse particles (12 to 2.5 microns), 11% of sample Very fine aerosols (0.26 – 0.09 microns), 20% of sample
\\][//
2014-07-07
"Furthermore, the audio signature of the chemical-based demolition techniques needed for the observed pulverization would have been deafening within 1/2 mile. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments experienced by survivors and witnesses within 1/2 mile."~Covert Entity
Absolute bullshit, something Sunder pulled out of his ass…
This assertion is based on the misconception offered by NIST. Consider the table offered at the URL below; even at 225 decibels a 12? Cannon is deafening at 12 feet away in front or below the blast. Anyone that close to a demolition blast would not only be deafened, they would be killed. Even being some block or so away the volume of the blast would attenuate significantly. The loudness of dB falls off exponentially by distance.
There is no chemical explosion on earth that is deafening beyond a couple hundred feet. One can get "shell shock" – but that is an emotional problem, not physical deafness.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/4HaasEaton/Decibel.html
\\][//
2014-07-07
Now el Hero (Lol), I have described how a chemical slow burn could keep the pile of the aftermath hot for weeks – now it's your turn; How does your nookieedoodoo machine keep the pile sizzling?
Be specific here no waffling, put it in clear language, something even Agent Wright would understand…as he seems to be your new goal post.
Sincerely, \\][//
x114 Señor El Once : Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi
Dear Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi,
You're our only hope... It is time for you to step forward and dissuade me from my nuclear notions about 9/11 at the WTC using facts, evidence, analysis, and logic... and this report of Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices [PDF].
Why? Because your most stalwart debate-opponent needs help big time, and this might be the debate topic that can unite Mr. Rogue and you, Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi, on the same side. Who would have thought it possible?!!
Doing so ought to earn you some respect from Mr. Rogue, because right now, he demonstrates so little love for you. I mean, you're lucky if a single comment from you generates a single reply, let alone many. But not to make you jealous or anything, but Mr. Rogue regularly was giving me two or three replies to each comment of mine, while my last two comments earned 10+ replies on-list (and many more off-list)!!!
Worse for you, Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi, is that you don't rank in Mr. Rogue's Jedi book to merit a blog posting of your very own on Mr. Rogue's blog, followed by a stream of unhinged, unflattering, Tourette's comments about you to make you glow all happy and content inside.
Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi, if you were to give Mr. Rogue some assistance, perchance he would avoid making stupid math errors and lies like:
Some 90% of [Mr. Rogue's] comments were directly to the Pentagon issue, while the other 10% was discussing side issues brought up by other commentators.
- July 3, 2014 at 6:40 pm: Mr. Rogue had ~239 out of 476 (50.3%).
- Since then, Mr. Rogue made 32 comments, increasing his total to 271 out of 513 (52.8%).
- Ten percent of 271 is 27.1 comments.
- Alone since July 3, Mr. Rogue made 25 diversionary comments aimed at me.
- Won't be too hard to look prior to July 3 and find (many many) more than 2.1 off-topic side comments from Mr. Rogue to make his 10% number an optimistic and opportunistic lie.
Math was never Mr. Rogue's strong suit.
Mr. Rogue's 25 diversionary comments (not counting his blog) aimed at me since July 3 is a strong indication that Mr. Rogue was deliberately trying to provoke Mr. McKee into closing the comments. Such poor sportsmanship.
Mr. Rogue brings up tritium exit sign contamination of landfills that he then speculates through his trousers juked trace background levels at the WTC prior to the tritium report's efforts.
First and foremost, if this tritium leakage pathway from landfills back to the WTC on 2001 were valid, then Mr. Rogue has exposed another error in the tritium report that contributes to making it untrustworthy. Good work!
Secondly, Mr. Rogue brings this up, so he should defend it. What are the tritium measurements today at the WTC and NYC in general? Are those numbers significantly greater than the pre-9/11 trace/background levels [0.065 (nCi/L)]? How would the tritium measurements from 2001 compare to trace/background from 2014?
Here's some hypnotic suggestion from Mr. Rogue:
But the nuke issue is dealt a death blow, simply by noting that the only historical instances that precede the global destruction of the Towers have been instances of controlled demolition with chemical explosives. It is a tried and true method.
By this faulty reasoning, America did ~not~ nuke Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Afghanistan, or Iraq (the latter two with DU muntions), because the only historical instances of fighting wars preceding these events involved the tried and true methods of chemical-based weapons.
The hypnotic suggestion continues:
On top of that the signature characteristics match perfectly.
No, they don't. Such chemical-based demolition techniques do not leave under-rubble hot-spots burning for months at extremely high temperatures (which Cahill's data collection suggests). The pulverization by design would have consumed most of the materials, leaving little to maintain those hot-spots. Furthermore, the audio signature of the chemical-based demolition techniques needed for the observed pulverization would have been deafening within 1/2 mile. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments experienced by survivors and witnesses within 1/2 mile.
Chemical-based demolition techniques do not leave correlated amounts of heavy metals and other tell-tale markings of nuclear hijinx as found in the dust by the USGS.
Why must Mr. Rogue resort to underhanded techniques of flooding, lying, and hypnotic suggestion?
11:25 pm (7/6)
1:45 am (7/7)
1:51 am (7/7)
2:22 am (7/7)
2:25 am (7/7)
2:31 am (7/7)
2:35 am (7/7)
2:45 am (7/7)
3:10 am (7/7)
3:28 am (7/7)
8:45 am (7/7)
9:14 am (7/7)
If these were all so germaine, why couldn't they have been delayed and compressed into one comment in one location? Why the pot-shots all over the blog? Divide and conquer, anyone?
Mr. Rogue obviously was taking a yellow-card so that he could get the comments shut down. Obsessive. Agenda.
Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi, Mr. Rogue needs you before he fouls out!
Sincerely,
//
x115 Señor El Once : Mr. A.Wright has never ventured his opinion
2014-07-07
Yes, Mr. A.Wright did say that before.
But Mr. A.Wright has never ventured his opinion about the copious amounts of evidence of 9/11 having nuclear components. Change that. Venture something. A thought.
Mr. Rogue could certainly use Mr. A.Wright's help. It would be amazing to see the two of them on the same team arguing the same points for once... in circles and up-and-down.
//
x116 hybridrogue : egging for a foul-out
2014-07-07 thru 2014-07-08
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
Let me repeat this injunction;
Now I want the Señor entity to tell the forum what the amount of tritium at the WTC was on September 10, 2001 – yes the day before 9/11.
How much tritium was in the WTC sewers on 9/10/2001?
And let's have a citation to go with that.
Because this handwave, is no answer at all:
–"Mr. Rogue brings this up, so he should defend it. What are the tritium measurements today at the WTC and NYC in general? Are those numbers significantly greater than the pre-9/11 trace/background levels [0.065 (nCi/L)]?"
I want to know the actual tritium levels at WTC prior to 9/11, this generalized
"trace/background levels [0.065 (nCi/L)]" is pure conjecture on the entity's part, no proof at all.
So what does "elevated levels of tritium" mean if you don't know what the levels were previously?
It is not my problem to cite the previous levels of tritium, it is the Señor entity's and these other charlatans claiming that the levels were elevated on 9/11; to prove they were elevated.
And once this proof is offered, they should explain how such a minute and insignificant amount is in anyway a proof of a nuclear weapon. We are indeed talking billions of times insignificant here.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
"Mr. Rogue obviously was taking a yellow-card so that he could get the comments shut down. Obsessive. Agenda."~Covert Entity
To the contrary, I am absolutely delighted that Mr McKee has allowed this conversation to proceed. The entity is reiterating with every post made that he has nothing but conjecture, supposition and rhetorical spin.
He has no idea what the tritium levels prior to 9/11 in Manhattan, he is assuming something that cannot be proven. And this is the way it goes with every disconnected step of his argument.
Again the fact that controlled demolition of the WTC has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, negates all vying propositions – especially those with nothing but supposition and spun rhetoric to back them up.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
Now come on Dr Nookiedoodoo,
Get this out of your system on this thread, which you have already wanked to woowooland – we don't want this crap to pop up again on some other thread down the line. Let's get this over with.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-07
From further blasts of anal hurlant on T&S today…
"Mr. Rogue obviously was taking a yellow-card so that he could get the comments shut down. Obsessive. Agenda."~Covert Entity
To the contrary, I am absolutely delighted that Mr McKee has allowed this conversation to proceed. The entity is reiterating with every post made that he has nothing but conjecture, supposition and rhetorical spin.
He has no idea what the tritium levels prior to 9/11 in Manhattan, he is assuming something that cannot be proven. And this is the way it goes with every disconnected step of his argument.
Again the fact that controlled demolition of the WTC has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, negates all vying propositions – especially those with nothing but supposition and spun rhetoric to back them up.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-08
–"No, they don't. Such chemical-based demolition techniques do not leave under-rubble hot-spots burning for months at extremely high temperatures"~Covert Entity — JULY 7, 2014 AT 2:09 PM
Empty assertion lacking proof. And followed by this:
–"The pulverization by design would have consumed most of the materials, leaving little to maintain those hot-spots."~Ibid
This is not a reasonable assertion; "pulverization" in itself is not consumption. The materials described by Paul Lioy could be described as an ultra-fine confetti. Anyone familiar with starting a fire understands the value of 'kindling', which is fragmenting wood paper or cardboard for faster ignition.
The materials themselves [as described by Lioy and others] was blended and fibrous. I used to blend 'dust' from my vacuum bag with melted wax to make "easy ignition" fire starter plugs for my fireplace.
So now, approaching the Entity's assertion by another angle: For the sake of argument if most of those materials had actually been consumed; what is the mechanism of this 'Nookiedoodoo Machine' that maintained those hot spots?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-08
2014-07-08
–"Chemical-based demolition techniques do not leave correlated amounts of heavy metals and other tell-tale markings of nuclear hijinx as found in the dust by the USGS."
~Señor El Once – JULY 7, 2014 AT 2:09 PM
But it is in fact these "correlated amounts of heavy metals and other tell-tale markings of nuclear hijinx.." that have not been proven by any substantive measure. We have been through these points, one by one for more than a year and shown that there is nothing to the entity's argument but spurious rhetorical spin. Which leaves us with the conclusion that the above quote by the Señor entity is nothing but the same spurious rhetorical spin.
\\][//
x117 Señor El Once : quality of the fine comment above
2014-07-08
{mcb: Due to the number of links, this went into moderation immediately. This is what prompted Mr. McKee's review of the happenings on the blog. It never made it out of the moderation queue.
2014-07-08
and
2014-07-08
}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
I was most happy to see you write as one of four diversionary additional pot-shots:
Now come on Dr Nookiedoodoo,
Get this out of your system on this thread, which you have already wanked to woowooland – we don't want this crap to pop up again on some other thread down the line. Let's get this over with.
\\][//
Self-discrediting, but I digress...
Did you notice how the comments sequencing got juked last week? Posting what is intended as a new top-level comment ends up out of sequence in the middle of the pack, with some seeming "permanent" final comments from over the holiday. You and I may have contributed to that by replying to our own postings visible to us alone but having been relegated to the moderation queue. And/or, another entity is messing with the blog -- precisely to bury my nookiedoo. Coincidence that once the comment sequence is juked, Mr. Rogue suddenly wants to it let out of my system on this thread? Mr. McKee has experienced similar sequencing mysteries under a couple of other articles that, like this one, had more than a few hundred comments and began going into some of Nookiedoo's favorite weeds.
For that reason, as well as the quality of your fine comment above, nookiedoo deserves a fresh start on a fresh thread.
When our discussion advances, Mr. Rogue, you will get a contemplative, comprehensive response on my time schedule, not yours. So thumping on your chest and shooting your mouth off with your brave "let's get this over with" taunts only reflect poorly on you.
I'm in no hurry to participate as if it were an addiction needing to be satisfied every hour. Why are you? [If that's your Jones, go to Facebook.] Otherwise, hold things back in your working Word document until you've got all your thoughts together. Give yourself opportunity to edit, to fork off and save old revisions [so it's not lost], to change tacts if need be in new revisions, ~before~ publication of the strongest, so that words written in haste and rushed to publication don't undermine what might have been worthy efforts.
Demonstrate some patience and some contemplation, if for no other reason, you know that my response will be made first on my schedule and second then on Mr. McKee's, because I plan on inserting lots of substantiating links that will send my comment to the moderation queue for his approval. Moreover, any time n>2 -- where n refers to the number of responses you make for a single comment of mine --, perceptions in the PR game are swung my way by virtue of being the underdog, and the win is by a wide margin if any of the n responses demonstrate unhingement, such as above.
In the past when Mr. Ruff was tossing down rules for the forum, I ventured the suggestion (now modified into this).
Per day, each participant is entitled to:
- One (1) response each to new, single comments made by other participants. [The usual discussion mode and total responses limited only by frequency of slower participant. Discussions with multiple participants possible in parallel.]
- Two (2) "I forgot something" comments. [This is per day and is intended to shutdown forum flooding and shotgun postings designed to distract, detour, enrage.]
In addition, each participant every x-th day [x to be determined; could be a number, or certain day(s) of week] was entitled to:
- One (1) fresh, unregulated comment in a discussion.
- One (1) fresh comment each to anyone with whom participant was previously in discussion in the thread. [To ping for life signs; to bring up something forgotten or newly discovered; etc.]
Thus a participant like you, Mr. Rogue, could carry on all sorts of discussions with others real-time -- other participants be willing --, and would be throttled only by the comment frequency of the slower participant.
If n>5 [exceeds a participant's entitlement on an x-th day], the case of n replies from the same person essentially to a single comment would be considered, among other things, poor sportsmanship.
If you shot your wad early in a shoot-from-the-hip immature and premature response; if you've already burned through your daily two "I forgot something" comments; and if you have no more x-th day liberties to take advantage of: before responding, you'll just have to wait for (1) their next comment, (2) the next day to get more "I forgot this" allotments, or (3) the next x-th day for its liberties.
Links would be encouraged even if they send your comment to the moderation queue for approval. No worry, because most likely it'll be approved before an impatient opponent is forced to burn and/or wait for a new day's "I forgot this" allotments.
Maybe they shouldn't be considered as mere "comments" either, but "letters" [good old fashion snail-mail "letters"] such as the exchanges between Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, with the aims of writing & reasoning at that level and of being worthy to be preserved.
Always late to the pick-up, Mr. Rogue should have noticed that I have been doing this for years. And by golly the difference between this and that couldn't be more striking.
++++++++++++
Ah yes, now I must return to that which I had been working yesterday before n replies from Mr. Rogue attempted to bully the conversation.
Buried in the report "Elevated tritium levels at the World Trade Center" is a footnote to an entry in Table 1. The results of tritium analysis in New York State. The footnote says: "The value is the lowest due to low natural radioactivity background fluctuations of the glass vials for this batch." The table entry itself was for the Albany County Health Department [which must be somewhere near the WTC], was collected 2001-09-26 [note time delay], and was <0.061 nCi/L. This is just less than 20 TU = 0.0638 nCi/L that has been used and hyped as the supposed trace/background level.
If Mr. Rogue wants to make hay out this, further research shows that 20 TU is probably high and may be another indication of juking in the report. [Consider it adequate wiggle room to accomodate any tritium-backflow from tritium exit signs et al at landfills to the WTC.]
Prior to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s, tritium's natural average concentrations ranged from approximately 2 to 8 TU. ... Since cessation of atmospheric nuclear tests, tritium concentrations have dropped to between 12 and 15 TU, although small contributions from nuclear power plants occur.
...
In the period of three half-lives (1963 to 2000), tritium concentrations have been reduced by a factor of 8. With no further atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, tritium will continue to drop to near natural background levels.
http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf
As stated above, expected on 2001-09-10 would have been 12 to 15 TU.
12 TU = 0.03828 nCi/L
15 TU = 0.04785 nCi/L
20 TU = 0.0638 nCi/L
To put into perspective, the split water samples from the basement of WTC-6 (2.83 nCi/L and 3.53 nCi/L) that had us exclaiming "(respectively) 44 and 53 times greater than expected trace/background levels!!!" could actually be much further out of whack.
2.83 nCi/L => ~44 times greater than 20 TU
2.83 nCi/L => ~59 times greater than 15 TU
2.83 nCi/L => ~74 times greater than 12 TU
3.53 nCi/L => ~53 times greater than 20 TU
3.53 nCi/L => ~74 times greater than 15 TU
3.53 nCi/L => ~92 times greater than 12 TU
Lest these numbers bury the salient points, both of these measurements (2.83 nCi/L and 3.53 nCi/L) were hand-waved away as being "at or below trace/background levels" [essentially in the report and then later downstream by Dr. Jones]. These numbers had astute 9/11 Truthers correctly pointing out that such would require the re-definition of trace/background to be higher than it was.
Whether or not these numbers are "below EPA thresholds on health risks", the numbers are still anomalous as were the hand-waves to explain them away.
[Unfounded speculation] And in a section clearly labeled "unfounded speculation", I bring up the fact that the number of tritium samples is small, maybe even too small given the enormity of the event. Maybe they "pruned" inconvenient samples from the set to keep the set small and not highlight anything like from a date close to 9/11 or near a hot-spot that would totally explode the maximum recorded levels? The set being so small, it would be easy to multiple all values by 0.1 (or 0.01, 0.001, etc.) to shift the decimal place to wrestle the values into something closer to the already inflated 20 TU and below EPA health risk thresholds. [/Unfounded speculation]
Mr. Rogue had written:
[T]his generalized "trace/background levels [0.065 (nCi/L)]" is pure conjecture on the entity's part, no proof at all.
So what does "elevated levels of tritium" mean if you don't know what the levels were previously?
Proof provided (again). Proof was actually at Mr. Rogue's fingertips prior to his bullying "pure conjecture", because he has the report and has made many references to it, only Mr. Rogue proved himself inadequate to the challenge of understanding it.
Mr. Rogue continued:
And once this proof is offered, they should explain how such a minute and insignificant amount is in anyway a proof of a nuclear weapon. We are indeed talking billions of times insignificant here.
Refer to the unfounded speculation and how to move decimal points in one operation in a spreadsheet.
Mr. Rogue should also study Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices. The configuration of a nuclear weapon as a neutron device already heavily manipulates the expected yields, be it blast wave, heat wave, EMP, or various forms of radiation. The deeper one goes into such devices, one notes how trade-off's in the implementation and in the yields [such as directing energy at specific wavelengths] can result in devices hinted at in Dr. Wood's work.
Mr. Rogue (and others vocal on the no-nuke front) like to shoe-horn 4th generation devices into the ruby red shoes of Enola Gay's "Little Boy", but these newer devices ain't from Kansas no more.
The entity is reiterating with every post made that he has nothing but conjecture, supposition and rhetorical spin.
Mr. Rogue knows this isn't the case, which is why he was assigned to the case... ho-hum, with n comments in a row and not much thought.
–"No, they don't. Such chemical-based demolition techniques do not leave under-rubble hot-spots burning for months at extremely high temperatures"~Covert Entity — JULY 7, 2014 AT 2:09 PM
Empty assertion lacking proof.
2012-02-13
2012-03-04
So quickly Mr. Rogue forgets.
–"The pulverization by design would have consumed most of the materials, leaving little to maintain those hot-spots."~Ibid
This is not a reasonable assertion; "pulverization" in itself is not consumption. The materials described by Paul Lioy could be described as an ultra-fine confetti. Anyone familiar with starting a fire understands the value of 'kindling', which is fragmenting wood paper or cardboard for faster ignition.
The materials themselves [as described by Lioy and others] was blended and fibrous. I used to blend 'dust' from my vacuum bag with melted wax to make "easy ignition" fire starter plugs for my fireplace.
Ho-hum.
2012-07-10
2012-07-20
So now, approaching the Entity's assertion by another angle: For the sake of argument if most of those materials had actually been consumed; what is the mechanism of this 'Nookiedoodoo Machine' that maintained those hot spots?
Does Mr. Rogue know the significance of any of the follow words: "Chernobyl," "Fukushima," "nuclear fizzle"? Here's a refresher: 2012-03-13.
The undamaged stairwell with firefighters; the leaning upper stories; the spire: these are indications of a less than perfect operation even before duration of under-rubble hot-spots are considered, the flakiness of the tritium report, the errors and omissions of Dr. Jones, the missing radiation reports, etc.
–"Chemical-based demolition techniques do not leave correlated amounts of heavy metals and other tell-tale markings of nuclear hijinx as found in the dust by the USGS."
~Señor El Once – JULY 7, 2014 AT 2:09 PM
But it is in fact these "correlated amounts of heavy metals and other tell-tale markings of nuclear hijinx.." that have not been proven by any substantive measure.
Ho-hum. What the dust reveals. No one disputes what the USGS measured and put into nifty tables, but one can dispute that they didn't discuss the significance of certain elements coming up in correlated quantities -- sample to sample. [Be careful, Mr. Rogue, because the section "what the dust reveals" already addresses your weak arguments from other places.]
We have been through these points, one by one for more than a year and shown that there is nothing to the entity's argument but spurious rhetorical spin. Which leaves us with the conclusion that the above quote by the Señor entity is nothing but the same spurious rhetorical spin.
Woo-hoo! If the above doesn't demonstrate in its hypnotic suggestion ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and ... doctorate equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology" (2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM).
Mr. Rogue's n comments to my one -- not even addressed to Mr. Rogue -- gives new meaning to his expression "wanked to woowooland."
Mr. Rogue, you don't have to respond immediately. Take your time. Go hog wild on your blog. Come Sunday night (2014-07-13), craft a contemplative, comprehensive, new entry for T&S from the rational pieces splattered on your blog.
Why? Because tomorrow at this time, I'll be off-line until Monday. Things to do. Places to go. People to meet. Between now and tomorrow at this time, I'd only be good for about one more comment, only then if there's one comment for me to respond to. Spare me and the T&S forum that triggering comment until Sunday night, okay?
Get to work, Padawan.
//
x118 Craig McKee : Consequence B
2014-07-08
July 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm
Some of you may notice that a bunch of comments were returned to the moderation queue today. Since the last TS post, and especially over the past 10 days or so, I have been rushing to meet a deadline for two very long and very involved articles I'm contributing to book project on false flag operations. Finishing these pieces has kept me from many things I'd normally be doing. One area where I've been remiss is following the comments on this thread. I regret not making enough time for this recently.
In getting caught up, I found a lively discussion going on about nukes at the World Trade Center. I could have sworn I outlawed that several days back. Now, removing comments after the fact can really screw up a thread, but in this case TOO BAD. If I see more I'll take them out, too. At this point, I don't care who "started it."
Now, to the future: Until further notice, there will be NO mention on this blog of the nuclear issue either directly or indirectly. Not one word. If anyone ignores this demand from me, they may find their posting privileges suspended. Or revoked. And if I think someone is taking advantage of this ban to provoke or taunt someone else, I will deal with them in a similar way.
I am not saying this because I'm necessarily hostile to the topic. I'm hostile to how this topic ruins threads on this blog.
x119 Señor El Once : email into an accidental comment
2014-07-08
{mcb: When I want to post something on the blog, I write off-line and post using the blog's comment forms.
I may monitor the blog activities through notification email, but I do not make postings using email.
Mr. McKee's comment to the blog -- read in email -- inspired me to write an email.
But rather than forwarding the notification email with his posting and my comments,
I accidently replied to the notification email that then resulted in a posting.
Mr. McKee and I had been exchanging emails regarding the juking of the comments,
so the notification email also confused him leading him to make the same mistake:
accidently publishing an email.
But given that he was already in the act of purging comments,
he quickly caught that this exchange was published and unpublished them.}
Dear Mr. McKee,
Based on reasons already given in your posting, the following comments are also ripe for pruning.
July 3, 2014 at 6:45 pm
July 2, 2014 at 7:46 pm
July 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm
July 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm
July 4, 2014 at 11:12 am
July 5, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Given that the comment sequence is already screwed up, you should test what DELETE will do, not just throw-back to moderation queue.
Because I'm telling you: comments hanging out in the moderation queue are visible to those who made them AND CAN BE REPLIED TO, thereby creating orphans than juke with sequencing.
Thanks for actions that assure me that I won't have a flood of Rogue-ian spam awaiting me after vacation.
As usual, I harbor no ill-will, although you're probably ticked with me. I, however, had been keeping my innuendo within due-bounds until Rogue went full-on crazy with a desire to run the discussion off the road and purposely inspire your consequential actions, that just so happened to coincide when you weren't paying attention. For him, win-win.
And you should consider the following from my last (moderated) posting as a starting point for guidelines on appropriate activity:
Per day, each participant is entitled to:
- One (1) response each to new, single comments made by other participants. [The usual discussion mode and total responses limited only by frequency of slower participant. Discussions with multiple participants possible in parallel.]
- Two (2) "I forgot something" comments. [This is per day and is intended to shutdown forum flooding and shotgun postings designed to distract, detour, enrage.]
In addition, each participant every x-th day [x to be determined; could be a number, or certain day(s) of week] is entitled to:
- One (1) fresh, unregulated comment in a discussion.
- One (1) fresh comment each to anyone with whom participant was previously in discussion in the thread. [To ping for life signs; to bring up something forgotten or newly discovered; etc.]
Moreover, you need to make a ruling on links. I argue that they represent another playing field separate from the text and context. They shouldn't have to abide by the same on-topic rules, because otherwise there will be no release-value for the pressure of off-topic themes. And if content at the destination is sufficient to relegate an otherwise on-topic posting to the dustbin, that will be challenged and exploited. "So-and-so put a link into a funny graphic image that isn't relevant to this context." "So-and-so put a links to a off-topic theme."
SO, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR NUKES? Who are you going to interview? What's your take for the article? Perfectly clear that you don't want to use anything I've written [would inflame too much bias], but that doesn't mean that it can't be used as a solid starting point and foundation for your understanding and efforts. Stand on my shoulders. Build on it. Retain was is valuable; don't use what isn't. And if I have something data-mined of value that you want to cherry-pick and re-use, it'll all be good.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html
//
x120 Craig McKee : worthwhile for others to look at the issue
2014-07-08
{mcb: Mr. McKee and I had been exchanging emails regarding the juking of the comments,
so the notification email of my accidental posting also confused him leading him to make the same mistake:
accidently publishing his email reply.
But given that he was already in the act of purging comments,
he quickly caught that this exchange was published and unpublished them.}
July 8, 2014 at 4:40 pm
I have to give thought to what you have suggested – especially off-topic links. I can see links being included that end up throwing the discussion off topic. As for what I'm going to do with nukes: the answer is that I don't have a plan for that. The fact is that the topic gets a disproportionate amount of space as it is.
I do see the benefits of having a thread reserved for it, but I don't see myself devoting enough time to the subject in the near future to become ready to write about it myself. I have many things I want to research related to 9/11 and other false flag events. The nuclear subject is not high on the list because I'm still not clear on why it's so important in relation to other aspects of 9/11 (not looking for a response to that comment). I want to work on how to broaden the awareness of 9/11 and which areas offer the best opportunities for awakening more people. I just don't see how a technical discussion about a possible nuclear element to 9/11 does that.
This doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile for others to look at the issue. But it's not a good use of my time at this point.
x121 Señor El Once : two threads devoted to me
2014-07-09
{mcb: As expected, this 2014-07-09
posting never made it out of the moderation queue. However, it took about six days for any indication that Mr. Rogue might have seen this in the moderation queue.
For the sake of context, this posting is repeated.}
Not that it will make any difference here, because it won't be published and stands a high probability of not even being read.
We know from the top-level posting and eleven
Mr. Rogue wrote:
This very comment- posted about an hour after the comment had already been removed, is obvious bullshit. The excuse that he wrote it as a private email and it just "happened to end up on the thread" is bullshit considering his deep grasp of how these things work… he is lying. He did it on purpose, and this excuse isn’t even plausible.
Obvious bullshit? Hardly.
How often does a participant need to refresh his browser session of a blog to keep abreast of comments? Whenever the participant knows or suspects that content has changed and wants to see context. What notifications about content changes can a participant receive? New postings and new comments to subscribed postings. Are any notifications sent regarding comments being demoted to the moderation queue or deleted? No. The exception would be the moderator publishing a new comment and alluding to actions taken for which no notification is sent.
Scenario: One of my browser tabs had email, and a second tab had an instance of the blog that showed the accidental comment made through email. Work interfers and maybe more than hour passes. Upon return, a glance at email shows no new comments to the blog. Is a refresh of the blog even necessary? Under normal circumstances, no. Ergo, creatures of habit that we are, it wouldn't be noticed that comments were removed from under the feet of that snap shot of the blog in my browser.
Furthermore, my own blogs are configured to not accept emailed comments even from me. Part of the reason for this configuration was that I could not envision at the time wanting to compose postings and comments in email, because it doesn't fit well with my authoring workflow that has me save local copies as well as make use of HTML formatting in my response.
[Indeed, the accidental posting via email shows how it mercilessly stripped out the formatting that was applied to the email. Not sure the HTML code would even make it intact to the comment on a blog if made through email.]
Registering for email notifications of forum activity is old hat, but many return email addresses on such notifications say "do-not-reply" or other such things, because accidental replies to that address are common and nobody is probably monitoring it. Game changer that the blog is smart enough to receive a reply email to an auto-notification and post my words in the right place on the blog, instead of giving me a bounced email.
All references to my JULY 8, 2014 AT 4:19 PM "comment" are in fact referring to something intended as a "private email" to Mr. McKee. Unknown to Mr. Rogue, Mr. McKee and I had exchanged a few emails prior to this regarding the problem in the sequencing of comments. They were hosed and as long as they were hosed, I was attempting some experiments and was keeping Mr. McKee abreast of the results.
By the way, it should be noted that Mr. McKee was caught in the same email oversight. Whereas "nukes" were off-limits on-list, they weren't off-limits off-list in my private email. Mr. McKee was so used to replying to my emails, when the email notification came of my (accidental) comment, he assumed the email was from directly me and he replied as usual... thereby making another (accidental) comment to his blog... talking about nukes no less. Because my message to Mr. McKee involved purging a few more errant comments, I assume that Mr. McKee in following up saw at that point our two private email comments exposed and published. So he zapped them quickly before I could do a browser refresh on the blog.
Meanwhile, I'm feeling mighty special that Mr. Rogue now has two threads devoted to me.
//
x122 hybridrogue1 : re-establishing truther credentials
2014-07-10 thru 2014-07-13
{ The nature of the following comments -- not complete -- are interesting. Mr. Rogue tries to crank up a conversation with Mr. Wright. He makes another comment to demonstrate his "wisdom". He kisses up to Mr. McKee for his "craziness". He posts an unnecessary "Best Evidence for the Pentagon 9/11 event" to solidify his trutherness. He tries to crank up a conversation with Mr. Syed. Mostly, though, it was Mr. Rogue marking territory, posting to himself, and demonstrating how he uses Mr. McKee's blog as if it were his own. Desperation to maintain his relevance. }
hybridrogue1
2014-07-10
For the benefit of Mr Wright:
Chain of Custody
Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence…part of the Rules of Evidence, all evidence must be "sealed" in a tamper-proof manner.
An identifiable person must always have the physical custody of a piece of evidence. In practice, this means that a police officer or detective will take charge of a piece of evidence, document its collection, and hand it over to an evidence clerk for storage in a secure place. These transactions, and every succeeding transaction between the collection of the evidence and its appearance in court, should be completely documented chronologically in order to withstand legal challenges to the authenticity of the evidence. Documentation should include the conditions under which the evidence is gathered, the identity of all evidence handlers, duration of evidence custody, security conditions while handling or storing the evidence, and the manner in which evidence is transferred to subsequent custodians each time such a transfer occurs (along with the signatures of persons involved at each step).
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence. It is best to keep the number of transfers as low as possible.
The vast majority supposed evidence for 9/11 is legally inadmissible.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-11
In psychological warfare one is either an ignorant victim or an aware defense strategist.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-11
As Truth and Shadows is indeed the cutting edge 9/11 truth blog today, I certainly hope that the recent craziness here hasn't discouraged Mr McKee from continuing on with the site.
I hope we see many more of Craig's stories here in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
And I hope that we will be hearing here on T&S some of what his recent endeavors in other venues have been.
Thanks for all that you are doing Mr McKee!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-12
So what is Best Evidence for the Pentagon 9/11 event?
>Photos of unidentified "aircraft parts" that have zero accounts of 'Chain of Custody'?
>A 'Flight Data Recorder' that has no ID nor account of 'Chain of Custody'?
>Photo's of "the interior of the Pentagon" that could have been taken anywhere?
>Photos of dead bodies in pools of water full of debris, with no conclusive landmarks proving these photos were taken in the Pentagon?
>Radar reports asserted by government sources with no verification from independent sources?
>A blur claimed to be an aircraft in a video from the gate surveillance camera?
It should be obvious to any lucid and serious researcher that none of the above have the slightest merit. The ONLY thing that can be counted on is witness testimonies compiled by citizen reporters who put the effort into on camera interviews with such witnesses. These witnesses who were in the best POV to make a determination, all described a [NOC] "North of Citgo" path of the plane that approached the Pentagon just before the explosion took place at the claimed "impact point".
Put simply the trajectory of the NOC makes it impossible to assert that this plane hit the Pentagon at the claimed "impact point" – because the damage path within the building does no line up with that trajectory. This is simple physics and aerodynamics.
Those who argue against these findings have nothing but conjecture and spinning rhetoric.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-13
Having read Mr Syed's critique of Ryan's book, I can say with confidence that the article was neither "nonsense" nor an "attack". It was rather a well applied deconstruction of Ryan's own words to show a deep rift in Ryan's own epistemic construct.
Mr Syed made a counter argument against a portion of Ryan's work that was entirely reasonable. And argument that Ryan should make a considered answer to rather than attempting to brush it off claiming it was an attack.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-07-14
Just for the beancounter's entertainment...
I have posted 7 of the 26 comments on the new T&S thread at this moment.
3 of these are to Agent Wright that might have been consolidated into a single post.
Bigga fuckin' deal .. Lol
Another one is as a "Walmart Greeter" boinking some jerk that had nothing but hearsay in his/her comment. Hohohohehehehahaha!
But every one is topical to the ongoing conversation there.
One of the things that would not be topical, as it is agenda driven, would be a 'Statistics Report". These things have no meaning but false allusions as dispersion against me. They only have meaning in the beancounter's fevered meltdown mind.
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/de-blasio-lashes-out-911-truth-getting-noticed-thanks-to-building-7-ballot-initiative/#comment-24967
\\][//
{mcb: The stats after purging and then resumption:
523 Total on Truth & Shadows 2014-07-14, but after deletion
hybridrogue1
1 June 13 5:25 pm
100 June 18 6:51 am
200 June 25 10:57 am
277 July 13 8:33 pm
(52.9%)
SEO
1 June 13 5:49 pm
12 July 8
}
x123 Señor El Once : how to gather, how to sow {Extended}
2014-07-15
{mcb: This is the extended version.}
Religiously fanatic to Truth that I am, inspiration comes from a partial verse to a hymn:
... How to gather, how to sow, how to feed Thy sheep...
I am so honored to have Mr. Rogue devote two threads to me: Carnival d'Maxifuckanus [started 2013-03-06] and MAXWELL BRIDGES: AGITPROP DISINFORMANT [started 2014-07-08].
Alas, "the gathering" efforts could use much refinement. Mr. Rogue doesn't know where his blog is going, let alone his endeavors under his individual postings. Actually, few blog authors know where their efforts are going, but they for sure ought to know where their efforts should ~not~ be going and avoiding those traps and sinkholes.
Case in point with the "agitprop" efforts, is Mr. Rogue's goal: (a) to defame me? (b) to legitimately knock out of contention 9/11 nuclear mechanisms? (c) to be a dumping ground for innocuous but irrelevant references that his outside-reading happens to run across?
I maintain that Mr. Rogue's [c] innocuous comments based on his reading are his best work. They should be maintained under a freshly created blog posting especially for them. They have no place under a blog posting that has for its primary purposes [a] defamation and/or [b] legitimate nuclear considerations, because they are just wasted and inappropriate filler that'll may never get read. The ego in me says to not pollute [a] my defamation with these [c] innocuous comments.
I maintain that such repetitive [c] innocuous comments are a bit of a cheat. Borrowed words meant to give Mr. Rogue additional shine and a seeming rationality to counter what would otherwise be total unhingement.
For the sake of critique, let's say that [b] legitimately debunking nuclear considerations for 9/11 would be a great service to the 9/11 Truth Movement, and to me personally, because I don't relish being a lone duped useful idiot on this theme. This could truly be Mr. Rogue's highest calling and "feeding of the sheep"!!!
But wait a second.
Two activities undermine such noble intentions. The first is [a] my defamation, which even the title suggests and is put on display with every "gathered" comment from Carnival that Mr. Rogue re-purposes and "sows" ~unedited~ into his new agitprop, where creeping ad hominem and misogyny builds up quickly to poke innocent readers in the eye. Were Mr. Rogue earnest in his endeavors, a focus on [b] that is legimtately executed might just achieve [a] as a bonus side-effect. But Mr. Rogue appears to be too clueless to perform even post-editing on his agitprop endeavors [1 week old at time of writing] to bring it into compliance with worthy [b] nuclear debunking goals and aspirations.
Which seques quite well into the second undermining activity of Mr. Rogue: deceitful tactics and dubious arguments. Here's a great example:
And you know full well the reason I don’t allow you to post on this blog. The several comments you made are the same verbosium argumentum bullshit that you post on T&S, and I will be damned if I am going to put up with your tomes of jabberwacky here.
"Verbosium argumentum" has a clear demarkation where it starts and where it stops. It could be tackled point-by-point in a single corresponding "verbosium argumentum" response, and perchance the "bullshit" pointed out. My serious efforts rarely contain defamation, and if they did, such could be edited out by he who has home-court advantage. What remains, though, are valid arguments that directly challenge and destroy Mr. Rogue's erroneous hypnotic assertions: the true reason why Mr. Rogue doesn't allow my comments. Using the technique of "forum flooding", Mr. Rogue injects his own "verbosium argumentum bullshit" spread across comments like a magician's smoke to distract.
To make Mr. Rogue's "agitprop carnival" complete, the [a] unbridled, arrogant defamation puts nails in the coffin of Mr. Rogue's work ever being seriously considered by anyone, let alone me. It can be safely ignored until it gets deceitfully re-deployed in a machine-gun burst of comments across a more public and reputable forum.
On rare occasions and more for sport, some themes from his blog can be plucked out, such as [2014-07-14]:
What Maxwell Bridges must, and will do before he even begins an argument for a nuclear and other exotic weapons being used at WTC on 9/11; is address the iron clad proofs of explosive demolition via chemical explosives already standing in the record shown to be beyond reasonable doubt. The ... points 6 – 9 in my article "Controlled Demolition" at the URL below should be addressed rationally, clearly and in order, rather than this leaping into the pile and aftermath again.
No "must" or arrogant "will do" about it. Ho-hum, already done [2014-06-06] but I'll mine what is relevant, edit, and add some more here to make it clearer.
Throughout the course of many comments, Mr. Rogue has laid down the hypnotic assertions of "signature characteristics of chemical-based controlled demolition" in an attempt to re-define the playing field to exclude nuclear devices. Mr. Rogue's proven poor math and science background makes his mind barren to the valid seeds of "superposition."
In layman's terms, an individual A signs his name in blue, on top of which another individual B signs their name in red: "superposition." Depending on whether your scope-limited, agenda-toting eye-wear has the red lens or the blue lens will determine which individual's signature is seen. Yet without any stilted agenda eye-wear, the superpositioning of both is clear.
I have no issues with "the iron clad proofs of explosive demolition via chemical explosives already standing in the record shown to be beyond reasonable doubt." Call that individual A's signature. The issues I have start with the rose-colored glasses that imply no other individual's signature was present. Further, individual A (chemical-based explosives and incendiaries) has been proven incapable of going the distance in accounting for all of the evidence.
For sport, I will address Mr. Rogue's points 6 – 9 of "Controlled Demolition" "rationally, clearly and in order." But first, a brief detour into my speculation.
[speculation]
Late-third (or early-adopter fourth) generation nuclear devices [PDF] were deployed in the towers, say, six-plus devices per tower aimed skywards. Aside from a configuration probably derived from neutron devices that resulted in little lingering radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, neutron), these devices were designed to channel energy at specific wavelengths that achieve molecular disassociation in their targets, or the observed "dustification" of the towers. This expelled energy at specific wavelengths could be aimed and targeted (DEW), such that it missed or grazed the outer steel wall assemblies. The spire is an inconvenient, accidental remnant that hints both where the devices were mounted (on alternating sides of the spire) and where they were aimed (upwards within the confines of the outer wall assemblies missing the spire).
The outer steel wall assemblies probably had conventional or exotic (nano-thermite) charges placed at the bolts connecting the wall assemblies to one another. Nano-thermite is hard to ignite, but one of the mechanisms within the realm of the possible -- as per Dr. Steven Jones -- is laser ignition. The directed energy of the nuclear devices fits well within the paradigm of laser ignition.
The wall assemblies that littered the WTC plaza were anomalously devoid of paint, plaster, and other things on their inside faces. Think of a microwave oven; it directs energy at a specific wavelength such that it excites water molecules in food. Sometimes, the rapid expansion of such water molecules into steam is sufficient to blow apart whatever contained it. Now think of Tesla, who is rumored to have had a device that would find a fundamental resonant frequency of a structure that could get the structure to shake itself apart. Now think of resonant frequencies whose wavelengths are "fundamental" to, say, atomic distances of molecules. When molecules of a compound are "shook apart" at the atomic level, what does it look like at the macro or human level? How would it be described?
The operation wasn't foolproof and wasn't executed without error. Overkill allowed some devices to fail and still achieve the desired destruction. The problem was, failure meant "nuclear fizzle." This is what created and maintained the hot-spots.
[/speculation]
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions";
The outer wall assemblies are acted on in a different manner than floors and content within the wall assemblies. Such demolition waves would be signature for how so many wall assemblies fell in tact. Such demolition waves may have also been involved with ignition of nuclear devices.
Yet how did the floors and content get so thoroughly pulverized? Where are the toilets, the sinks, the door handles, the office furnishings, etc. in the debris pile? Absent in any recognizable form, they are.
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
So? Already explained. What the debris pile doesn't have in large quantities are the floor pans, the supporting trusses, etc., because these were within the directed energy beam of the device.
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
So? Could be from the detonation of these special nuclear devices. It should be pointed out that sacrificing a significant blast (or heat) wave would be trade-off's in the nuclear design in order to achieve output energy at specific wavelengths that could be directed. Without a significant blast wave from the nuclear detonation, the audio signature would be vastly muted from Hollywood hype of what a nuclear explosion is "supposed to" sound like. Witness accounts of explosion within the buildings could be attributed to (a) the muted nukes, (b) the outer wall disassembly, (c) normal items being stressed to explosive failure by directed energy, etc.
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
Mr. Rogue makes it "suggestive of underground explosions", which it might very well be but isn't excluding of nuclear devices. It should be pointed out that detonations (DEW or otherwise) within the towers could be transmitted through the very structure itself and then be detectable as seismic vibrations. Suppposedly, the aircraft impacts were detected as tiny seismic events, although witnesses do relate how explosions in lower basement levels happened at the same time as the aircraft impacts.
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.
Explosives can produce molten steel, but they can't "maintain" molten steel or hot-spots at high temperatures over long periods of time. Once the chemical reaction has happened and a hot-spot produced, the chemical reactants from the explosive/incendiary device are consumed and whatever was heated begins to cool.
Here are questions asked to Mr. Rogue (and others) at various points in time and in various fashions, but with unsatisfactory answers to keep chemical-based explosives/incendiaries on the table as the primary destructive mechanism.
- How much "overkill" was in the logistics and planning of the destruction?
- Is it reasonable to assume that some amount of the "overkill" would be unspent and unreacted from its original pulverizings purposes to be available to maintain hot-spots over many weeks?
- What is the burn-rate of such materials?
- Under ideal conditions, how much would be required to maintain a hot-spot for four weeks?
Other fuel sources from diesel to office furnishing have been speculated, as were "salting of such materials" and "hot-spot migration" under the rubble. Most of those other fuel sources are limited by that source, by oxygen from the air (which would have been limited under the rubble), and by fire-fighting efforts. Exotic nano-thermite was considered because it generates its own oxygen in the reaction. Hot-spots burned for more than 4 weeks. There were more than 1 hot-spot.
4 [weeks] x 7 [days/week] x 24 [hours/day] x 60 [min/hour] x 60 [sec/hour] = 2,419,200 [seconds]
Detonation velocities of high explosives range from approximately 3,300 feet per second (fps) to over 29,900 fps. [~1000 (m/s) and ~9000 (m/s) respectively.]
Imagine packing this chemical explosive into an imaginary garden hose of arbitrary diameter. How long would it have to be to support 4 weeks of high temperatures?
At 1000 [m/s] => 2,419,200,000 [m] or 2,419,200 [km].
At 9000 [m/s] => 21,772,800,000 [m] or 21,772,800 [km].
Salt it in the pile any way you want -- lop off those significant 000 digits. The length required is still thousands of kilometers, and when multiplied by the arbitrary diameter of the imaginary garden hose calculates into being a massive amount. Unreasonable. And recall that this is the overkill amount unspent from its pulverizing purposes!
"Something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite."~Dr. Steven Jones September 2012
Just to be thorough, Mr. Rogue's signature piece was aimed at "controlled demolition." Destruction by nuclear means fits within the definition of "controlled demolition." Although Mr. Rogue is really aiming it at "controlled demolition with chemical-based explosives and incendiaries including nano-thermite," to argue mutual exclusivity of demolition mechanisms is to play the disinformation game. I've always held that they "threw everything including the kitchen-sink at the WTC." But when the discussion is about the primary mechanism of destruction, chemical-based devices don't go the distance reasonably or logistically on hot-spots.
And this is before we turn our gaze to the relatively cool pyroclastic dust clouds and the vehicle damage on West Broadway and in the car park. Unintended operation or errant side-effects of fourth generation nuclear devices more easily explains the car fires (and the sparing of trees, leaves, people, paper). The best Mr. Rogue was able to do was to re-use Dr. Greg Jenkins hypothesis that the dust was mildly conductive (let's assume true), and that this dust worked its way into the engine compartment in sufficient quantities to cause an electrical short, like across the battery terminals. Pure speculation and doesn't address vehicles that had fire damage originating and/or localized to areas other than engine (battery) compartment.
Mr. Rogue writes on 2014-07-11:
... 4th Generation Nukes are still in the conjecture stage.
Mr. Rogue gets this impression from an article written in 2005. Sure, I've been lazy. I started writing out the proper era nomenclature for the 9/11 weapons: "late-third generation and earlier-adopter-fourth generation." But lately I've been saving myself some keystrokes by writing simply "fourth generation nuclear devices," because people have been too lazy to look into the paper [PDF], just like they don't objectively review Dr. Wood's work for nuggets of truth.
Mr. Rogue should tell us which full-fledged 4th generation nuclear devices as speculated in the paper does not apply to 2001 and the then-available "late-3rd or earlier-adopter 4th generation nuclear devices?" Of the devices discussed, how many have been on the table since the 1970, or since Star Wars of the 1980's, or since the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1990's?
Thus readers clearly see the conjecture word games that Mr. Rogue would rather play.
Speaking of games, let's highlight another. Mr. McKee wrote July 8, 2014 at 3:20 pm:
I’m (not) necessarily hostile to the (nuclear) topic. I’m hostile to how this topic ruins threads on this blog.
Mr. Adam Syed added July 11, 2014 at 8:51 pm
Good call. That’s not censorship, it’s maintaining a reasonable environment that doesn’t drive a majority of readers/posters away from wanting to participate.
The deceitful Mr. Rogue writes July 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
I agree with you completely Mr Syed. As a participant that had a great number of comments deleted, I can say I feel no slight whatsoever – my point always being that the topic to remain unmentioned, should indeed remain unmentioned. It has been a disruptive matter for quite awhile.
Indeed. Mr. Rogue did have "a great number of comments deleted." More than FIFTY (50) between June 26 and July 8.
Me? I had all of FIVE (5) postings deleted, not counting the accidental posting through email and not counting a 2014-07-08 comment that did not make it out of the moderation queue.
2014-06-26 couldn't resist cranking the neu nookiedoo carousel
2014-06-26 unable to satisfy the least and slightest request
2014-06-27 Why does Agent A.Wright ignore me so?!!!
2014-07-06 the Kevin Ryan paradox redux
2014-07-07 Master Aye-Wright-Kenobi
2014-07-08 quality of the fine comment [never published]
2014-07-08 email into an accidental comment [shouldn't have been published]
The ratio TEN-to-ONE (or SEVEN-to-ONE) ought to be indication enough about who was purposely trying to ruin threads on T&S.
We can expect Mr. Rogue to try the old mustelid manuever: "It's not about the posting count, but the word count!" One comment, however long, can be easily skipped. But when a participant launches a hostile attack with ten responses to each comment from another, spanning a whole range of sociopathic attacks; when that participant commands 52.9% of the 523 published comments: some other defarious agenda is afoot.
And talk about crank, crank, crank! On top of all of this, as near as I can tell, Mr. Rogue made ~84 comments to his Carnival posting (6/26-7/9), ~50 comments to his Disinformant posting (7/9-7/13), and ~7 postings to his "Controlled Demolition" posting (6/29-7/13)... mostly in dubious preparation for later.
The disconnect here is that Agent A.Wright has never gotten nearly these ratios, never gotten such fine off-list cranking, and never even gotten a dedicated entry on Mr. Rogue's blog, while I now have two. Why not?
Mr. Rogue writes 2014-07-12:
Justified Ad Hominem: A person’s arguments define that person. When a person’s arguments are found to be constantly disingenuous, it is justified to point such out, to describe such an MO. It becomes a new level in argumentation when this happens. It is not that the issues and points are ignored, it is that they are combined with the history of spurious game playing with such points and illustrating this.
Exactly.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment