Show All Parts / Hide All Parts
x2 Maxwell Bridges : Case study in a 9/11 disinformation operative
2016-06-13
My debate opponents in the discussion below unravel as disinformation operatives. Although they call themselves a committee, it is clearly a team of members with different roles and rules of engagement in maintaining their agenda
Part 1: Quinazagga Disinfo
{Embodiments of the Cass Sunstein school of infiltration. My tolerance of blatant lies and deceit has run low. Today, I saw a Facebook posting that made sense:
If you're riding a horse full speed; there's a giraffe beside you; and you're being chased by a lion: what do you do? Get your drunk ass off the carousel!
And so I try.}
x5 Señor El Once : Concurs with the NIST findings?!!
Dear Mr. Quinazagga,
I wrote up a detailed response to your postings. But the deeper I got into your hastily written prose, the less sincere and rational you became in my mind. This aspect is hammered home to me with your words:
[The image] shows the point of failure at the impact floors so this concurs with the NIST findings and shows Thermite or DEW not the cause of the collapse but impact damage and secondary fire damage from the 767 that was the intercontinental configuration with the central belly tank normal for a plane going coast to coast.
I guess you took your clues from NIST whose shoddy reports on the WTC ~stopped~ at the initiation of the collapse and did ~not~ analyze anything that was happening in the dust thereafter. El-Oh-El, they didn't even try to explain how the top of the towers could hit street levels in a time that was within a couple of seconds of free-fall.
Here's what you are PURPOSELY missing.
(a) The upper floors are leaning in that photograph. A correct interpretation of physics assuming gravity alone suggests that those upper floors should topple over into the path of least resistance. Instead, they are alleged to have plowed through the path of greatest resistance down to the ground.
(b) The copious amounts of pulverization and dust were generated in the earliest stages of this tower's "collapse" and is a huge energy sink that gravity can't account for.
(c)_ The images taken moments after your image show that block of upper floors disintegrating in on itself before it reaches 10 or 20 floors below the alleged impact level. The disintegration of those upper floors arrested its toppling, spewed pulverized content over the sides and horizontally very energetically, but also left much less that could construed as a cohesive pile driver that could continue plowing throw the path of greatest resistance at free-fall speeds. All this would not be possible unless HUGE AMOUNTS of energy were added to the equation.
Or stated another way: when a pile-driver is assumed to be acting only under the forces of gravity as is alleged by the government, then the very acts of (1) disintegrating the upper floors, (2) spewing content over the sides and horizontally, and (3) destroying lower floors are all energy sucks that take away from the destruction being able to approach (4) free-fall speeds, if they didn't arrest the collapse much sooner. The only way all four can be present and observable in the destruction is if energy is added... And it didn't come from the airplanes or the resulting fires.
This is key.
Failure to acknowledge this is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)
Seeing how I've got it written, here's part of my thrashing of the rest of your postings. You wrote:
Dr judy woods was tossed out of Federal court as her data is without any merit.
No, Dr. Woods was tossed out of Federal Court because she and her plantiffs had no standing to be making their whistleblower case. That is, they weren't federal employees; they weren't involved in the creation of the faulty reports. The court case never progressed far enough to determine whether or not her data had any merit. Big difference.
You continued:
She has failed to follow basic research rules in regards to time date location of the cars.
Agreed. The police car was damaged first and then towed to the bridge; it wasn't damaged at the bridge, which she implies in her book and website. She makes several errors of this nature. Whereas one can split hairs that damaged-at-the-bridge (Dr. Wood's implication) is a completely different proposition than damaged-closer-to-the-towers, we must not lose sight of the fact that such vehicles were torched at all when other more combustible objects were not.
You continued:
She knowingly mislead people by creating her own truths without any facts to back them up.
You'll have to be more specific. I don't find this to be the case. What I find is that (a) she relied too much on a government report on hot-spots with tainted satellite images; (b) she gave too much leeway to Hutchison; (c)_ she never proved that devices to snag Tesla energy or energy from Hurricane Erin were operational; (d) she gave the bum's rush to nuclear devices; (e) thereby, she offered little but dangling innuendo to P O W E R her destructive mechanisms, and by her own words, it required lots of energy.
You continued:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357255/lightbox/
The photo taken on 91301 after the collapse of building seven shows no sign of controlled demolition or falling into its own footprint it fell across the street hitting the liberty building.
Let's grant you that WTC-7 hit the Liberty Building. So what? Enough of its debris fell neatly into its own footprint. The points you are missing are that it shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light.
You continued:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835357305/lightbox/
This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.
So what?
You continued:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87192321@N00/8835501501/
This is impact damage on the liberty building near the fire station. There is no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF or and any electrolysis this means all of the claims to DEW are self created trues without facts to back them. This is why they were thrown out of court.
Ah, now you're showing something interesting! Get a load of what I call a "steel doobie" that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The "steel doobie" (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away.
Check out this illustration that is very analogous to electric-magnetic fields and waves:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/bending/Image710.gif
The picture you've linked to supposedly prove "no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF" [or any other controlled demolition hijinx] does not prove such. In fact, the "steel doobie" proves otherwise even before seeing the parallels with how electric-magnetic fields could operate. Based on other evidence, I'm led to believe that the "steel doobie" was close to a heat source that made steel spandrels pliable and thus facilitated the ease with which horizontal forces could act on it.
Therefore, your lame interpretation of your image could be a strawman argument for "no evidence of Directed energy Weapons or EMP/EMF". The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.
Read the following, which supports DEW but deviates from Dr. Wood:
9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW Parts 1 and 2
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/
I expect that you are a hit-and-run flamer. So this isn't written for you but others.
//
x6 Señor El Once : Free fall is a fallacy?!!
{Also posted 2013-06-03 on Quinazagga, was published, but then removed.}
Mr. Quinazagga,
You can use a limited set of HTML mark-up in your responses. Something like <blockquote> <\blockquote> around my words would have done wonders for readers in comprehending who wrote what. Needless to say, I'm slightly annoyed at the way my words were munged with your words both here and on your home court.
I wrote:
Failure to acknowledge [several points relating to observable anomalies in the destruction] is failure to agree with the laws of physics, and will be reflected poorly on either your intelligence or your allegience (to the PTB to keep the status quo and spin more disinfo.)
Mr. Quinazagga responded:
[M]y failure to acknowledge Misapplied elementary physics that exposes the truth about your limited understanding of physics and the WTC south collapse. It does show a technique called poisoning the well and attempt at a veiled personal attack
Very clever, Mr. Quinazagga, but just saying I've "misapplied elementary physics" without substantiation of the same does ~not~ make it so. Ergo, the projection of a "limited understanding of physics" seems to be coming from you onto me.
"A veiled personal attack?" Not at all veiled. In fact, you are deserving of some choice demeaning names for having written:
Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6.
With regards to the first half of your sentence, free-fall in WTC-7 is a fact that even Dr. Sunder of NIST and the NIST report acknowledges. Of the three stages of collapse covering the first 18 floors, stage 2 covering 100+ feet or 8 stories has an acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall (e.g., 32 ft/sec-sec.) If free-fall from a tower is 9.8 seconds, and if the towers according to NIST fell to street level in ~11 and ~13 seconds, then the 1-3 seconds difference is small enough and within the margin of error for the phrase "near free-fall speeds" to be applicable. Because this was obtained through the path of greatest resistance, energy had to have been added that your "elementary physics" is purposely not accounting for.
With regards to the second half of your sentence, you seem to be saying that the upper floors of WTC-1 and 2 disintegrated as they impacted WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, right? The problem isn't with this belief, but with the contradiction this causes in your other beliefs. In order for any of the mass of the towers to impact other buildings in the WTC, the mass had to be ejected horizontally. This requires energy, and if your "elementary physics" is going to say that it came from the potential energy of the towers under the force of gravity, it should (but apparently doesn't) calculate the two-fold contradiction to physics: (1) anything that consumes energy in the destruction, such as pulverization and the forceful ejection of materials, makes that energy unavailable for the collapse to reach "near free-fall speeds" ... unless energy is added; (2) when mass leaves the footprint of the towers in order to damage other buildings, that mass is no longer available in the pile-driver that is smashing in-tact & structurally stronger lower floors.
Mr. Quinazagga continued:
Shows Core components of south tower in rubble. This means they did not turn to dust.
Don't conflate my beliefs with Dr. Wood's work, where often her brain-dead followers make inaccurate statements with regards to amounts of remaining steel and concrete in the pile (which then makes it easy for others to debunk in a strawman over-generalization.) The point is that dust blanketed NYC. Generation of dust of that magnitude is a large energy sink that cannot be met by "elementary physics" that assumes only the energy from the mass acting under gravity. Energy was added.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following confusion:
Seeing that the argument you make is your own truth that has no physical facts to back it and based upon negating the physics of the collapse or collapse dynamics structural loading at time of collapse horizontally and laterally. Also, A lack of reading the
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
Puts your commentary at an inability to be able to discuss the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse due to a lack of research you cannot discuss without placing misleading self-proclaimed truths and red herrings to distract from your lack of research.
I loved the clever projection of your attributes onto me in the first sentence, Mr. Quinazagga. As for the second and third sentence, I believe the true red herring is your desire to limit the discussion to "the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse." The abstract of that report demonstrates some of its faulty reasoning:
This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings...
The government hasn't proven that the airliners were commercial, which their speed at low-altitude counters. The government hasn't proven that terrorists flew the airliners, which their accuracy at such speeds counters.
Be this as it may, for the sake of discussion, let's hold the above assumptions as true. In fact, let's assume that the initiation of the collapse was a foregone conclusion. Does the rest of the collapse of structurally sound steel skyscrapers as told to us by NIST make sense? No, because NIST purposely didn't go there.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following confusion with regards to why Dr. Wood had her case thrown out:
Not any difference you need to read and not cherry pick to back a false truth. I fact the court found her arguments without merit.
The implausibly of plaintiffs' theories warrants no further consideration by this Court beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those theories in their lawsuits.
Nice spin, but your understanding of courts runs parallel with your "elementary physics". The insufficiency of the legal claim with respect to the plaintiffs not having standing got them kicked out of court. The plaintiffs had plenty of evidence regarding how the official story defies "elementary physics" and merits further consideration regarding how only added energy makes sense, therefore validly questioning the NIST reports. Their case was largely already out-bound before they could present that, or any "implausible plaintiffs' theories".
Mr. Quinazagga writes:
So the vehicles were towed to the points by NYPW and then the paper swirled around them after so that proves that there was no DEW
No. Not at all.
The vehicles were damaged in various places, such as along West Broadway and a parking lot caticorner to the towers. Evidence and testimony puts this as happening during WTC-1's demise (e.g., 2nd tower to fall). Loose paper was already everywhere from WTC-2 (e.g., 1st tower to fall); flags were flying all day long; trees had leaves).
Well into the clean-up effort, damaged vehicles were towed to places like the bridge.
As for your DEW comment, I doubt we're even on the same page in even describing DEW. In my 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW beliefs [Part 1 and Part 2], the directed energy was aimed out of the way (upwards) and essentially thrown away. Letting the highly energetic neutrons escape upwards not only helped reduce to a tactical level the blast and heat waves, but also directed those blast and heat waves in useful directions. The vehicles were not damaged directly by DEW, but by an escaping EMP from the energy source (e.g., a neutron bomb, which is a type of fusion bomb). The EMP snuck out through window slits and gaps in the falling debris. Also, my beliefs hold that multiple neutron nuclear DEV devices were deployed in each tower and some of the neighboring buildings (WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6).
Mr. Quinazagga writes:
What I find is [Dr. Wood] lied about the damage and cause of such on vehicles and then spouted off her own self truths coming from her own creation without facts to back them.
What I find is that crafty Dr. Wood went out on a limb to call attention to the damage on vehicles and to help open our minds to other options into the cause of such damage. However, crafty Dr. Wood in her book offers very little speculation or conjecture to connect her data points or offer up conclusions.
I wrote:
The points you are missing are that [WTC-7] shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light
Mr. Quinazagga lamely counters with:
Actually, Your lack of research is astounding. The fires involved full floors of the building and it was impacted by wtc south. There was no controlled demolition.
Non-uniform, non-symetrical fires scattered about 2 or 3 floors in a well-designed modern skyscraper such as WTC-7 cannot result in uniform, symmetric, free-fall through 8 floors, as observed from many different videos. The picture you offer as evidence only shows 1 floor burning, yet free-fall is documented to have happened through 8 floors. Not gradually. Suddenly. Only the sudden influx of energy via something akin to a controlled demolition (or more neutron nuclear DEW devices) can accomplish this.
Mr. Quinazagga first wrote:
This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.
When asked its significance, Mr. Quinazagga responds:
Therefore, it proves there was no DEW or EMP/EMF.
No it doesn't. The usage of DEW and the occurance of any EMP side-effects is not predicated on either of them being directly responsible for the Con-Edison substation fire. Your foisting up a logic error into a strawman. Maybe you're correct that the South Tower fell on it causing it to burn. But it was multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices that caused the tower to collapse. (But based on other incorrect beliefs you harbor and arguments you make, you're just as likely to be incorrect.)
I wrote:
Get a load of what I call a "steel doobie" that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The "steel doobie" (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.
Mr. Quinazagga responded:
We are talking about the damage shown in the photograph of the liberty building so now you are putting forth a red herring Since the Steel doobies are from recovered steel the question is what happened after they hit the ground to bend them or roll them.
El-Oh-El. The question is most assuredly ~not~ "what happened after [the steel doobie] hit the ground to bend them or roll them?" And you for sure have no physics explanation, because they aren't going to symmetrically roll up ~after~ they've augered themselves into the ground right next to the Libery building.
Nope. The doobies were torched (to soften the spandrels) and rolled well before they hit the ground. And this highlights four aspects that should cause concern to your beliefs:
(1) The only floors to have fires were high up in the towers, so were these torched pieces from that level? Probably not. So how could gravity have torched these pieces of debris?
(2) How could gravity have heated the spandrels sufficiently enough to facilitate rolling in a very short period of time (milliseconds or less)?
(3) Gravity is a normal or perpendicular force, yet the forces to roll such steel doobies is at worst orthogonal and at best radial to gravity.
(4) How could gravity throw these doobies and heavy wall assemblies so far?
Your steel doobie is not the only one found in the pile. Look where the man is climbing, and then note the steel doobie just under the beam he climbs upon:
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
Mr. Quinazagga continued:
You negate the impact of building seven upon liberty building.
No I don't. You conflate debris from WTC-7 with one of the towers. If the image you linked is depicting the Liberty building, then the debris in the form of a steel doobie came from one of the towers, not WTC-7.
Mr. Quinazagga continued:
In addition, it does not prove DEW or EMP or EMF propagation it negates them. The big chunk of building debris was caused by the impact of seven into the so this bent not rolled piece of steel happened because of the collapse.
El-Oh-El and Huh? Your fantasy, Mr. Quinazagga. WTC-7 (as shown in this image) did not have wall assembles consisting of three vertical beams (3 stories in height) that were connected together by three spandrel pieces, but the towers did. Therefore, if we assume that the image is from Liberty, the pieces that inflicted the damage came from the towers, not WTC-7.
Get out a map and calculate how far that is. Given that your "elementary physics" is so superior to mine, please indicate the force lines and the amount of energy required to throw the doobie that far. You should do the calculations at different heights.
So if that is a part of WTC south are you now admitting that WTC south hit wtc 7 and that part that was pushed into the liberty building was actually imbedded in wtc7 before it impacted the liberty tower.
I admit to nothing in your convoluted weasel-worded sentences. I've granted a big assumption from you that this image is the Liberty building, but I now ask that you provide a map pointing out where the Liberty building and specifically this damage were.
The circus of Mr. Quinazagga continues:
Why not go into the Kinetic effects of a 2,000 foot building that is an acre across That collapses due to an impact of an aircraft combined with secondary fires initiated by a fuel air explosion of jet b aviation fuel. Or the implosive and explosive effects of such an collapse as well as horizontal and vertical loading during collapse and energy transfer through core elements into the fishbowl and into the base of the tower.
No, why don't YOU go into the Kinetic effects? I'll tell you why. Each and every instance of kinetic energy having been consumed by (1) violently horizontal ejection and (2) rolling into doobies removes energy (and mass) that the official story needs to attribute to a pile-driver smashing through the intact lower structures of the tower at near free-fall rates. Thus, the official story without any modifications that would add energy sources defies the laws of physics.
The circus of Mr. Quinazagga continues:
And it was not a neutron bomb or DEW because the lack of EMP/EMF and specific Nuclear signatures of radiation which would have prevented recovery operation like this.
There was no lack of EMP: refer to the vehicles along West Broadway. There was no lack of a radiation signature. Refer to the tritium report; refer to first responder ailments. The radiation signature was different than what your "elementary physics" can comprehend. Short lived, by design. Look up neutron bombs, but remove the framing. Read my articles.
The recovery operations that you speak of involved carting in fresh dirt on one day of the week, spreading it out, then later in the week scooping up & carting out the same dirt. This is a typical technique for nuclear clean-up.
I wrote:
The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.
Mr. Quinazagga replied:
O.k. you can stop right there because you already admitted the cars were placed there by NYPW so this is a red herring. You are obviously fabricating facts to back an self-proclaimed truth that is without any merit.
I admitted no such thing. You can stop putting words into my mouth. The vehicles along West Broadway and the parking lot caticorner from the towers were damaged ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down, and much pictorial evidence exists to this fact.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
You just killed your credibility. You admitted in another article Firefox has issues with the new Flicker and that is known since Google took over the site.
Ho-hum. I admitted no such thing. [Provide a link to such an admission, and I'll offer an apology.]
Mr. Quinazagga, you have not (yet) been censored on Truth & Shadows, but this is indeed what my recommendation is to Mr. McKee going forward if you post more brain-dead dribble, stilting, and lies.
You don't add anything useful to the debate, and this stems in part because your understanding of physics just completely sucks and you gullibly believe every word of every report issued by the government just because it came from the government. (This alone should be reason enough for you to question it and validate it, which you have not done.)
And if I error in this assessment, it will be because you are paid to be the idiot in these discussions.
I have patiently spent more time countering your malframed coincidence theories than they deserve. I didn't do it for you, but for latter-day lurker readers and for Truth. Your mishandling of my words as well as your game of putting words into my mouth and the total nearly incomprehensible munging of postings already demonstrates your stewardship of truth and that it can't be trusted.
//
x7 Mr. DGW & Mr. EB: Rejection of submittal due to personal attack and distraction debate tactics. by associate editor
2013-06-04
From: "DGW" {gmail address}
To: Señor El Once
Subject: Rejection of submittal due to personal attack and distraction debate tactics. by associate editor
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:22:01 -0500
Your comment is rejected due to self-proclaimed truths being stated as truths and personal attacks as well as an inability to stay on subject.
You post lacks any factual content and has nothing to add to the article or to debate it. Your inadequate level of expertise and research into the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 or the aftermath is sufficient to deny your post publication.
Your inaccurate statements regarding DEW, EMP/EMF are another reason to deny the reposting of the same erroneous data.
You admitted to only reading the abstract of the
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
Also you misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.
{Mr. EB} associate editor
You can re submit your response after you have removed the implausible self-truths you attempted to reiterate and stick to factual not empirical made up self-trues.
This is not censorship it is redirecting a merry-go-around discussion where you are under an illusion that you have any facts.
http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters
x8 Señor El Once : How far does an object in free-fall fall in 2.25 seconds?
2013-06-04
{Two emails sent to the administrator of the Quinazagga blog, because a hasty math error was introduced into the first email. The correction is noted within curly braces.}
Dear Mr. DGW,
Or do you go by "Mr. Quinazagga" on Truth & Shadows? And is this whom I have the pleasure of writing?
Your rejection of my posting is based on unfounded assertions, just like Mr. Quinazagga, and displays much of his poor formatting, writing habits, and assignment of "admissions" to me that I did not make. This, I'm sure, you'll construe as a personal attack, just like my comments as to Mr. Quizagga's poor comprehension of elementary physics. You wrote:
You admitted to only reading the abstract of the http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
I made no such admission. Putting words into my mouth, I see. I've in fact read the article in question many times over the years. For the purposes of the exchanges in question, I only needed to quote from the abstract.
You erroneously wrote:
Also you misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.
First of all, I did not quote from the Final Report of WTC-7, else I would have given it proper formatting and attribution. Even without it being a direct quote, however, my memory of what the report contains was not wrong.
Second, you should think a bit more about what your own words state: The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let's use this number. How far can an object fall in 2.25 seconds? {Corrected} Answer: 81 feet. The issue is that there shouldn't have been any free-fall measurable in the collapse of WTC-7, if it were to collapse at all. How many stories is that? It is not insignificant.
Actually, if you read the report, you'd know that this is Stage 2 of the three stages of the first 18 floors of WTC-7 demise. In other words, the acceleration of Stage 1 gave the collapse a running start into Stage 2. Ergo, after 2.25 seconds of Stage 2 free-fall, the amount of building it covered was greater than {corrected} 81 feet.
So, who indeed has "an inadequate level of expertise and research into the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 or the aftermath"? Who is offering up a personal attack?
// Señor El Once
+++++ {2nd email}
Dear Mr. DGW,
I wrote my email in haste right before leaving from work. I introduced an error.
How far does an object in free-fall fall in 2.25 seconds? The correct answer is 81 feet, not 162 feet as I had stated. I forgot to divide by 2.
Be that as it may, Stage 1 of the WTC-7 collapse was a running start (or initial velocity) going into Stage 2. I was correct in stating, because of the initial velocity, that the free-fall of Stage 2 represented more than 100 feet of the building's height.
Dr. Sunder was correct in his description of free-fall. It meant that no structure, no support, nothing was in the way of the whatever was falling to hinder its fall. The question with WTC-7 is how 8 stories (over 100 feet) of structure could be suddenly, symmetrically, and uniformly "step out of the way" so that nothing was there to resist the falling roof.
Agreeable to the laws of physics, only added energy (in the form of some controlled demolition) adequately explains this observable and measurable evidence of free-fall.
Unfortunately, this flies in the face of the official government explanations of what happened on 9/11. It is hard to believe that 19 foreign terrorists on planes could get prolonged accessed to WTC-7 to accomplish this task, particularly when WTC-7 -- housing the SEC, CIA, FBI, etc. -- was probably a secure facility.
At any rate, my apologies for the math error.
// Señor El Once
x9 Señor El Once : misunderstood request for improved formatting and is not censorship
Mr. Quinazagga, who posted this "article", was playing just before Memorial Day weekend on another forum, Truth & Shadows, which enabled him to get the fodder for the article that is comprised of his words and my words.
One of Mr. Quinazagga's postings for Truth & Shadows (which is re-posted here with the date May 31, 2013 - 10:46 am) did not pass moderation. It wasn't because of the content or discussion topics, but because it was so badly formatted and mashed together my words (Señor El Once) and his responses, any latter-day lurker reader is going to have difficulty figuring out who said what. Mr. McKee, the owner of Truth & Shadows, asked Mr. Quinazagga to apply more effort in delineating comments.
Mr. Quinazagga (1) misunderstood the request as "attempted censorship", (2) created this blog entry with the grand title "Beware the censorship by 911truth supporters" as a result, (3) posted a link on Truth & Shadows to this blog entry (whose prompt publication kind of pours cold water on the censorship claim), and (4) posted both forums "an improvement"(?) to his earlier mash-up of my words and his responses. Returning to the opening words of his blog entry, it begins with the perpetuation of the misunderstanding with this fine passage:
My comments will not be moderated by a bias judge whom runs with 911truth agenda pushers...
How ironic that an associate editor (Mr. EB) of his blog would then reject an already public response from me (2013-06-03) when Mr. Quinazagga linked an invitation to me (and any curious readers) and called me out by name.
Among the justification for the rejection were:
[1] self-proclaimed truths being stated as truths
[2] personal attacks
[3] an inability to stay on subject
[4] lacks any factual content
[5] has nothing to add to the article or to debate it
[6]
Your inadequate level of expertise and research into the collapse of WTC 1,2,7 or the aftermath is sufficient to deny your post publication.
[7]
Your inaccurate statements regarding DEW, EMP/EMF are another reason to deny the reposting of the same erroneous data.
The rejection email concludes:
You can re submit your response after you have removed the implausible self-truths you attempted to reiterate and stick to factual not empirical made up self-trues.
This is not censorship it is redirecting a merry-go-around discussion where you are under an illusion that you have any facts.
As requested, "the implausible self-truths" are removed; this posting "sticks to factual not empirical made up self-trues." Before offering the cleaned-up and edited version of my 2013-06-03 posting, let's start with "factual self-true" given by the associate editor (Mr. EB) in his rejection email:
[Y]ou misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.
First of all, I did not directly quote from the "Final Report on the Collapse of WTC-7", but cut through its attempt at "mathematical sleight of hand" by writing its findings in different but valid words.
Secondly, the associate editor substantiates that the "factual self-true" from that NIST report on WTC-7 was that the building had 2.25 seconds of free-fall. In free-fall of 2.25 seconds, how far can an object fall? Answer: 81 feet. However, another "factual self-true" is that this 2.25 seconds came in what NIST calls Stage 2. Stage 1 was a running start (or initial velocity) going into Stage 2. Ergo, the actual distance of free-fall was 100+ feet, or about 8 stories.
Dr. Sunder of NIST and his report were correct in his description of free-fall. It meant that no structure, no support, nothing was in the way of whatever was falling to hinder or slow-down its fall. The question with WTC-7 is how 8 stories (over 100 feet) of structure could be suddenly, symmetrically, and uniformly "moved out of the way" so that nothing was there to resist the collapse.
As promised, here is the edited version that should meet with the associate editor's guidelines for re-submittal.
+++++++
Mr. Quinazagga, you can use a limited set of HTML mark-up in your responses. Something like <blockquote> <\blockquote> around quoted words aids readers in comprehending who wrote what.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6.
With regards to the first half of his sentence -- "Free fall is a fallacy" --, I disagree, NIST's report on WTC-7 disagrees, and his associate editor (Mr. EB) disagrees. Refer to the comments above.
Turning to the two towers, an object dropped from one of their roofs would hit street level in about 9.8 seconds. NIST's reports on the towers give their collpase times at ~11 and ~13 seconds, which is between about 1 and 3 seconds of, and a small enough difference from, free-fall to merit the phrase "near free-fall speeds".
The issue is that this "collapse" at "near free-fall speeds" happened through the path of greatest resistance. Agreeable to the laws of physics, it could only be obtained if energy was added to move resistive floors and building structure out of the way.
With regards to the second half of his sentence, he seems to be saying that the upper floors of WTC-1 and 2 disintegrated as they impacted WTC-5, WTC-6, and WTC-7, right? The problem isn't with this belief, but with the contradiction this causes in his other beliefs. In order for any of the mass of the towers to impact other buildings in the WTC, the mass had to be ejected horizontally. This requires energy. If he's saying that it came from the potential energy of the towers under the force of gravity, he faces the two-fold contradiction to physics: (1) anything that consumes energy in the destruction, such as pulverization and the forceful ejection of materials, makes that energy unavailable for the collapse to reach "near free-fall speeds" ... unless energy is added; (2) when mass leaves the footprint of the towers in order to damage other buildings, that mass is no longer available in the pile-driver that is smashing in-tact & structurally stronger lower floors & structure.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
Seeing that the argument you make is your own truth that has no physical facts to back it and based upon negating the physics of the collapse or collapse dynamics structural loading at time of collapse horizontally and laterally. Also, A lack of reading the
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
Puts your commentary at an inability to be able to discuss the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse due to a lack of research you cannot discuss without placing misleading self-proclaimed truths and red herrings to distract from your lack of research.
Contrary to Mr. Quinazagga's first sentence, the "(near) free-fall" aspects of the WTC decimation are ~not~ "[my] own truth that has no physical facts to back it." Both NIST and his associate editor (Mr. EB) agree.
With regards to the second and third sentence, why is there such desire to limit the discussion to "the initiation of the WTC south tower or north tower collapse?"
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the initiation of the collapse was a foregone conclusion. Does the rest of the collapse of structurally sound steel skyscrapers as told to us by NIST make sense? No, because NIST purposely didn't go there. They stopped their analysis at what was plausible for the initiation of the collapse.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote the following with regards to why Dr. Wood had her case thrown out:
Not any difference you need to read and not cherry pick to back a false truth. I fact the court found her arguments without merit.
The implausibly of plaintiffs' theories warrants no further consideration by this Court beyond the insufficiency of the legal claims upon which plaintiffs attempt to advance those theories in their lawsuits.
The insufficiency of the legal claim with respect to the plaintiffs not having standing got them kicked out of court. The plaintiffs had plenty of evidence regarding how the official story defies "elementary physics" and merits further consideration regarding how only added energy makes sense, therefore validly questioning the NIST reports. Their case was largely already boggie on the out-bound before they could present that, or any "implausible plaintiffs' theories".
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
So the vehicles were towed to the points by NYPW and then the paper swirled around them after so that proves that there was no DEW
No. Not at all.
The vehicles were damaged in various places, such as along West Broadway and a parking lot caticorner to the towers. Evidence and testimony puts this as happening during WTC-1's demise (e.g., 2nd tower to fall). Loose paper was already everywhere from WTC-2 (e.g., 1st tower to fall); flags were flying all day long; trees had leaves. They are far more combustible, yet cars were torched and not them?
Well into the clean-up effort, damaged vehicles were towed to places like the bridge or out of the parking lot. Refer to your own picture of some of that clean-up effort: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/8901780141_fd9b7cd6d1_n.jpg
As for your DEW comment, I doubt we're even on the same page in even describing DEW. In my 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW beliefs [Part 1 and Part 2], the directed energy was aimed out of the way (upwards) and essentially thrown away. Letting the highly energetic neutrons escape upwards not only helped reduce to a tactical level the blast and heat waves, but also directed those blast and heat waves in useful directions. This configuration as a neutron device also modified the radiation signature to something only short-lived.
In my beliefs, the vehicles were not damaged directly by DEW, but by an escaping EMP from the energy source (e.g., a neutron bomb, which is a type of fusion bomb). The EMP snuck out through window slits and gaps in the falling debris. Also, my beliefs hold that multiple neutron nuclear DEV devices were deployed in each tower and some of the neighboring buildings (WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6).
Before complaints are raised, my beliefs "stick to factual not empirical made up self-trues." They are based on mined and cherry-picked nuggets of truth from many different sources... Nuggets of Truth that have withstood the fires of debate and flames and haven't been debunked, despite sometimes coming from sources labeled even by me as "disinformation vehicles."
I can understand Mr. Quinazagga's reluctance to rationally debate whether or not neutron DEW devices decimated the WTC, because he has problems from the get-go regarding an adequate explanation using sound physics for why any of the WTC buildings would have (near) free-fall exhibited in their destruction. However, once he has honestly overcome this stumbling block, the "factual not empirical made up self-trues" of "added energy" on 9/11 should come to the forefront of his understanding as the only thing that satisfies the physics energy equations.
I wrote:
The points you are missing are that [WTC-7] shouldn't have collapsed at all given the observable damage and fires (e.g., small and localized), that it shouldn't have had 100+ feet of its collapse indistinguishable from free-fall, and that sufficient numbers of police, fire, and media had foreknowledge of exactly when it was going to come down. Ergo, your statement above about no signs of controlled demolition is nonsense, and puts you into a very bad light
Mr. Quinazagga countered with:
Actually, Your lack of research is astounding. The fires involved full floors of the building and it was impacted by wtc south. There was no controlled demolition.
Non-uniform, non-symetrical fires scattered about 2 or 3 floors in a well-designed modern skyscraper such as WTC-7 cannot result in uniform, symmetric, free-fall through 8 floors, as observed from many different videos. The picture you offer as evidence only shows 1 floor burning, yet free-fall is documented to have happened through 8 floors. Not gradually. Suddenly. Only the sudden influx of energy via something akin to a controlled demolition (or more neutron nuclear DEW devices) can accomplish this.
Mr. Quinazagga first wrote:
This photo shows that building seven rolled over after the con Edison substation caught fire due to the impact of south tower.
When asked its significance, Mr. Quinazagga responded:
Therefore, it proves there was no DEW or EMP/EMF.
No it doesn't. The usage of DEW and the occurrence of any EMP side-effects are not predicated on either of them being directly responsible for the Con-Edison substation fire.
I wrote:
Get a load of what I call a "steel doobie" that stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. The "steel doobie" (one of several I've seen) is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands.
Mr. Quinazagga responded:
We are talking about the damage shown in the photograph of the liberty building so now you are putting forth a red herring Since the Steel doobies are from recovered steel the question is what happened after they hit the ground to bend them or roll them.
The "steel doobies" cannot symmetrically roll up ~after~ they've augered themselves into the ground right next to the Libery building. Logic suggests that they were so formed in the many milliseconds between ejection from the towers and being planted into the ground. Heat most likely softened the spandrels first.
(1) The only floors to have fires were high up in the towers, so were these doobies pieces from that level? Assuming they were, how much energy is required to eject them from that height to land near Liberty building? Assuming they were not, the thickness of such pieces thinned as you went higher in the structure, thus changing its weight. It ought to be possible to determine from published sources the weight of the specific steel doobies, and thereby calculate from what actual level in the structure they came. How much energy should have been consumed from the "(near) free-fall speeds" to eject them from that calculated new height to land near Liberty building?
(2) How could gravity have heated the spandrels sufficiently enough to facilitate rolling in a very short period of time (milliseconds or less)?
(3) Gravity is a normal or perpendicular force, yet the forces to roll such steel doobies was either orthogonal or radial to gravity.
(4) How could gravity throw these doobies and heavy wall assemblies so far?
Your steel doobie is not the only one found in the pile. Look where the man is climbing, and then note the steel doobie just under the beam he climbs upon:
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/85394e02fe41e1d67.jpg
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
You negate the impact of building seven upon liberty building.
No I don't. You conflate debris from WTC-7 with one of the towers. If the image you linked is depicting the Liberty building, then the debris in the form of a steel doobie came from one of the towers, not WTC-7.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
In addition, it does not prove DEW or EMP or EMF propagation it negates them. The big chunk of building debris was caused by the impact of seven into the so this bent not rolled piece of steel happened because of the collapse.
WTC-7 (as shown in this image) did not have wall assembles consisting of three vertical beams (3 stories in height) that were connected together by three spandrel pieces, but the towers did. Therefore, if we assume that the image is from Liberty, the pieces that inflicted the damage came from the towers, not WTC-7.
Get out a map and calculate how far that is. Given that your physics is so superior to mine, please indicate the force lines and the amount of energy required to throw the doobie that far. You should do the calculations at different heights.
So if that is a part of WTC south are you now admitting that WTC south hit wtc 7 and that part that was pushed into the liberty building was actually imbedded in wtc7 before it impacted the liberty tower.
I admit to nothing in your sentences. I've granted a big assumption from you that this image is the Liberty building, but I now ask that you provide a map pointing out where the Liberty building and specifically this damage were.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
Why not go into the Kinetic effects of a 2,000 foot building that is an acre across That collapses due to an impact of an aircraft combined with secondary fires initiated by a fuel air explosion of jet b aviation fuel. Or the implosive and explosive effects of such an collapse as well as horizontal and vertical loading during collapse and energy transfer through core elements into the fishbowl and into the base of the tower.
No, why don't YOU go into the Kinetic effects? I'll tell you why. Each and every instance of kinetic energy having been consumed by (1) violently horizontal ejection and (2) rolling into doobies removes energy (and mass) that the official story needs to attribute to a pile-driver smashing through the intact lower structures of the tower at near free-fall rates. Thus, the official story without any modifications that would add energy sources defies the laws of physics.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
And it was not a neutron bomb or DEW because the lack of EMP/EMF and specific Nuclear signatures of radiation which would have prevented recovery operation like this.
There was no lack of EMP: refer to the vehicles along West Broadway and the parking lot. There was no lack of a radiation signature. Refer to the tritium report; refer to first responder ailments. The radiation signature was different than conventional fission and fussion devices. Short lived, by design. Look up neutron bombs, but remove the framing. Read my articles. The USGS dust samples from many locations were determined (by Jeff Prager) to have correlated qualities of various elements that could only be from fission, as in fission-triggered-fusion neutron devices.
The recovery operations that you speak of involved carting in fresh dirt on one day of the week, spreading it out, then later in the week scooping up & carting out the same dirt. This is a typical technique for nuclear clean-up.
I wrote:
The real evidence of EMP are the cars parked along West Broadway and in the parking lot caticorner from the towers, images collected and organized nicely by Dr. Wood.
Mr. Quinazagga replied:
O.k. you can stop right there because you already admitted the cars were placed there by NYPW so this is a red herring. You are obviously fabricating facts to back an self-proclaimed truth that is without any merit.
I admitted no such thing. You can stop putting words into my mouth. The vehicles along West Broadway and the parking lot caticorner from the towers were damaged ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down, and much pictorial evidence exists to this fact.
//
x10 Mr. DGW : If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them with bullshit
2013-06-05
Since you asked Let us go back to the source
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
WTC 7 withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.
The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.
WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.
The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers defines progressive collapse-also known as disproportionate collapse-as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it (ASCE 7-05). Despite extensive thermal weakening of connections and buckled floor beams of Floors 8 to 14, fire-induced damage in the floor framing surrounding Column 79 over nine stories was the determining factor causing the buckling of Column 79 and, thereby, initiating progressive collapse. This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e., buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building.
WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon the removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building.
Neither the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) nor the "strong" floors (Floors 5 and 7) played a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
There was no evidence to suggest that there was damage to the SFRM that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, except in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1, which was near the west side of the south face of the building.
Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.
Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.
The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.
A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
Principal Findings
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed. Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
Actually looking at the report and the Aftermath of WTC 7 being laid across West Broadway and the only similarity between the WTC 7 collapse and WTC 1 and 2 towers is The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 °C (750 ºF), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.
That raises the question of If WTC tower 1 and 2 had similar materials and construction methods/standards to that of WTC 7?
Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.
2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.
3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.
As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.
The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.
x11 Señor El Once : copying-and-pasting from NIST reports does not absolve you from conveying its significance
2013-06-06
Dear Mr. DGW,
You are very adept at copying-and-pasting from NIST reports. However, this does not absolve you from conveying the significance of what you quote, both in a micro sense of details in isolation and/or combination and in the macro sense of larger agendas being played out and covered over.
Those reports you quote do have elements of truth, don't get me wrong. This is out of necessity, because all effective disinformation has to be founded on a solid foundation of truth before they steer the unquestioning into the weeds. You place too much faith into the integrity of those reports and, for reasons about which I can only speculate, seem unable to acknowledge the contradictions, omissions, and skew that make them untrustworthy.
You write:
The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.
Agreed. However, it is also important to assess all of the facts in a timely and scientific manner, which was not done with regards to 9/11 or the WTC-7 report. Moreover, it is also important to recognize when opinions are mascarading as scientific ventures, when a hypothesis is proposed that can't be definitively proven, ignores all of the evidence, is prevented from collecting evidence, or doesn't even bother to analyze the evidence that is available.
Before I show to you the troublesome aspects of your fresh quotations, let me give you some macro perspective.
- Fire investigators were prevented from doing their jobs in analyzing the evidence. In fact they complained about crime-scene evidence being removed in haste, carted away, and destroyed.
- The EPA issued public statements about the air quality in NYC in the days/weeks after 9/11 that were not true. I can only speculate that they were strong-armed into lying so as to not cause public panic.
- The NIST reports on the collapse of the towers ~STOPPED~ at the initiation of the collapse, did not investigate anomalies during the collapse, and unscientifically ruled out controlled demolition "... because, duh? We saw da planes."
- The draft version of the NIST report on WTC-7 did ~not~ mention that a phase of its collapse had measurable and observable free-fall. Their final version mentions it (and you quote part of it), but uses the mathematical sleight of hand called "averaging" to dupe the unwitting.
- The creation of the 9/11 Commission was delayed for over a year, slow-walked, under-funded, and originally tapped an international war-criminal to head it. Today, even those on the Commission acknowledge that it was far from full-and-complete, failing to address even 5% of the Jersey Girl's questions. The behind-the-scenes executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest with the administration, filtered what evidence got to the commission and into the report, and "while at Harvard worked on the use and misuse of history in policymaking." Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is:
"defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
The significance of this very brief and incomplete list is for you to see that unquestioning faith in the correctness of government agencies is not well founded.
And when a rational thinker steps back from these micro details, they see an agenda being trotted out that has shred the Constitution and been contrary to anything "American" or "Christian".
As for your lengthy quotation from the WTC-7 report? Without your insight into its significance, it takes on the appearance of you throwing up a lengthy distraction. The quoted passage is nothing more than weasel-words, padding, and TNRAT (pronounced "tin-rat" and means "they'll never read all that!")
Let's cut out the fluff and go directly to this great quote that demonstrates the deceit in the WTC-7 report:
The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
How did they come up with "a descent time of the upper 18 stories was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time"? They AVERAGED the three stages together, because they needed to distract from the fact that Stage 2 was at free-fall. ("Gravitational acceleration" is another phrase for free-fall.)
Now we can return to some of the passages that lead-in and try to bury the revelation above. Here's a red-flag for your beliefs:
Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.
In other words, the WTC-7 fires were not stationary. They consumed what was combustible in a given area in 20 to 30 minutes and progressed into other areas. So although WTC-7 had fire most of the day (that coincidence theorists try to hype), the reality is that fires in any given area were short lived.
The fuel for such fires was primarily office furnishings (diesel fuel gets ruled out below by NIST), which has limitations regarding how hot they can get with respect to reaching levels sufficient to make structural steel pliable. The progressing WTC-7 fires were insufficient in energy and duration to heat that structural steel to a failing (or pliable) point.
If we grant this hypothesis, though, of the steel becoming pliable, when the fires progressed into other areas as discussed in the quoted passage, steel from the burned areas cool and regain their rigidity. However, the report wants us to conflate a steel structure with a wood structure of a house, whereby house fires do consume critical supporting structure and lead to overall structural failure.
The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.
Note the word "probable". Probable does not mean "definitive". They're guessing and covering their ass with weasel-words.
The repeated lie is "progression", of which buckling is a form of and is relatively gradual. This is what their computer simulation modeled. Unfortunately, the computer simulation does not model the video evidence, which proves that it was not gradual.
The WTC-7 failure (particularly in Stage 2) was sudden, symmetric, uniform (length and breadth), and timed across many floors. Although buckling of columns is considered failing, resistance is still exerted in the buckling of columns. "Gravitational acceleration" in Stage 2 is not an indication of buckling resistance; it is zero resistance. The underlying support and structure were somehow suddenly compromised so that they would offer zero resistance to mass falling through their space. As the roof-line demonstrates, the collapse was uniform and symmetric, which is uncharacteristic of fires.
The claim that column 79 was unsupported over nine stories? How could it be not supported? Structural steel is not consumed by mere 20-30 minutes fires stoked by office furnishes (or diesel fuel) that migrate into other areas.
The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse.
The issue is not that a building could be completely destroyed by "a fire-induced progressive collapse." The issue is that the WTC-7 evidence shows that it was not progressive; it was sudden. There is absolutely nothing progressive about over 8 stories exhibiting free-fall, meaning that
They did not prove their case that fires were the primary mechanism. Unscientifically, They did not test for explosive. Evidence was destroyed. Their computer models did not agree with what was observed; they admitted to over-driving parameters in their model to get their progressive collapse theory; they did not release those models for public-peer-review.
Some other quotes:
Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.
So we're left with a migrating office-furnishing fire to account for the sudden onset of gravitational acceleration over 8 stories. Yeah, right.
Here's another great quote:
Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
Yep, I am willing to accept everything above as true and valid.
Why? Because neutron nuclear DEW devices, being of a tactical nature, would accomplish the above without the tell-tell audio signatures of chemical explosives.
The above passage is a red-herring. It explains why they didn't test for chemical explosives; they knew (or were told) chemical explosives weren't used. However, they didn't test for nuclear devices either. They didn't properly analyze the dust which had traces of correlated elements across numerous sampling points that clearly showed nuclear fission happend. They didn't speculate properly about why tritium was measured at elevated levels (although below EPA thresholds) in the WTC drainage water.
You wrote:
Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.
It is okay by me to circumscribe a larger group of conspirators. Did those same ground crews plant neutron bombs at the WTC?
2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.
Most of the terrorist network were trained by the CIA.
3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.
Indeed. The weakness was those connective bolts ability to withstand the effects of a neutron nuclear DEW.
As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.
Nonsense. The reason for sprinkler and fire suppression systems is to protect and preserve human life. Lots of lives were lost in garmet district fires long ago that gave rise to new codes.
Provide instances where uncontrolled fires damage let to catastrophic failures. If we are to believe the government's story, it happened only three times in history that were coincidently on the exact same day: 9/11/2001.
//
x12 Señor El Once : Re-Hash of email to the Quinazagga Forum
{Because the previous exchanges transpired on email, a combined entry was created and submitted to his blog. It passed moderation but then shortly thereafter was removed. If you've read the three entries immediately prior to this, then no need to read this one. In email they complained about their own words from the emails being published on their blog. I'm still complaining about my words being published on their blog.}
Here are edited portions of an email exchange with the moderator of this blog.
++++++++++ Señor El Once
Dear Mr. Quinazagga, you erroneously wrote:
Also you misquoted Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds.
First of all, I did not quote from the Final Report of WTC-7, else I would have given it proper formatting and attribution. Even without it being a direct quote, however, my memory of what the report contains was not wrong.
Second, you should think a bit more about what your own words state: The only free-fall took place was 2.25 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let's use this number. How far can an object fall in 2.25 seconds? {Corrected} Answer: 81 feet. The issue is that there shouldn't have been any free-fall measurable in the collapse of WTC-7, if it were to collapse at all. How many stories is that? It is not insignificant.
Actually, if you read the report, you'd know that this is Stage 2 of the three stages of the first 18 floors of WTC-7 demise. In other words, the acceleration of Stage 1 gave the collapse a running start into Stage 2. Ergo, after 2.25 seconds of Stage 2 free-fall, the amount of building it covered was greater than {corrected} 81 feet.
Dr. Sunder was correct in his description of free-fall. It meant that no structure, no support, nothing was in the way of the whatever was falling to hinder its fall. The question with WTC-7 is how 8 stories (over 100 feet) of structure could be suddenly, symmetrically, and uniformly "step out of the way" so that nothing was there to resist the falling roof.
Agreeable to the laws of physics, only added energy (in the form of some controlled demolition) adequately explains this observable and measurable evidence of free-fall.
Unfortunately, this flies in the face of the official government explanations of what happened on 9/11. It is hard to believe that 19 foreign terrorists on planes could get prolonged accessed to WTC-7 to accomplish this task, particularly when WTC-7 -- housing the SEC, CIA, FBI, etc. -- was probably a secure facility.
// Señor El Once
++++++++++ Mr. Quinazagga (with editing to remove Señor El Once's words written above and to format it appropriately)
Since you asked Let us go back to the source
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
WTC 7 withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.
The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.
WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.
The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers defines progressive collapse-also known as disproportionate collapse-as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it (ASCE 7-05). Despite extensive thermal weakening of connections and buckled floor beams of Floors 8 to 14, fire-induced damage in the floor framing surrounding Column 79 over nine stories was the determining factor causing the buckling of Column 79 and, thereby, initiating progressive collapse. This is the first known instance where fire-induced local damage (i.e., buckling failure of Column 79; one of 82 columns in WTC 7) led to the collapse of an entire tall building.
WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The collapse sequence demonstrated a vertical and horizontal progression of failure upon the removal of the Column 79 section, followed by buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building.
Neither the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) nor the "strong" floors (Floors 5 and 7) played a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
There was no evidence to suggest that there was damage to the SFRM that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, except in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1, which was near the west side of the south face of the building.
Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.
Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.
The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.
A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
Principal Findings
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed. Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
Actually looking at the report and the Aftermath of WTC 7 being laid across West Broadway and the only similarity between the WTC 7 collapse and WTC 1 and 2 towers is The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 °C (750 ºF), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.
That raises the question of If WTC tower 1 and 2 had similar materials and construction methods/standards to that of WTC 7?
Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.
2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.
3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.
As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.
The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.
++++++++++ Señor El Once
Dear Mr. Quinazagga,
You are very adept at copying-and-pasting from NIST reports. However, this does not absolve you from conveying the significance of what you quote, both in a micro sense of details in isolation and/or combination and in the macro sense of larger agendas being played out and covered over.
Those reports you quote do have elements of truth, don't get me wrong. This is out of necessity, because all effective disinformation has to be founded on a solid foundation of truth before they steer the unquestioning into the weeds. You place too much faith into the integrity of those reports and, for reasons about which I can only speculate, seem unable to acknowledge the contradictions, omissions, and skew that make them untrustworthy.
You write:
The need to separate an opinion from fact is very important in archival research as well as documenting and preserving the integrity of the facts.
Agreed. However, it is also important to assess all of the facts in a timely and scientific manner, which was not done with regards to 9/11 or the WTC-7 report. Moreover, it is also important to recognize when opinions are mascarading as scientific ventures, when a hypothesis is proposed that can't be definitively proven, ignores all of the evidence, is prevented from collecting evidence, or doesn't even bother to analyze the evidence that is available.
Before I show to you the troublesome aspects of your fresh quotations, let me give you some macro perspective.
- Fire investigators were prevented from doing their jobs in analyzing the evidence. In fact they complained about crime-scene evidence being removed in haste, carted away, and destroyed.
- The EPA issued public statements about the air quality in NYC in the days/weeks after 9/11 that were not true. I can only speculate that they were strong-armed into lying so as to not cause public panic.
- The NIST reports on the collapse of the towers ~STOPPED~ at the initiation of the collapse, did not investigate anomalies during the collapse, and unscientifically ruled out controlled demolition "... because, duh? We saw da planes."
- The draft version of the NIST report on WTC-7 did ~not~ mention that a phase of its collapse had measurable and observable free-fall. Their final version mentions it (and you quote part of it), but uses the mathematical sleight of hand called "averaging" to dupe the unwitting.
- The creation of the 9/11 Commission was delayed for over a year, slow-walked, under-funded, and originally tapped an international war-criminal to head it. Today, even those on the Commission acknowledge that it was far from full-and-complete, failing to address even 5% of the Jersey Girl's questions. The behind-the-scenes executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest with the administration, filtered what evidence got to the commission and into the report, and "while at Harvard worked on the use and misuse of history in policymaking." Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is:
"defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
The significance of this very brief and incomplete list is for you to see that unquestioning faith in the correctness of government agencies is not well founded.
And when a rational thinker steps back from these micro details, they see an agenda being trotted out that has shred the Constitution and been contrary to anything "American" or "Christian".
As for your lengthy quotation from the WTC-7 report? Without your insight into its significance, it takes on the appearance of you throwing up a lengthy distraction. The quoted passage is nothing more than weasel-words, padding, and TNRAT (pronounced "tin-rat" and means "they'll never read all that!")
Let's cut out the fluff and go directly to this great quote that demonstrates the deceit in the WTC-7 report:
The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a free-fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.
How did they come up with "a descent time of the upper 18 stories was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time"? They AVERAGED the three stages together, because they needed to distract from the fact that Stage 2 was at free-fall. ("Gravitational acceleration" is another phrase for free-fall.)
Now we can return to some of the passages that lead-in and try to bury the revelation above. Here's a red-flag for your beliefs:
Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 - 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 - persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.
In other words, the WTC-7 fires were not stationary. They consumed what was combustible in a given area in 20 to 30 minutes and progressed into other areas. So although WTC-7 had fire most of the day (that coincidence theorists try to hype), the reality is that fires in any given area were short lived.
The fuel for such fires was primarily office furnishings (diesel fuel gets ruled out below by NIST), which has limitations regarding how hot they can get with respect to reaching levels sufficient to make structural steel pliable. The progressing WTC-7 fires were insufficient in energy and duration to heat that structural steel to a failing (or pliable) point.
If we grant this hypothesis, though, of the steel becoming pliable, when the fires progressed into other areas as discussed in the quoted passage, steel from the burned areas cool and regain their rigidity. However, the report wants us to conflate a steel structure with a wood structure of a house, whereby house fires do consume critical supporting structure and lead to overall structural failure.
The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. The buckling of Column 79 led to a vertical progression of floor failures up to the east penthouse and to the buckling of Columns 80 and 81. An east-to-west horizontal progression of interior column buckling followed, due to loss of lateral support to adjacent columns, forces exerted by falling debris, and load redistribution from other buckled columns. The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.
Note the word "probable". Probable does not mean "definitive". They're guessing and covering their ass with weasel-words.
The repeated lie is "progression", of which buckling is a form of and is relatively gradual. This is what their computer simulation modeled. Unfortunately, the computer simulation does not model the video evidence, which proves that it was not gradual.
The WTC-7 failure (particularly in Stage 2) was sudden, symmetric, uniform (length and breadth), and timed across many floors. Although buckling of columns is considered failing, resistance is still exerted in the buckling of columns. "Gravitational acceleration" in Stage 2 is not an indication of buckling resistance; it is zero resistance. The underlying support and structure were somehow suddenly compromised so that they would offer zero resistance to mass falling through their space. As the roof-line demonstrates, the collapse was uniform and symmetric, which is uncharacteristic of fires.
The claim that column 79 was unsupported over nine stories? How could it be not supported? Structural steel is not consumed by mere 20-30 minutes fires stoked by office furnishes (or diesel fuel) that migrate into other areas.
The collapse of WTC 7 was a fire-induced progressive collapse.
The issue is not that a building could be completely destroyed by "a fire-induced progressive collapse." The issue is that the WTC-7 evidence shows that it was not progressive; it was sudden. There is absolutely nothing progressive about over 8 stories exhibiting free-fall, meaning that
They did not prove their case that fires were the primary mechanism. Unscientifically, They did not test for explosive. Evidence was destroyed. Their computer models did not agree with what was observed; they admitted to over-driving parameters in their model to get their progressive collapse theory; they did not release those models for public-peer-review.
Some other quotes:
Early fires in the southwest region of the building did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The fires in this region were not severe enough to heat the structure significantly; and, unlike the northeast region where collapse initiated, there were no columns supporting long span floors in the southwest region.
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.
So we're left with a migrating office-furnishing fire to account for the sudden onset of gravitational acceleration over 8 stories. Yeah, right.
Here's another great quote:
Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
Yep, I am willing to accept everything above as true and valid.
Why? Because neutron nuclear DEW devices, being of a tactical nature, would accomplish the above without the tell-tell audio signatures of chemical explosives.
The above passage is a red-herring. It explains why they didn't test for chemical explosives; they knew (or were told) chemical explosives weren't used. However, they didn't test for nuclear devices either. They didn't properly analyze the dust which had traces of correlated elements across numerous sampling points that clearly showed nuclear fission happend. They didn't speculate properly about why tritium was measured at elevated levels (although below EPA thresholds) in the WTC drainage water.
You wrote:
Consider these two factual points to be a more factual basis of investigation and use the recovery data to be able to see the facts within the incidents.
1. Hijackers were aided by embedded ground crews at the airports. Known fact supported by 1990 phoenix Arizona FBI report to Albright.
It is okay by me to circumscribe a larger group of conspirators. Did those same ground crews plant neutron bombs at the WTC?
2. Investigate the use of NSC-68 as a forging policy in the middle east in regards to the MEK is a causation of the creation of the terrorist network. This is due to the abandonment of established proxy warrior network and the re-acquirements by radicalized faction leaders whom crate a Crusader via religion to strike targets that have encroached upon the territory become a target of their religious leaders' self-created enemy thus this is transferred to their proxy warriors whom will strike that target.
Most of the terrorist network were trained by the CIA.
3. Building and construction standards in the WTC towers may have a weakness that is in the connective bolts used in both towers to connect the steel beams to support structures.
Indeed. The weakness was those connective bolts ability to withstand the effects of a neutron nuclear DEW.
As item #3 similar constructed medium rise office buildings have had floor collapses as result of similar uncontrolled fire damage and have had catastrophic failures. This means that there is a fire vulnerability in standard bolt/riveted steel or iron structures. This is why sprinkler and fire suppression systems are utilized in mostl buildings built after 1986.
Nonsense. The reason for sprinkler and fire suppression systems is to protect and preserve human life. Lots of lives were lost in garmet district fires long ago that gave rise to new codes.
Provide instances where uncontrolled fires damage let to catastrophic failures. If we are to believe the government's story, it happened only three times in history that were coincidently on the exact same day: 9/11/2001.
// Señor El Once
x13 Señor El Once : what makes a conspiracy theorist tick
2013-06-11
what makes a conspiracy theorist tick by quinazagga 2013-06-10
{Email to Quinazagga as well as unpublished comment to that blog entry.}
It is posts like this that prove what a lying, cheating, thieving, dishonest asshole you are, Mr. Quinazagga!
How so?
You didn't even write this piece of bullshit. You stole it from someone else but put your own name on it as if this were your work. Most of your blog is this way.
Maybe if you had put proper accreditation on it, its contents might be worth debating. But not really. In the grand scheme of things, this represents a repressive propaganda effort to smear and dissuade. Very little substantiation. Lots of generalizations, which actually don't apply. Basically, "don't even see the many data points of orchestrated deceit; don't connect them together into a trend line of high level misdirection. For if you do, you'll demonstrate a mental malfunction."
Your dishonest posting of this is like wrapping a bow around your entire website as a clue on how to regard it. Bot created drivel and disinformation.
I'll make you happy by looking for the unsubscribe feature shortly. I've looked at your legacy. This was par for the course. You are hardly worth following even in the shit that you steal.
//
x14 Mr. DGW : your own "self-trues"
2013-06-11
{Email response from Mr. DGW}
once again you can have your own trues but not your own facts. You have proved the accuracy of the article.
Fact 300,000 persons worldwide read this blog. Submissions are made by multiple authors and the author has the option to have their name posted or not.
The claimed author goes by Ms. DS.
Phantasypublishing blog articles are submittals by other Authors just like any other publication or publishing house and author has the option to have their name posted or not.
Name calling and acting like a child will just get your comments placed in spam where they belong. The problem you have is the site is not regulated or syndicated and never will be.
You really are the hypocrite here in making ignorant statements. You are the one whom parrots off misinformation about 91101 and uses Dr. Judy Woods whom has self-trues but no real facts that tie them to the incident. So you knowingly quote her Misinformation/disinformation as True and factual when it is not factual. No are a lot of your statements about Recovery of the WTC towers after 91101 that are fiction . Given your track record we will not publish any of your comments. Nor will you ever publish any private e-mails from me or any of my collages within Phantasypublishing as you are not a spokesperson for Phantasypublishing no are you in a capacity to represent the company.
x15 Señor El Once : such a fucking liar in the face of copyright infringement
2013-06-11
{Email Response to Mr. DGW}
Dear Mr. DGW,
How am I an ignorant hypocrite? I'll wager you don't even know what a hypocrite is, ergo I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to explain how I might be one.
You are such a fucking liar in the face of being caught in the act of copyright infringement. I'll bet you never even ~asked~ Mr. Suave if you could use his piece. You probably found his article (re-posted in several places on the internet) and co-opted it for your purposes. He never sought you out to publish on your blog, so you are lying about whether or not he opted out of getting credit. At best, you might have (but didn't) send him a lame link saying you were going to re-publish his piece.
Still, there is no getting around your dishonesty in not crediting him with his work. Worse, the manner of your posting gives the false impression that you wrote it. El-Oh-El! Nothing like the "originality" of your emails and postings (e.g., on Truth & Shadows) to put that thought to bed for good.
Your lying knows no bounds evidently, and is on display with your Dr. Wood comments. You were told that my beliefs deviate from Dr. Wood; you were given links to those deviations. As for any misinformation/disinformation in her work, I at least have the ability to spot it from the truths and make a distinction; I have never championed 100% of her work, and cherry-picked the evidence that any conspiracy theory du jour (including the "official" one that you promote) must address to be complete.
You, on the other hand, are so agenda-driven, you wouldn't know a truth or its significance if it fell into your lap at gravitational acceleration from a NIST report.
Your company, Phantasypublishing, is aptly named: a fantasy, not a real company. Gee, 300k people read your blog? Maybe combined total page views over eight years. Big woop-de-doo. How many subscribe? [Subtract that number by one, because I no longer do.] The number has never been big, and this is reflected by the number of comments your vast numbers of readers never made. (Or was it because they flagged your ass like I did, thereby necessitating their banishment?)
The only thing remotely saving your "company" from copyright infringement is the fact that you aren't making any money off of your site -- got no ads, no sponsors --, and you can claim that the articles were re-posted for the benefit of scholarly review.
Doesn't mean you should regularly short-change the original authors (as you do) and not provide links to the source. Nope. In fact, if your "company" wants to continue to duck under this fair-use umbrella, then you had better start "fairly" using them by crediting the original author. Otherwise, you are and remain a plagiarist, which is another form of fucking lying, you ignorant asshole. Par for your course.
As for publishing your own emails on your blog? Their removal is a testament to how you do ~not~ stand behind your own words, because they are confused, contradictory, and ignorant, and I made you mad by pointing out the specifics of such.
Damn straight I'm not a spokes person for you, your colleagues (? alter-egos?), and am in no position to represent your company(?), nor have I ever wanted to be.
The ignorance card falls into your lap at gravitational acceleration... Ignorance of what free-fall is; ignorance of fair-use; ignorance of truth; ignorance of any helpful advice to improve your blog and its reputation.
Here's another proof of what a fucking liar you are.
You never asked ~my~ permission to use my words on your lame-ass posting "Beware the Censorship by 9/11 Truth Supporters". You did not credit me; you did not link to the source; you completely fucked up the formatting of my words; you have not let me defend my words.
ERGO, you NO LONGER HAVE PERMISSION to use my words on your forum. Please remove my words from your site. Cut it down, strip me out, and leave only Mr. Quinazagga's words. I don't want as much as a single lingering google search result that Señor El Once might have been active on your home court. You've so edited the record already, nobody will know that I tried; let's make that permanent and complete; remove all of my (better written) prose.
// Señor El Once
x16 Señor El Once : Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.
{Posting to a website. It did not pass through moderation.}
You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.
You did not credit me; you did not link to the source; you completely fucked up the formatting of my words; you have not let me defend my words.
Cut it down, strip me out, and leave only Mr. Quinazagga's (poorly written) words.
I don't want as much as a single lingering google search result that Señor El Once might have been active on your home court. You've so edited the record already, nobody will know that I tried; let's make that permanent and complete; remove all of my prose and references to my alias, Señor El Once.
// Señor El Once
x17 Señor El Once : such a cheesy liar!
2013-06-13
{Email to Mr. DGW}
Dear Mr. DGW,
You are such a cheesy liar! I'll come back to the Greening piece in a moment, but rest assured that it will prove you to be a liar and a cheat.
Regarding the piece, what makes a conspiracy theorist tick, you wrote:
The submitter was signed D. Suave and it is credited you simply overlooked it. Then made an ass out of yourself
The submitter where? The submitter on your blog was quinazagga. Talk about making an ass out of yourself, there is a difference between a "submitter on some strange blog on the internet" and an "author of original work." Neither Mr. D. Suave nor Mr. Quinazagga authored it. It was authored by Brian Dunning.
Moreover, the whole phrase "submitted by {Ms. DS}" was post-edited into the piece, probably after receiving my complaints. Edit it again to make sure to give the correct, rightful author credit, as well a link back to its source.
Now with regards to what you think Mr. Quinazagga posted... *beep* *beep* Nope! The source playground was Truth & Shadows, where Mr. Quinazagga's comment for May 31, 2013 - 10:46 was never published, because he so fucked up the formatting that it could not be determined who wrote what. Even the re-posting on your blog explicitly copies that his comment for Truth & Shadows awaits moderation. Mr. Quinazagga was never banned from T&S and successfully posted other comments after this one in question. He was asked to fix the issues with this one and re-submit, and it could be logically assumed that his comments after May 31 reflect this improved effort. Evidently, he never did (with all the same information), otherwise I would have seen his raise and called his bluff.
You might be tempted to say that "no, the discussion migrated here where Mr. Quinazagga re-posted the discussion." *beep* *beep* Nope! Another fail. Truth & Shadows suffered with several comments from Mr. Quinazagga after May 31. And none of the things he posted after that date had any reference to the Greening piece. Finally, because you've childishly censored me, any rebuttal I might have made is gone (for now).
And when we turn our gaze only to the lame re-hashing on the Quinazagga blog and the May 31 posting, we quickly discover (a) the May 31 postings included several things that subsequent postings on Truth & Shadows did not (like the Greening link), and (b) Mr. Quinazagga offered very little value-add. El-Oh-El! He provided no relevant excerpt from the Greening document nor any self-composed verbiage that would convey some level of his own understanding. Without relevance, it amounts to busy work to go there; you'll simply ignore it..
Here's some more irony. Mr. Quinazagga wrote (where the link refers to the Greening piece):
Free fall is a fallacy and so is the disintegration of the upper floors as thy impacted wtc 7, wtc 5, and wtc 6. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Your astute associate, Mr. EB, emailed cool quotations from the NIST report that proves that free-fall (gravitational acceleration) was no fallacy [in WTC-7]. And although WTC-1 & 2 were 2-3 seconds longer in collapsing than expected by free-fall, they were within the margin of error to merit them being associated as almost free-fall or the phrase "at free-fall speeds."
With regards to the details of Mr. Greenings report, if Mr. Quinazagga wants to make a relevant, respectful, and intelligent posting on Truth & Shadows (neutral territory) and defend it rationally, I'll be happy to point out its failings.
Until that day, I will hold to my assessments that you all at Phantasypublishing are LIARS and CHEATS, and your emails don't disappoint in this regard.
Kudos to you, Mr. DGW born on August 19, 1970 at 10:00 pm in Plaquemine, Louisiana, for having started your real company, Phantasypublishing, in 1980 at the ripe old age of 10!!!
*Clap* *clap* *clap*
Having a company and having a (wildly) profitable one are two different things.
Meanwhile, I request again that the words of Señor El Once be removed from your website, where your foul formatting of my words and cowardice at publishing my rebuttals makes it an unhealthy environment for truth.
// Señor El Once
x18 Mr. DGW : Phantasypublishing does not need your Authorization
2013-06-12
Sir,
Phantasypublishing does not need your Authorization for publishing works that you released to a publicly accessed Blog system without restriction or placing your legal name or copyright restrictions upon it at the time of publishing. Upon your initial release prior to 6/11/2013 there was no implied copyright or terms of use of the data you presented. Meaning you released your exchange to public domain without restriction.
A work of authorship is in the "public domain" if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.
Since you are not the author of the data you presented in an public discussion you have no claim of copyright on your opinion you state publicly.
You have had time to make a response article in excess of thirty days and have not supplied a response that includes quotes of an authoritative factual source for substantiation. You instead provided sources espousing self-created truth under empirical reasoning philosophy that had no basis in the physical facts of the incident. This is willful propagation of disinformation and propaganda that is unfounded in facts. Your failure to state that it was in your opinion or in the opinion of the other author that ----- happened. You also never address factual reports that are contrary to the self-truths you state. Under DMCA you have ten to ask for a full retraction of any article you failed to do so and the article will remain as it was published before you put a stop press notice. Due to your reporting self-proclaimed trues as facts and repetitive false claims aimed at Quinazagga the Articles will remain as they are to preserve the integrity of the database. Removing them allows you to weasel your way out without taking responsibility for the false and misleading statements made in the discussion by you.
This blog site has approximately 300,000 readers worldwide daily and is a non-profit database. They do make comments upon your entries and the suggestion the community has made for both of you is to read http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/25/ and use APA guidelines if you want to retain research integrity. Since you don't use APA guidelines your information is viewed as your opinion not as fact. Quinazagga does use APA guidelines and has quoted sources. In my observation it is just a case of you denying the facts and replacing them with self-truth that is un founded in facts but founded in your empirical beliefs and philosophies.
As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. No data from this e-mail or from Quinazagga emails may be used by you in any public database. This discussion begins here and ends here and will not be disseminated father. All rights to it are reserved by Phantasypublishing and THIS INFORMATION IS TO BE HELD IN CONFIDENCE. DISCLOSURE, REPRODUCTION, OR OTHER USE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF Phantsypublishing's owner.
You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.
You did not credit me; you did not link to the source; you completely fucked up the formatting of my words; you have not let me defend my words.
Cut it down, strip me out, and leave only Mr. Quinazagga's (poorly written) words.
I don't want as much as a single lingering google search result that Señor El Once might have been active on your home court. You've so edited the record already, nobody will know that I tried; let's make that permanent and complete; remove all of my prose and references to my alias, Señor El Once.
// Señor El Once
x19 Señor El Once : Really? Daily, your web traffic logs 300,000 unique visitors?
2013-06-12
Dear Mr. DGW,
You are such a wanking liar, I'm starting to have my doubts about whether I'm communicating with a rational human or a bot, an artificial intelligence adept at copying-and-pasting words of others retrieved from a database, but inept at conveying meaning or understanding to those same words when pressed for details.
What a load of bullshit:
This blog site has approximately 300,000 readers worldwide daily and is a non-profit database.
Really? Daily, your web traffic logs 300,000 unique visitors? [Sarcasm] Right.[\Sarcasm] And what are the odds that ~none~ of them can be bothered to comment on an article or rate it?
Put a counter on your blog, and maybe I'll believe you and offer an apology. You can get free-ones at BraveNet.
Bots don't have morals or ethics, so the frequency and extent of your outlandish lies begin to make sense only within that framework. And thus the appropriateness of your "phantasy" name comes to the fore. Your bot-hood explains the slip-up's of its aliases, as well as the contradictions, the purposeful misunderstandings (e.g., programmed), the repetition in accusatory language, the poor formatting of quotes, etc.
You wrote:
You have had time to make a response article in excess of thirty days and have not supplied a response that includes quotes of an authoritative factual source for substantiation.
Are you inviting me to post a response article on quinazagga? If so, your other language and actions really counters this. And if so, well by golly, my calendar shows that I still have 18 or so days before July 1 rolls around to make my response, because that is thirty days from the June 1 posting.
Ooops! Did you just get tripped up in two additional lies? Version one of this pointed out many other lies and flaws. But the perceived insincerity of your very being made further honing of words & substantiation to that effect rather pointless.
Nothing about you is to be trusted, Mr. DGW. Certainly ~not~ that you & your blog should be held up as bastion and safe harbor for Truth. Reeks more like a legend establishing affair intended to give you web-credibility.
No need to respond.
//
x20 Mr. DGW : self-truths as facts
2013-06-12
2013-06-12 9:33 PM
{Email from Mr. DGW}
You are very predictable in your responses. You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.
Logically erasing any sincerity in your response thus rendering as your unsubstantiated opinion of Phantasypublishing.
Yes there are 300,000 regular visitors and any rationally thinking publisher would moderate all of the comments received on articles.
Yes there are more than just one individual operating within that capacity and after passing through Committee the reply is then
submitted with the original to the Chief editor whom then places that authors name upon the response and publish it on the blog.
Since the site is nonprofit all references to a for profit organization within the response must be omitted or it can be construed as
passive advertising or redirection of reader to a profit site.
Articles and responses of that content are prohibited and therefor screened by the committee whom will reject the comment under that basis.
I stated you can submit a response so long as it has factual verifiable sources that are not profiteering and peddling their self-truth without providing any physical facts associated with the incident being discussed.
Fact most of the bent steel happened after or during the collapse of the WTC towers .
Critical thinking says a fall from 2,000 feet up will put a dent if not bend or roll steel after it sits atop burning cars and other rubble of sub-basements .
Also knowing what Sulfidation of steel is and how sea-water being pumped upon hotspots to get to fires under the WTC steel created hydrogen sulfide gas that added to hotspots.
If you are able to look at other factors that were physically present after the collapses and the aftermath then you may present a factual dialogue that has intellectual value to merit publication.
Given what you have produced not only in your article publishes originally but in your response pattern. The committee's observation is that you are not capable of discussing facts and will respond only by parroting off your trues as facts when there is no physical fact to back them. Also you would have to retract the following statement you made, "You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once." For the following restriction the committee has placed to facilitate your request. As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully.
If you are not willing to do so then do not respond to this email and do not respond with anything outside of the requested retraction.
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
{SEO: I am "the intended recipient". This is part of my "sole use." "Others" aren't involved with "review, use, distribution, or disclosure" here. I, "the intended recipient", am. Thus, no violation of any prohibition has happened.}
x21 Señor El Once : "phantasy" takes on new bounds with your fresh lies
2013-06-13
{Email to DGW}
Dear Mr. DGW,
The extent of the "phantasy" takes on new bounds with your fresh lies to cover over previous lies of having 300,000 daily visitors to your copyright-infringing blog:
Yes there are 300,000 regular visitors and any rationally thinking publisher would moderate all of the comments received on articles.
Moderating comments is one thing. Rejecting them all is quite another, which is apparently what your committee has done. What a way to pander to your base, eh?
Seems to me that would piss off a lot of readers, and the star ratings would reflect this. From what I've seen, the star ratings reflect nothing, because the traffic isn't what you "phantasize."
Do you know what it takes to satisfy 300,000 daily visitors? No, you don't. Because if you did, you'd be doing it and you'd even have a blog counter to substantiate it. I'll give you a hint: new content everyday; the ability for readers to discuss and deepen the understanding of the topic. Your own archives proves that your "committee" has ~never~ managed to get even 1 new copyright-infringing article a day, much less the 4 or 20 needed to satisfy 300,000 daily visitors. Comments and star ratings? Hahaha! Doesn't happen.
Singularity in purpose is requisite in satisfying visitors -- particularly returning visitors --, and your blog doesn't have it. It is poorly organized for what it does have.
Not to brag, but I've been associated with a particular blog since 2010 that just yesterday had 1,511 page views by 785 visitors, 376 for the first-time [numbers are compliments of a free service from BraveNet that you could use.] Total page views since 2010 has been 3 million. To achive this on an ongoing basis, 4 new articles a day were (re-)published, each with proper accreditation to the original author and a link to the source. Comments are moderated there, as well, and come at a clip of 2 a day (lately).
The point, Mr. DGW, is that if my substantiated visitor numbers (~700) were scaled to your alleged 300,000 daily visitor numbers, your moderation committee would be fielding 857 comments a day. And you expect me to believe that ~NONE~ of them passed through the moderation committee?
Because I've been around the 9/11 block more than once, it is easy to spot your technique of applying your weaknesses to others, ala:
You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.
Without substantiation to prove my statements as "nonfactual self-truths", you're just spouting words.
Thank you for the insight into your operations:
Yes there are more than just one individual operating within that capacity and after passing through Committee the reply is then submitted with the original to the Chief editor whom then places that authors name upon the response and publish it on the blog. Since the site is nonprofit all references to a for profit organization within the response must be omitted or it can be construed as passive advertising or redirection of reader to a profit site. Articles and responses of that content are prohibited and therefor screened by the committee whom will reject the comment under that basis.
And who exactly is on this committee? Just their initials will be fine, as well as their military rank and job functions.
And WTF is going on with your last sentence? Clearly you copy-and-pasted this passage from somewhere else. Clearly the author of that sentence has no idea what they are talking about; clearly you have no idea what they are talking about.
Clearly, if that last sentence were true, then your blog administrator should simply turn off the ability for readers to make comments, so false hopes are created.
Another glaring lie, eh, Mr. DGW?
You wrote:
I stated you can submit a response so long as it has factual verifiable sources that are not profiteering and peddling their self-truth without providing any physical facts associated with the incident being discussed.
Yeah, right, Mr. DGW. Do these same rules apply to you, too?
The EB quoted passage from summary from the WTC-7 NIST report hasn't met the standard, neither in the source nor in his understanding. NIST has yet to cough up the computer models used to ~not~ mimic observable reality. More importantly, that pesky 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration needs a much better explanation that doesn't defy physics or engineering practice or historical precedent. The same is true from the USGS report on the dust that, when properly analyzed, shows correlations in the elements from sample-to-sample that are indictative of nuclear fission. The same is true for a stilted government commissioned report on potential tritium sources in the towers that made all sorts of conjecture while avoiding that (fission-triggered) fusion devices answers nearly all the anomalous evidence, including steel beams smoothly bent into horse-shoes and arches and torched vehicles along West Broadway and in a car park.
I can substantiate my views. And a great deal of the evidence pieced in a Tetris-sense into a cohesive theory (a) has not been debunked, (b) leaked out through official sources or reports, (c)_ weren't adequately explained in those reports, (d) weren't addressed at all by other reports. Purposeful omissions.
Fact most of the bent steel happened after or during the collapse of the WTC towers. Critical thinking says a fall from 2,000 feet up will put a dent if not bend or roll steel after it sits atop burning cars and other rubble of sub-basements.
Not "critical thinking" but "ignorant thinking" and "propaganda."
No, I'm sorry. The paragraph above is an example of:
You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.
You claim that beams fell onto burning cars and that this caused them to bend into horse-shoes & arches or get rolled up into a "steel doobie." Let's set aside the obvious question about how the car caught on fire before the beam hit it. Let's also set aside that a beam falling from 2,000 feet can no longer contribute to the pile driving mass that destroyed the lower portion of the towers at free-fall speeds.
The steel in the towers was over-designed for its purposes of supporting the structure above it and the dynamic wind loads. Do the math, Einstein. Take the mass of a beam and calculate its kinetic energy after falling 2,000 feet. You'll discover that this energy is large, particularly when compared to the strength of a car. While large, that same energy is insufficient to account for (a) a beam smoothly bending into a horseshoe, (b) several beams smoothly bending into arches, and (c)_ several beams smoothly rolling themselves into "steel doobies".
The key word is smoothly and can only be achieved with the addition of heat... massive amounts. What was that heat source that could sufficiently heat massive steel beams end-to-end to allow for such pliability. You see, without heat and with only force, the beams could have been bent, but not smoothly; they'd have visible fractures along the bend if they weren't broken.
How hot can a burning car get? Hot enough to bend a piece of structural steel several times its own length? If you go to a blacksmith, how long do they have to heat a horse-shoe before it can be formed to fit onto a hoof?
Where are your pictures of burnt out cars with bent structural beams from the towers through their roof? The picture of the "steel doobie" next to the Liberty building has no burnt out car where it augered into the ground.
Here's another of your "nonfactual self-truths"
Also knowing what Sulfidation of steel is and how sea-water being pumped upon hotspots to get to fires under the WTC steel created hydrogen sulfide gas that added to hotspots.
They also poured massive amounts of fire-retardent chemicals onto the hotspots.
If you are able to look at other factors that were physically present after the collapses and the aftermath then you may present a factual dialogue that has intellectual value to merit publication.
Just another fucking lie, Mr. DGW, because your copying-and-pasting above already states [and your blog proves]:
"Articles and responses of that content are prohibited and therefor screened by the committee whom will reject the comment under that basis."
You wrote:
You are very predictable in your responses.
Actually, you are.
You can't make a cohesive argument, let alone one that might be compliant with physics.
You copy and paste material that is not applicable and that you don't understand.
You play games with your aliases -- Mr. DGW, Mr. Quinazagga, associate editor Mr. EB, and now your committee.
You repeatedly contradict yourself: "you can submit a response" and "responses are prohibited."
The committee's observation is that you are not capable of discussing facts and will respond only by parroting off your trues as facts when there is no physical fact to back them. Also you would have to retract the following statement you made, "You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once." For the following restriction the committee has placed to facilitate your request. As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully.
You make it sound so appealing.
If the committee's observation is that I am incapable of discussing facts, then obviously a retraction of my request to remove my words that YOU HAVE SO MANGLED AND MISREPRESENTED AND WON'T LET ME DEFEND will have no basis in the publication of subsequent articles or comments on your blog. It ain't gonna happen.
I didn't come to your blog out of the blue. You first came to Truth & Shadows "peddling your self-truth without providing any physical facts." You ran away when confronted, mangled my words, and censored my respectful & rational responses from your home court.
Show some integrity, Mr. DGW. Unpublish your "Beware the censorship by 911truth supporters." Of the 300,000 people who saw it, nobody's comment has survived and only 2 people voted -- and one of them was me. It won't be missed.
Then if you still desire a respectful and rational debate on 9/11 topics, you can attempt it on Truth & Shadows. I don't own that blog, so it is neutral territory.
You wrote:
If you are not willing to do so [retract my request for remove my words] then do not respond to this email and do not respond with anything outside of the requested retraction.
Ooops! Too late!
Next time, front load that into your email and don't bother with the rest.
But not too late for you to retract:
http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/
// Señor El Once
x22 Quinazagga Committee : The committee's observation
2013-06-14
2013-06-13 3:26 PM
{Email in response to mine beginning: "The extent of the "phantasy" takes on new bounds"}
Given what you have produced not only in your article publishes originally but in your response pattern. The committee's observation is that you are not capable of discussing facts and will respond only by parroting off your trues as facts when there is no physical fact to back them. Also you would have to retract the following statement you made, "You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once." For the following restriction the committee has placed to facilitate your request. As of 06/11/2013 19:45 all data from for Señor El Once prior is frozen no further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully.
Since you are not willing to do so there is no further reason to continue any dialogue with you. As the only response has been to state your ignorance of copyright laws and use in publication or syndication under nonprofit charter or databases. The bottom line here is that you cannot admit to the facts of the 91101 terror attacks and present unsubstantiated self-truths. Mr. EB stated Facts and pointed out you inability to research or discuss facts by posting the following studies on the WIC tower collapse on 91101 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html and the final nail in the WTC tower free-fall fiction http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf .
Also in addressing the implausibility of DEW http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
You failed to address facts of the issues you present and present an ad hoc defense on top of it.
Your statements about the causes of bent steel are inaccurate and the factual proof is in the FEMA preliminary study of debris http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Also this combined with you pointing out that fire retardant and sea water both were added into a pile of hot debris adding to an caustic chemical mix. The recovered WTC Steel was taken from theses hot spots after collapse. This means the after effects are being talked about not the initiator of the collapse as the steel has been in a debris pile for greater than a month before them being extracted.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html
Since you cannot keep to a factual discussion and se distraction
Since you failed to be able to factual argue any of the facts and your own Self-created truths based in empirical reasoning and philosophy not fact.
In observing your own words it is just you mirroring tactic is an undeniable Logical failure.
It also stands as your final proof through self-contradiction and the use of Distraction.
I accept this is just your style of drawing out the discussion so it is over analyzing and transference to assess a motive where non is present.
The Physical Evidence of what occurred on 91101 has been archived, researched and documented it is correlated and concurs with the physical facts supported by forensic and physical evidence.
BTW : the abbreviation of " Also known as " is AKA
"Because I've been around the 9/11 block more than once, it is easy to spot your technique of applying your weaknesses to others, ala:
You state your nonfactual self-truths as facts and then add fabrications to them.
Without substantiation to prove my statements as "nonfactual self -truths", you're just spouting words."
Thanks for the mirroring your admission as to what your reasoning logic is. It is confirmed by you statements and response patterns that you are in fact the one operationally using propaganda debate tactics .
The WTC tower collapses using factual data not empirical self-truths that are backed in opinion not fact..
+++++++++++++++++ 2013-06-13 4:43 PM
{Email from Mr. DGW in response to my email from 2013-06-12 starting: "You are such a cheesy liar!"}
No you won come back to anything as you can't separate opinion from fact. The only winning move is not to play your game CAW.
+++++++++++++++++ 2013-06-13 7:23 PM
{Email from Mr. DGW in response to my email from 2013-06-12 starting: "You are such a cheesy liar!"}
Stating your own personal trues as facts again. The facts speak very clearly as to whom posted and wrote the article.
None of any of the individuals you falsely claim wrote the Article.
No further discussion upon it because you simply don't know.
All of your accusations are self-truth they never are attached to facts just your opinions which you over state their importance like a sibilant child.
CAW
Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
+++++++++++++++++ Comment to the blog posting
2013-06-14
The original article was more lengthy but it seemed to be more of an attack by {Ms. DS}" on conspiracy theorist who originally submitted this article to Phantasypublishing staff for publishing. So she shortened cut some venom out of her own behavioral science observations and this from her profession in the psychological field.
My observation is Behavioral scientist should look at the whole Catastrophic incident or an incident being questioned as a condition el social. The human emotional responses and denial of reality should be observed in respect to catastrophic incidences and that is not to distract from thoes choosing to profit off of the event by creating their self truths instead of saying their opinion is their opinion.
x23 Señor El Once : failed test of your committee's integrity
2013-06-18
{Email to the committee}
Dear Mr. DGW, Mr. EB, Mr. Quinazagga, Mr. CAW, Ms. DS, and other unknown members of the committee,
Let us start with the plagarized article "What Makes a Conspiracy Theorist Tick" (June 10, 2013). I have repeatedly brought it to your attention that neither Ms. DS nor Mr. Quinazagga were the original authors, although both may have been involved in posting it to your quinazagga blog.
I informed you who was the original author (Brian Dunning from June 28, 2011) and where to find it (skeptoid.com/episodes/4264). It wouldn't have taken more than two minutes to edit the article in your blog database with these additions and corrections.
Instead, I get all sorts of denials and weasel words. The latest volley came from Mr. Quinazagga on June 13, 2013 at 17:39 in a posting and from Mr. CAW via an email on June 13, 2013 at 19:23 from Mr. DGW.
Mr. Quinazagga wrote:
The original article was more lengthy but it seemed to be more of an attack by {Ms. DS} on conspiracy theorist who originally submitted this article to Phantasypublishing staff for publishing. So she shortened cut some venom out of her own behavioral science observations and this from her profession in the psychological field.
Mr. CAW wrote:
Stating your own personal trues as facts again. The facts speak very clearly as to whom posted and wrote the article. None of any of the individuals you falsely claim wrote the Article. No further discussion upon it because you simply don't know.
Indeed, the facts do speak very clearly as to who wrote and posted the article, yet those facts are ~not~ published on your website.
The original article by Mr. Brian Dunning is ~not~ more lengthy in any significant sense. The source from Mr. Dunning has ~15 paragraphs, while Ms. DS's version has ~14 paragraphs. The last two paragraphs from Mr. Dunning were removed and replaced by one paragraph written by someone -- Ms. DS, Mr. Quinazagga, or an unknown entity who allegedly submitted it to your blog.
It doesn't matter that Ms. DS may have edited and shortened Mr. Brian Dunning's original article, because the bulk remains indistinguishable from the original thereby remaining a copyright infringement (until proper attribution is made).
It doesn't matter how the article came to Ms. DS's attention, because just about any sentence or lengthy phrase from her article plopped between double-quotes in a Google search will locate the original.
Ms. DS didn't perform her due diligence; Ms. DS didn't credit even who submitted it to her; Ms. DS didn't credit the original author nor link to the source.
Despite the weasel-words, it has all the appearance of Ms. DS and Mr. Quinazagga trying to snag the authoring credit for themselves. And were we to say that this was not their intention, the fact remains that no one on your committee has the integrity or the ability to make a simple edit to your own blog to fix it.
This failed test of your committee's integrity sets the tone for the rest of my response.
Just because the "committee" can provide links to government sponsored disinformation, it doesn't mean that those links are applicable. If you want to prove applicability, you need to (a) quote the relevant passages and (b) offer up some of your own understanding as to why they are applicable. Failing this, you resemble more and more a web bot with the clever ability to paste in items from its skewed and limited database but with no true understanding or ability to reason.
Mr. EB demonstrated such failings quite well. On behalf of Mr. Quinazagga who incorrectly boasted about 9/11 free-fall being a phantasy, Mr. EB copied a lengthy passage from the summary of the WTC-7 NIST report. Buried in that long passage was the short two sentence (or so) paragraph that documents 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration. Evidently, neither Mr. EB nor Mr. Quinazagga know that "gravitational acceleration" is another phrase for "free-fall," else they wouldn't be embarrassing themselves with their obtuse and patently false 9/11 arguments.
I wrote in reference to "Beware the censorship by 911truth supporters" http://quinazagga.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/beware-the-censorship-by-911truth-supporters/ :
You do not have my permission to re-use my words here. Please remove all passages for Señor El Once.
In a case of erroneous logic, Mr. DGW writes (paraphrased from June 13, 2013 at 15:26) that to facilitate my request, "all data from Señor El Once is frozen. No further data from you will be published. In order for any of your works to be published on this blog you have to retract your request fully."
The combined wisdom of your committee evidently isn't that smart. I do ~not~ request that any of my past, present, or future works or comments be published on your blog. Fuck it; keep me banned. But this banishment is a separate issue from the unpublishing of the article that inappropriately re-uses my words and formats them very poorly. I do not retract my request; I want my words removed from your blog. Your blog lacks integrity.
Mr. DGW continues:
Since you are not willing to do so there is no further reason to continue any dialogue with you.
... At which point Mr. DGW demonstrates his lack of integrity by attempting to continue a dialog with me.
Under normal circumstances, I would oblige. But these aren't normal circumstances. The way I see it, you and your wonderful committee have three massive strikes against you all.
[1] It is truly a trivial task to update that one article on conspiracy theorists with its true author (Brian Dunning) and a link to the source. Period. It doesn't matter what path or through whom the article took for re-publication and editing on your blog, TRUTH dictates (a) that the attribution record be corrected now that you know what it is, (b) that more effort be spent on supplying proper attribution for all new articles, and (c)_ that the committee spend some effort to locate proper attribution for all old articles.
[2] It is truly a trivial task to unpublish the article on "beware the censorship", given (a) that it is comprised of mostly my words, (b) that your committee has so badly munged up its formatting as to make it practically unreadable, (c)_ that you did not provide a link back to its source, (d) that you won't let me defend it, and (e) that you can't adequately defend statements that you make, except by underhanded techniques involving the aforementioned poor formatting and banning your debate opponent.
[3] You can't even admit to free-fall (= gravitational acceleration) in the demise of the WTC, despite government reports spelling it out for you. Granted, those reports try to pin it on a mythical column 79 or other such nonsense; those reports try to average it with other stages so they can tell a meaningless truth about 18 floor falling slower than free-fall. The video evidence proves that it was ~not~ a single point of failure leading to a progressive collapse (as suggested by a computer model that still hasn't been released to the public and still doesn't match the videos despite much manipulation and overdriving of parameters beyond real-world cases.) No, all of the supporting structural elements across eight stories in WTC-7 were suddenly moved out of the way in order to obtain 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.
Dr. Wood suggested that DEW took out the WTC. Unfortunately, she could not ~POWER~ her proposal with anything real-world and operational; she gave nuclear enhancements the bum's rush in her book and website. Dr. Wood let her opponents frame her argument as "DEW from Space", etc. Worse, Dr. Wood made statements regarding the extent of the vaporization of steel that even pictures from her own book do no support. Her comment about the spire being vaporized is based on one view of the spire; other views of the spire show it telescoping and falling. Ergo, she was setting up the straw man.
Dr. Jenkins, in turn, attacks Dr. Wood's straw man while building more of his own. For instance, he calculates the ~total~ amount of steel in the towers and then calculates how much energy would be required to make that steel go from a solid directly to a gas. He calculates a completely ridiculous number. What makes it ridiculous is that clearly from the pictures not all (and not even a majority) of the steel was vaporized. Dr. Jenkins never calculated how much energy is required to vaporize ONE steel beam, which would be a very useful number to know. He never calculated how much energy is required to liquify steel, etc. And if this wasn't enough to damage Dr. Jenkins' integrity, (a) he did not analyze any form of nuclear weapon [some of which are technically DEW] and (b) he's been promoting nano-thermite that by itself cannot account for pulverization nor for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
Nope, Mr. DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.
Your entire committee lacks integrity in the small things. It does not surprise me to experience such lack of integrity in the big things, which is most obvious in your lack of understanding as well as your fear of engaging me in a public fashion. Rather ironic that the article was supposed to be about Censorship by the 9/11 Truth Movement, but behind the scenes becomes Censorship by the 9/11 Coincidence Theorists. Ya'all're running scared.
I'll be happy to engage you on a neutral public territory, like Truth & Shadows. However, your failure to admit to gravitational acceleration (despite being able to quote long passages with this fact spelled out) will put you at a disadvantage with regards to your reception by others.
Mr. CAW said it best:
... you can't separate opinion from fact. The only winning move is not to play your game CAW.
Don't play my game. Don't engage me. Remove the requested posting containing my words, so that I won't have as much as a toe-hold on your blog that could rightfully give me expectations that I could jump in and defend it more... and makes ya'all look like fools in trying to suppress me.
Demonstrate some integrity. Unpublish the mis-use of my words, and fix the attribution in general on articles across your blog.
I'll conclude this with the very poetic words of Mr. CAW:
Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
//
x24 Mr. OneOhOne : Troll patrol for phantasypublishing
2013-06-18
2013-06-18 16:17 "Troll patrol for phantasypublishing"
Let me clear this up for you since you lack any intelligence to understand. The article is not Plagiarized and since you have no facts to support you bullshit. Other than datamining through Google. It is not Brian's article and deviates from it as you pointed out. So that eliminates you claim legally and if brought into court you would loose this case. For plagiarism to be present the Article must match 100 percent copied. So you lost that argument because of you placing a high value on your baseless opinion on facts of plagiarism
Bottom line is Brian stated it is not the article his site and you don't represent his site. Besides the fact he called you a kook.
If you are going to quote an acronym do it fully and try to have the competency to utilize it correctly.
We cannot fix your stupidity on this level Can't Argue with Stupid. CAWS that is what was placed upon you message.
This is direct wording not weasel words. You are the one that uses those tactics in promoting false truths as facts. You lack any creditability judging from your response pattern
Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics you utilize and it will be noticed in the Blog phantasypublishing as you are a crafty yet unsophisticated drone.
x25 Quinazagga : continued Spamming
Señor El Once continued Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics of the trained 911truther whom has their own unsupported truths indoctrinated into themselves.
When this fact was brought to his attention he self banned and attempted to cover his actions up without taking personal responsibility for his own denial of truth and exploration of the 91101 terrorist attacks for personal or political gain.
x26 Mr. DGW : banned yourself
2013-06-18
First off you banned yourself from participating on Phantasypublishing's Blog and you are not on the Committee or a member of the Blog. This means you are not a member of the readership nor have any clue of operations of the blog. You also lack intellect to understand the acronym CAW and the continued use of discredited information sources to defend an indefensible self-created truth that has no basis physical facts. The only propaganda is the empirical truths of the 911truth movement used in a campaign backed by the National Libertarian Socialist Green Party Which is a front for the American Nazi part and Aryan brotherhood. These are hoaxes for money and exploitation of the ignorant for profit Dr. Judy Brown is the prime example of that level of academic fraud so complete that she did get thrown out of court. Not once but twice.
As to permission to use your words That has already been explained to you and the article is very readable and remains as testament to your complete lack of education in regards to the collapse of WTC 1,2 and seven which is subject matter you attempt to incompletely cover. You instead spam this site with false claims and here is the kicker this site has more facts than you idiotic statement. It took Quinazagga posting two reports that shut your debate down because you failed to address them. That proved you created truth to be fiction without facts to back it up. All of your pointless argument will never change Facts of 91101. There is What occurred Factually and the made up empirical fantasy of 911truthers that is a meritless Hoax for profit Social entrepreneurship Philosophy and theology and is a propaganda technique that ties into other Occupy movements as well.
So when one cuts to the facts of this whole exchange You were prohibited from deviating from the discussion about the WTC tower 1,2 and seven collapse. You used data that had no facts and when confronted with the reality that your truth was baseless. You denied that reality and then attempted transferal to others instead of taking responsibility for pushing an agenda based empirical truth that was made up and accepted as a false reality by useful idiots.
Also, There is no need for you to try to talk about Copyright laws. You lack the legal capacity to understand them and just because you can take a quota and data mine to an article does not make the article original to that author. Brian uses other people's articles and has exchanged articles from this blog to use in his on journalistic pursuits.
SEO:
It doesn't matter that Ms. DS may have edited and shortened Mr. Brian Dunning's original article, because the bulk remains indistinguishable from the original thereby remaining a copyright infringement (until proper attribution is made).
DGW:
Yea it dose Dumbass. You do not know Copyright law so shut up about it is not the original article it has been written by that Ms. DS and deviates from the original article. So why don't you take your false claims and self-created truths and peddle them at a flea market on tracks that can double as toilet paper.
{Edited out repeated but unaddressed passages from SEO Email.}
SEO:
The combined wisdom of your committee evidently isn't that smart. I do ~not~ request that any of my past, present, or future works or comments be published on your blog. Fuck it; keep me banned. But this banishment is a separate issue from the unpublishing of the article that inappropriately re-uses my words and formats them very poorly. I do not retract my request; I want my words removed from your blog. Your blog lacks integrity.
DGW:
It is you that lack integrity and everyone that sees your words prior to your banning yourself will know
SEO:
[1] It is truly a trivial task to update that one article on conspiracy theorists with its true author (Brian Dunning) and a link to the source. Period. It doesn't matter what path or through whom the article took for re-publication and editing on your blog, TRUTH dictates (a) that the attribution record be corrected now that you know what it is, (b) that more effort be spent on supplying proper attribution for all new articles, and (c)_ that the committee spend some effort to locate proper attribution for all old articles.
DGW:
You are an incompetent data miner and whiner whom lacks any real understanding of copyright laws
Also you banned yourself and refused to retract that ban to debate any of the pointless points you bring up as distraction.
SEO:
[2] It is truly a trivial task to unpublish the article on "beware the censorship", given (a) that it is comprised of mostly my words, (b) that your committee has so badly munged up its formatting as to make it practically unreadable, (c)_ that you did not provide a link back to its source, (d) that you won't let me defend it, and (e) that you can't adequately defend statements that you make, except by underhanded techniques involving the aforementioned poor formatting and banning your debate opponent.
DGW:
Nope you banned yourself after you got shut down by the two reports and continue to whine about it by trying to cover up the evidence of your complete logical failure and denial of the facts.
SEO:
[3] You can't even admit to free-fall (= gravitational acceleration) in the demise of the WTC, despite government reports spelling it out for you. Granted, those reports try to pin it on a mythical column 79 or other such nonsense; those reports try to average it with other stages so they can tell a meaningless truth about 18 floor falling slower than free-fall. The video evidence proves that it was ~not~ a single point of failure leading to a progressive collapse (as suggested by a computer model that still hasn't been released to the public and still doesn't match the videos despite much manipulation and overdriving of parameters beyond real-world cases.) No, all of the supporting structural elements across eight stories in WTC-7 were suddenly moved out of the way in order to obtain 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.
DGW:
Your truth is not supported in facts and by misrepresenting a sequence of a collapse progression as an proof of free fall is a logical failure on your part. You can't transfer it to Quinazagga as he also provided you with documentation about Energy transfer and free fall fallacy in the WTC 1 and 2 collapse.
SEO:
Dr. Wood suggested that DEW took out the WTC. Unfortunately, she could not ~POWER~ her proposal with anything real-world and operational; she gave nuclear enhancements the bum's rush in her book and website. Dr. Wood let her opponents frame her argument as "DEW from Space", etc. Worse, Dr. Wood made statements regarding the extent of the vaporization of steel that even pictures from her own book do no support. Her comment about the spire being vaporized is based on one view of the spire; other views of the spire show it telescoping and falling. Ergo, she was setting up the straw man.
DGW:
She lied about the Cars and the initiator of their damage. She lied about the steel and recovery of all steel so her findings are based on misrepresentation of the facts and are without merit.
SEO:
Dr. Jenkins, in turn, attacks Dr. Wood's straw man while building more of his own. For instance, he calculates the ~total~ amount of steel in the towers and then calculates how much energy would be required to make that steel go from a solid directly to a gas. He calculates a completely ridiculous number. What makes it ridiculous is that clearly from the pictures not all (and not even a majority) of the steel was vaporized. Dr. Jenkins never calculated how much energy is required to vaporize ONE steel beam, which would be a very useful number to know. He never calculated how much energy is required to liquify steel, etc. And if this wasn't enough to damage Dr. Jenkins' integrity, (a) he did not analyze any form of nuclear weapon [some of which are technically DEW] and (b) he's been promoting nano-thermite that by itself cannot account for pulverization nor for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
DGW:
Sorry to say you lack the education to obviously to spot that the DEW fraud and the Nano thermite fraud both are hoaxes and are based in misrepresentation of truths as fact backed with manufactured facts that paint chips bun in an acetylene torch and that samples with no chain of handling can be submitted in a scientific study and produce the same findings that The USGS found and then some added chemicals due to contamination of the 2 year old Bentham samples.
SEO:
Nope, Mr. DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.
DGW:
Written like a parrot whom has no facts to pedal so fall back on a lie and here is the fact the links are sound and are not syndicated within the 911truth hoax this means you are a brainwashed troll with nothing to add. You points are meritless attempts at deflection and stating your opinion as fact is a way of lying. Your opinion is unsubstantiated in facts and therefore denied any futher time.
SEO:
Your entire committee lacks integrity in the small things. It does not surprise me to experience such lack of integrity in the big things, which is most obvious in your lack of understanding as well as your fear of engaging me in a public fashion. Rather ironic that the article was supposed to be about Censorship by the 9/11 Truth Movement, but behind the scenes becomes Censorship by the 9/11 Coincidence Theorists. Ya'all're running scared.
DGW:
Nope it is you whom are running scared at
SEO:
I'll be happy to engage you on a neutral public territory, like Truth & Shadows. However, your failure to admit to gravitational acceleration (despite being able to quote long passages with this fact spelled out) will put you at a disadvantage with regards to your reception by others.
Mr. CAW said it best:
... you can't separate opinion from fact. The only winning move is not to play your game CAW.
Don't play my game. Don't engage me. Remove the requested posting containing my words, so that I won't have as much as a toe-hold on your blog that could rightfully give me expectations that I could jump in and defend it more... and makes ya'all look like fools in trying to suppress me.
DGW:
It just exposes you as what you are. You can't defend a pointless delusional truth held without facts. So you give factual information to back you claims or walk away empty handed with the same dumbfounded look upon face as you got shut down by the facts.
SEO:
Demonstrate some integrity. Unpublish the mis-use of my words, and fix the attribution in general on articles across your blog
DGW:
The entirety of your article stands as a testimony of the thought process of delusional programmed trolls for 911truth. That have no merit or basis in facts just empirical fantasies that never occurred on 91101.
SEO:
I'll conclude this with the very poetic words of Mr. CAW:
Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
Yes true words which you really never comprehended otherwise you would not have repeated them.
+++++
How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism
by John Ray
Skeptics today bemoan the overwhelming proportion of people who claim to believe in all manner of conspiracy theories from the JFK assassination to the origins of HIV-AIDS. For that reason, it may be worthwhile to take a moment to stop and celebrate one area in which skeptical advocacy has been overwhelming successful: the world of 9/11 conspiracies. Through the work of scholars like Michael Shermer and James Meigs, along with everyday skeptics on the grassroots level, critical inquiry has been overwhelmingly successful in calling these conspiracy theorists to task.
A tragedy on a scale at least comparable to Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination was bound to inspire a conspiracy subculture, but the takeoff success of the viral Internet documentary Loose Change and the movement it created was unprecedented. Looking out on the world in 2005 when Change became one of the most-watched Internet videos of all time, with over ten million unique viewers1, it was hard to anticipate a future that was anything but bleak for those who felt it was their duty to defend history from such pseudohistorians.
Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 "truth movement" has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.
Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers' biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience - the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind - also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise.
The Internet forced many "ground-level" 9/11 deniers - those who spread the gospel on popular social networking sites like Facebook and in their own blogosphere - into a rhetorical corner.
Instantaneous information traps old, well-discussed claims into sheer redundancy. In three years of debating 9/11 deniers, I have encountered almost the exact same laundry list of claims on dozens of occasions. The same resources have been successful in debunking 9/11 myths since their inception, tipping the debate against them. The first Loose Change was a sweeping work that, by this author's estimation2, implicated roughly 578,000 people in their version of 9/11; the "final edition," though twice as long, has orders of magnitude less content and almost zero positive claims, drumming up a meager 8,200 suspects3. This is almost certainly a result of Internet-based skeptics bombarding Loose Change's makers with the facts.
What should go down as a knockout blow to the 9/11 denier movement, what Michael Shermer called "just about one of the best things ever done in the history of skepticism,"4 is the now-famous Popular Mechanics article turned into a best-selling book that debunked many of the top points the conspiracy theorists relied on. Joining a chorus of mainstream publications including Skeptic and taking the central claims head on, the Popular Mechanics article became a cornerstone for the 9/11 denier movement's undoing.
The spike in 2006, prompted by the live debate between the editors of Popular Mechanics and the producers of the documentary Loose Change, shows that not only was the skeptical perspective more well-accepted than the conspiracy perspective, it began to dictate the conversation. (Graph produced using Google Trends by the author.)
The Popular Mechanics article was published in its March 2005 issue and became an Internet hit after the live debate hosted by Democracy Now! between Popular Mechanics editors Jim Meigs and David Dunbar and Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. In the aftermath of that debate - if this is any indicator of which side presented the better case - that article became the most popularly searched item pertaining to 9/11 conspiracies and, from that point on, the skeptical perspective became the dominant voice pertaining to the movement. The conversation was brought to the mainstream, and the mainstream made its decision.
Today, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is a shell of what it once was. The website masquerading as an academic journal, Journal of 9/11 Studies, has dropped from a high of six or seven articles published per issue to one, and its February 2008 edition (it's supposed to be updated monthly) was simply skipped over, evidently for lack of a single article. The introduction to the main hub of 9/11 denier activity, 911truth.org, welcomes its visitors with a plea that announces, "we've cut to the bare bones, but are still far short of our basic budget needs." Prominent "truthers" like Mark Dice, Dylan Avery, Jimmy Walter (lambasted in Penn & Teller's Showtime series Bullshit! episode on 9/11), and Kevin Ryan have dropped into obscurity. The well read author David Ray Griffin continues to lecture, but to shrunken audiences, and this year's big 9/11 rally looks to be set in Ottawa, not New York City - evidently due to lack of interest.
The number of articles on the popular conspiracy site "Journal of 9/11 Studies" has rapidly dwindled since a peak last year. (Graph produced using Microsoft Excel by the author.)
It is rare when those of us in the skeptical community get to celebrate a concrete success in building public consensus on an issue of pseudoscience. In the combination of grassroots Internet support and mainstream media advocacy we have seen one such moment. It was once feared that the 9/11 conspiracies would be the next JFK conspiracies - silly yet pernicious, running unchecked until it was too late. The opposite has happened here. Because the skeptical community gave the public some well-needed straight talk on the issue, pulled no punches, and let no challenge go soundly unanswered, we have won in six years what could have become a half-century long, uphill battle as with JFK conspiracy theories. Here's to winning once in awhile.
References
- Sales, N. "Click Here for Conspiracy." Vanity Fair, August, 2006, www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/features/2006/08/loosechange200608
- Ray, J. "Total Personnel Required for 'Loose Change' Version of 9/11: 578,212," www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=34802512&op=1&o=all&view=all&subj=2211830485&aid=-1&oid=2211830485&id=5523995 . Original content created by author of this article based on information presented in "Loose Change: Final Cut."
- Ray, J. "8,157 High-Ranking American, British, and Pakistani Officials are Out to Get You!" http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/8157-high-ranking-american-british-and.html . Original content created by author of this article based on information presented in "Loose Change: Final Cut."
- "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction." Narr. Lester Holt. Documentary. The History Channel. 20 Aug. 2007.
+++++
{DGW} So what nonfactual statement do you want to make next.
x27 Señor El Once : Can't Argue With Stupid
2013-06-19
{Email to Mr. OneOhOne and Mr. DGW}
Dear Mr. C.A.W.Stupid {= Mr. OneOhOne}, Mr. DGW, and the rest of the "committee,"
Please accept my humble apologies for misspelling your name. However, the projection of your attributes onto me is misapplied when you wrote:
We cannot fix your stupidity on this level Can't Argue with Stupid. CAWS that is what was placed upon you message.
"CAW" is the spelling used by your commanding officer, Mr. DGW, or an associate using his email. It was an honest mistake by me to assume that the initials "CAW" at the end of two emails were from an associate tasked with dealing with me.
While we are on the subject of tasks doled out by the "committee," I am curious as to your rank, your duties on the "committee," and your assignments, one of which was probably hinted at with your email subject: "Troll patrol for phantasypublishing." Do they pay you well? What's the going rate?
As serendipity would have it, I managed to read yesterday's newspaper after arriving home and before attending to your nice note. Yesterday's Dilbert helped provide some of those answers:
Pointed Hair Boss: Studies say that having too many smart people in a group lowers productivity. So I seeded this project team with an idiot to boost performance.
New Idiot on Team: My strategy of not paying attention in school is finally paying off.
Mr. CAWS wrote:
The article is not Plagiarized and since you have no facts to support you bullshit.
What I know is that neither Ms. DS, Mr. Quinazagga, Mr. DGW, Mr. EB, nor you, Mr. CAWS, nor any other member of the "committee" wrote it. I know that when informed of whom the correct author might be (possibly Mr. Brian Dunning on June 28, 2011), none of you has made a convincing case for it not being Mr. Dunning.
Mr. CAWS wrote:
It is not Brian's article and deviates from it as you pointed out. So that eliminates you claim legally and if brought into court you would loose this case.
Don't let me put words into your mouth, Mr. CAWS, but your logic seems to be: "Our posting deviates (oh so slightly) from Mr. Dunning's article, therefore it is not Mr. Dunning's article and he deserves no credit." Stated another way, if 1 out of 15 paragraphs is unique despite 14 out of 15 paragraphs being word-for-word identical, that single, lonely, uniquely written paragraph is sufficient to win a (hypothetical) copyright infringement suit. *Beep* *Beep* Nope! Wrong again.
I seem to recall newer musicians being taken to court by older musicians for a stolen guitar riff by the former that the latter made famous. (Just the guitar riff and not any other elements of the original song.) I seem to recall other instances where the former paid the latter royalties up front for usage of song snippets to avoid a trial. In the computer world, I recall certain software giants patenting "concepts" not just "code" to prevent others from copying how a program or website behaved. The point is, copyright has been successfully defended for copying significantly less than 14 out of 15 "paragraphs."
Referring back to yesterday's Dilbert, if you would have paid attention in school, you wouldn't have been caught cheating by your teachers and professors. After all, they taught you how to quote other people's words both to accurately convey their words and their ownership thereof and to avoid any complaints of plagiarism. Without any edited weasel-words regarding who the true author is or author unknown, your plagiarism efforts (in this one instance and across the blog) would justify you receiving the grade of "F." Had you been at one of the military academies, you would be expelled.
Mr. CAWS erroneously wrote:
For plagiarism to be present the Article must match 100 percent copied.
I think I've already dispelled this lie. But in case my examples were too obscure, consider this one. Based on your logic, you could copy word-for-word one of Steven King's novels and then changed as little as the names of a few characters (and the dedication, "about the author," and maybe a single re-worded paragraph in each chapter), you could pawn this off as your own original work.
Good luck with that one, Mr. CAWS, and you should contemplate why we don't see more knock-off books.
Mr. CAWS wrote:
Bottom line is Brian stated it is not the article his site and you don't represent his site. Besides the fact he called you a kook.
I never stated or implied that I represented Mr. Dunning or any of his web efforts. I was doing the committee's blog a nice favor by pointing out its deficiencies in process & accreditation so that ya'all didn't run into legal trouble downstream. Mr. DGW, being an author, ought to appreciate the intent of giving authoring credit where credit is due, just as he undoubtedly expects this from others who might re-purpose or quote his works in a new venue.
The integrity track record of the "committee" has not been very good. I suspect you never contacted Mr. Dunning in any shape or form, thereby nullifying his alleged "kooky" label against me.
But for the sake of discussion, let's assume you aren't lying. If 14 out of 15 paragraphs of your posted piece overlap word-for-word with Mr. Dunning's blog entry, if nearly all other instances of the web not only match Mr. Dunning's piece but also give him credit and a link), and if Mr. Dunning is saying that he didn't author it, then the next logical questions are: Who did author it? Where did Mr. Dunning get it? Why was Mr. Dunning allowed to claim ownership of it? Was this some sort of "work-for-hire" with a ghostwriter? Interesting questions, one and all.
Mr. CAWS wrote (in a font different from the rest of his Email):
Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics you utilize and it will be noticed in the Blog phantasypublishing as you are a crafty yet unsophisticated drone.
On the Quinazagga blog 2013-06-18 came a posting from Mr. Quinazagga with strong overlap (emphasis mine) in the wording:
Señor El Once continued Spamming or otherwise changing the subject, ad homs., personal attacks, making claims unsupported by the evidence and various other logical fallacies are tactics of the trained 911truther whom has their own unsupported truths indoctrinated into themselves.
El-Oh-El! Your threshold appears to be pretty low for what constitutes "Spamming." Tell me, how many total postings have I attempted to your blog? When was my last one? Your own database records will prove that the word "continued" is a lie. As for the rest of the copy-and-paste charge, "the pot calling the kettle black." Be that as it may, my 9/11 claims are supported by the evidence.
I loved these published words within that same posting:
When this fact was brought to his attention he self banned and attempted to cover his actions up without taking personal responsibility for his own denial of truth and exploration of the 91101 terrorist attacks for personal or political gain.
Self banned? How in the 'el did I accomplish that? Did I hack into your WordPress site and flag my email address? El-Oh-El, the wonders of "self banishment!"
Denial of truth? For shame, Mr. DGW, you can't even admit to "free-fall" being equivalent to "gravitational acceleration" or that WTC-7 had 2.25 seconds or 100+ feet of it exhibited in its destruction, despite it being written in black-and-white in the NIST report.
As far as the "9/11 terrorists attacks" go, you and I are in agreement that the events of 9/11 were attacks by terrorists. Where we differ, I suppose, is in pin-pointing exactly who the terrorists were and how wide their circle of conspirators was, because without inside and influential help, ain't none of it would have been possible.
Mr. DGW elaborates in an email:
First off you banned yourself from participating on Phantasypublishing's Blog and you are not on the Committee or a member of the Blog. This means you are not a member of the readership nor have any clue of operations of the blog.
What does not being on the Committee, or not being a member of the Blog, or not having a clue into the operations of the blog have to do with anything? If nothing else, it disproves the very stupid premise that I might have "banned myself".
With regards to not being a member of the readership, I was, I could be again, and there isn't much you can do to stop me, except maybe making your entire (worthless) blog MEMBER-ONLY, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the lame-ass web-presence legend you're attempting to establish.
Mr. DGW changes the subject and writes an ad hominem:
You also lack intellect to understand the acronym CAW and the continued use of discredited information sources to defend an indefensible self-created truth that has no basis physical facts.
According to Mr. CAWS himself, you seem to lack the intellect to understand how to spell the acronym "CAWS."
As for the "use of discredited information sources to defend an indefensible self-created truth that has no basis physical facts", gee, I couldn't have summed up your 9/11 efforts better in its 100% reliance on incomplete, stilted, and hijacked government reports.
In terms of what I do, I look for nuggets of truth in the disinformation, which by definition the disinfo has to have, else the disinfo will have no traction. As such, I consider both government as well as government sponsored infiltration into the analysis of others. I know that if I'm not careful, I'll be played; I have indeed been duped by more than one "kwazy looney conspirathy theory" until more research and proper (scientific) analysis shed light on both proper nuggets of truth and blatant disinfo dross.
Your committee, on the other hand, is a bit hypocritical. Ya'all seem so eager to dismiss in their entirety everything from a given "source" upon detection of a single (designed-in, planted) flaw, yet do not apply the same dismissal when many errors are pointed out in the official government "sources" undergirding your "coincidence theories." Can't have it both ways... without exposing your agenda.
Mr. DGW continues:
The only propaganda is the empirical truths of the 911truth movement used in a campaign backed by the National Libertarian Socialist Green Party Which is a front for the American Nazi part and Aryan brotherhood.
Y*a*w*n! I don't know what you're talking about except that this is a pretty radical change in topic that you have hypocritically labeled a "no-no."
Mr. DGW continued:
These are hoaxes for money and exploitation of the ignorant for profit Dr. Judy Brown is the prime example of that level of academic fraud so complete that she did get thrown out of court. Not once but twice.
Who is Dr. Judy Brown? I don't know. Must be another one of those "lack of intellect" things similar to the proper spelling of "CAWS".
However, what you write may apply to Dr. Judy Wood. Good thing that I don't champion her work 100%. In fact, I have my own issues with Dr. Wood's work.
Mr. DGW continued with this awesome run-on sentence demonstrating more of that "lack of intellect:"
As to permission to use your words That has already been explained to you and the article is very readable and remains as testament to your complete lack of education in regards to the collapse of WTC 1,2 and seven which is subject matter you attempt to incompletely cover.
Don't go mixing your low threshold for spamming into being the same low threshold for readability. The re-purposed article starts out fine in its formatting, but then takes a right-turn into the unreadability weeds with Mr. Quinazagga's last posting that tries to address my words. Completely fucks it up, a testament to your complete lack of education with regards to writing and formatting.
As for WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, your Committee can't seem to stomach a tiny teaspoon of truth backed up by Newtonian Physics regarding free-fall and free-fall speeds. Incompletely covered? You bet, because it doesn't make much sense for me to try to get you to swallow a whole bottle of that truth medicine if I can't get the teaspoon of the same passed your nose. All in due time.
Mr. DGW continues with another run-on sentence:
You instead spam this site with false claims and here is the kicker this site has more facts than you idiotic statement.
El-Oh-El! You've proved nothing false. Here as in there, just words and false claims of false claims. Bravo!
Mr. DGW continues:
It took Quinazagga posting two reports that shut your debate down because you failed to address them.
Really? Is that so? My recollection is that I was banned and all of my postings (that weren't plagiarized and/or poorly formatted from Truth & Shadows) were deleted. Ergo, how the debate was shut down and what was or wasn't addressed (or wasn't permitted to be addressed) remain something to be debated. But because you have on-going integrity issues, we can lump this into more words and false claims.
That proved you created truth to be fiction without facts to back it up.
Not so. My neutron nuclear DEW hypothesis is supported by:
- the energy required for pulverization.
- the suddenness & speed with which total pulverizing failure happened.
- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- the tritium measurements and the government sponsored song-and-dance on this theme.
- the USGS dust samples and their analysis that then prove nuclear fission (ala fission-triggered-fusion in the form of neutron bombs directing their energy).
- the damage to automobiles and the non-damage to other things more combustible.
- the pictorial evidence of destruction (best collected in Dr. Judy Wood's book).
All of your pointless argument will never change Facts of 91101. There is What occurred Factually and the made up empirical fantasy of 911truthers that is a meritless Hoax for profit Social entrepreneurship Philosophy and theology and is a propaganda technique that ties into other Occupy movements as well.
*Y*a*w*n!
So when one cuts to the facts of this whole exchange You were prohibited from deviating from the discussion about the WTC tower 1,2 and seven collapse.
Ooooo! Can't deviate from the narrow agenda given to the Committee to defend! It was so long ago, you'll have to refresh my memory what the deviation was that you're not supposed to talk about and must shut down by any means at your disposal.
Let's also ignore the fact that this discussion, by rights, should have transpired on Truth & Shadows where it originated, and where neither of us can pull dirty tricks like banning the other or arbitrarily limiting the discussion to one-side's database talking points.
You used data that had no facts and when confronted with the reality that your truth was baseless.
Not true. See the short dashed list above, to which you have no explanation. If I error in this, you can set me straight by kindly explaining how the vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park were damaged? (Based on your official government conspiracy theories) how did gravity, jet fuel, and office fires torch those vehicles?
You denied that reality and then attempted transferal to others instead of taking responsibility for pushing an agenda based empirical truth that was made up and accepted as a false reality by useful idiots.
Clever, Mr. DGW, but I'm not the one who coined the phrase "free-fall phantasies" with regards to the WTC complex, which your own associate, Mr. EB, then proves via NIST's own reports was ~not~ a "phantasy." Who's denying reality?
Also, There is no need for you to try to talk about Copyright laws. You lack the legal capacity to understand them and just because you can take a quota and data mine to an article does not make the article original to that author. Brian uses other people's articles and has exchanged articles from this blog to use in his on journalistic pursuits.
Mr. DGW, it is not my responsibility to perform your due-diligence with regards to giving credit where credit is due on your blog. I was merely giving friendly advice about a subject that I do know about (and obviously Mr. CAWS and you don't.) The article in question was but one example of many, many on the blog that your "Committee" has paraded around as if you were the original authors.
If you and your Committee would have more integrity, the proper knee-jerk response would have been:
Dear Mr. El Once, your questions into the original author of this and other pieces are valid and an area our Committee hopes to improve on. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We will dedicate some time and try to locate the original author. Meanwhile, we will promptly add an editorial comment to the article in question stating that the author is unknown to us, but Mr. Brian Dunning appears to be taking credit for it.
I'll cut you some slack, Mr. DGW. I'll let you dupe me into believing that you really contacted Mr. Brian Dunning and thereby learned that he was not the original author of that work. Of course, unless Mr. Dunning was paying work-for-hire to populate his blog, then it remains rather curious that he has been taking credit for the article all this time.
More importantly, I thank you for demonstrating an NSA Q-Group "seed" article. Cass Sunstein's recommendations at its finest. Propaganda turned against US citizens, cuz "we don't want ya'all tolerating any of those outrageous conspiracy theories from the internets."
I wrote originally:
It doesn't matter that Ms. DS may have edited and shortened Mr. Brian Dunning's original article, because the bulk remains indistinguishable from the original thereby remaining a copyright infringement (until proper attribution is made).
Mr. DGW responded:
Yea it dose Dumbass. You do not know Copyright law so shut up about it is not the original article it has been written by that Ms. DS and deviates from the original article. So why don't you take your false claims and self-created truths and peddle them at a flea market on tracks that can double as toilet paper.
Taken at face value, Ms. DS's version of the article does not deviate far enough from the original to merit (a) ~not~ crediting the original author [or who is assumed to be the author or at least where it was found], (b) assuming full credit herself, and (c)_ thinking this act of plagiarism isn't.
Mr. DGW wrote:
You are an incompetent data miner and whiner whom lacks any real understanding of copyright laws
Projecting your attributes on to me, again? Try grasping this:
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. ... As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
Mr. DGW wrote:
Also you banned yourself and refused to retract that ban to debate any of the pointless points you bring up as distraction.
Huh? If I had any curiousity about your abilities as an author, the above sentence pours cold water on it.
Mr. DGW wrote:
Nope you banned yourself after you got shut down by the two reports and continue to whine about it by trying to cover up the evidence of your complete logical failure and denial of the facts.
There you go again with your "self bannishment" phantasy.
If the "logical failures" and specific "denial of the facts" aren't pointed out (as I do to your work), then they are just unsubstantiated words and you putting out a smoke screen.
I wrote originally:
[3] You can't even admit to free-fall (= gravitational acceleration) in the demise of the WTC, despite government reports spelling it out for you. Granted, those reports try to pin it on a mythical column 79 or other such nonsense; those reports try to average it with other stages so they can tell a meaningless truth about 18 floor falling slower than free-fall. The video evidence proves that it was ~not~ a single point of failure leading to a progressive collapse (as suggested by a computer model that still hasn't been released to the public and still doesn't match the videos despite much manipulation and overdriving of parameters beyond real-world cases.) No, all of the supporting structural elements across eight stories in WTC-7 were suddenly moved out of the way in order to obtain 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration.
Mr. DGW responded:
Your truth is not supported in facts and by misrepresenting a sequence of a collapse progression as an proof of free fall is a logical failure on your part.
Mr. DGW, did you have high school physics or perhaps college physics, with or without calculus? Obviously not, or you would grasp what even Dr. Sunder of NIST states about how free-fall means no structure or support exists to resist or slow down a falling mass. WTC-7 free-fall was not progressive, and the videos bare witness. It transitioned suddenly into free-fall.
You can't transfer it to Quinazagga as he also provided you with documentation about Energy transfer and free fall fallacy in the WTC 1 and 2 collapse.
If free-fall off of the top of the towers puts you at street level in just over 9 seconds, then a total destruction of a tower happening in ~11 and ~13 seconds is within the margin of error to be described as "near free-fall speeds". For sure, the structure should have resisted and slowed the collapse, but couldn't, because it was taken out by controlled means.
I wrote originally:
Dr. Wood suggested that DEW took out the WTC. Unfortunately, she could not ~POWER~ her proposal with anything real-world and operational; she gave nuclear enhancements the bum's rush in her book and website. Dr. Wood let her opponents frame her argument as "DEW from Space", etc. Worse, Dr. Wood made statements regarding the extent of the vaporization of steel that even pictures from her own book do no support. Her comment about the spire being vaporized is based on one view of the spire; other views of the spire show it telescoping and falling. Ergo, she was setting up the straw man.
Mr. DGW responded:
She lied about the Cars and the initiator of their damage. She lied about the steel and recovery of all steel so her findings are based on misrepresentation of the facts and are without merit.
Not quite, but if you absolutely insist, I won't argue the point. I don't champion her anywhere close to 100%.
Dr. Wood "implied" that the cars were taken out by a targeted DEW beam. What she "proved", however, was that the cars in question were torched in a mysterious way that jet fuel, office fires, and gravity cannot explain. You cannot explain it.
I wrote originally:
Dr. Jenkins, in turn, attacks Dr. Wood's straw man while building more of his own. For instance, he calculates the ~total~ amount of steel in the towers and then calculates how much energy would be required to make that steel go from a solid directly to a gas. He calculates a completely ridiculous number. What makes it ridiculous is that clearly from the pictures not all (and not even a majority) of the steel was vaporized. Dr. Jenkins never calculated how much energy is required to vaporize ONE steel beam, which would be a very useful number to know. He never calculated how much energy is required to liquify steel, etc. And if this wasn't enough to damage Dr. Jenkins' integrity, (a) he did not analyze any form of nuclear weapon [some of which are technically DEW] and (b) he's been promoting nano-thermite that by itself cannot account for pulverization nor for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
Mr. DGW responded:
Sorry to say you lack the education to obviously to spot that the DEW fraud and the Nano thermite fraud both are hoaxes and are based in misrepresentation of truths as fact backed with manufactured facts that paint chips bun in an acetylene torch and that samples with no chain of handling can be submitted in a scientific study and produce the same findings that The USGS found and then some added chemicals due to contamination of the 2 year old Bentham samples.
Sorry to say that you lack the education to obviously spot the jet fuel, office fires, and gravity-driven pile-driver fraud.
As for the Nano-thermite fraud, the high school math and physics expose it as such, where my education was more than up to the challenge.
As for the DEW fraud, not so fast with your broad brush. As Dr. Wood "implies" and let others "frame" as DEW-from-space, the fraud is exposed by physics as well, because a DEW device has to be powered somehow and Dr. Wood lacked a real-world operational answer, while avoiding nukes.
DEW is a broad category and includes nukes: specifically, it includes neutron bombs. Ergo, don't get ahead of yourself.
I wrote originally:
Nope, Mr. DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.
Mr. DGW and his fabulous committee has yet to explain what he posted. Probably because he doesn't understand it well enough to find the quotes worth mining or to clarify it in his own words.
I wrote originally:
I'll conclude this with the very poetic words of Mr. CAW:
Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
Mr. DGW responded:
Yes true words which you really never comprehended otherwise you would not have repeated them.
In other words, Mr. DGW didn't understand either, otherwise he would have translated.
Of course, Sunday's Dilbert about "Lying being an art form" really puts a fine edge on my experience with your "Committee."
Do yourselves a favor: ignore me. You've got me banned from your blog. You'll get your ass handed to you if you try to engage me on Truth & Shadows. You've been losing this email debate, despite the Committee tag-teaming. Your side ain't fairing too well (because you lack integrity and are fucking liars.) And were it not so, your 300,000 daily readers would have done your dirty work of trying to put me in my place without you lifting a banishing finger.
//
x28 Quinazagga Committee : Committee's Action
2013-06-19
++++ {Email from Mr. OneOhOne to Mr. DGW who forwarded to me with his additions.}
Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.
{SEO wrote}
As for the Nano-thermite fraud, the high school math and physics expose it as such, where my education was more than up to the challenge.
As for the DEW fraud, not so fast with your broad brush. As Dr. Wood "implies" and let others "frame" as DEW-from-space, the fraud is exposed by physics as well, because a DEW device has to be powered somehow and Dr. Wood lacked a real-world operational answer, while avoiding nukes.
DEW is a broad category and includes nukes: specifically, it includes neutron bombs. Ergo, don't get ahead of yourself.
Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation. The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb it is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics. As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.
Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage. Yes that is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
{SEO wrote}
Nope, Mr. DGW and his fabulous committee, posting links to disinformation does not absolve you from extracting what is relevant from it and explaining from your own understanding why the passage is relevant. All any of you has been doing is blindly posting links to government sponsored disinformation.
The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.
Mr. DGW and his fabulous committee has yet to explain what he posted. Probably because he doesn't understand it well enough to find the quotes worth mining or to clarify it in his own words.
{Mr. CAW wrote}
Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
{Mr. DGW wrote}
Yes true words which you really never comprehended otherwise you would not have repeated them.
{SEO wrote}
In other words, Mr. DGW didn't understand either, otherwise he would have translated.
I am not obligated to translate but here is the English to Quinazagga's statement
"Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq."
You cannot argue with the unintelligent in the end nobody will know difference of the two. So the winning action is not to play. This ends because he is banished as a troll.
You already failed to carry non an intelligent conversation and wish add distraction intro the fray.
Nope if you look at the feed on Truth & Shadows you have gotten your ass handed to you a couple of times over. So no real problem when we see a lack of research or honesty we just call it a Troll
http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc
Addressed your statements years ago and is accurate with the facts about the 911truth hoax. So that stops the rehash and parroting off ao all of your false
{SEO wrote}
Of course, Sunday's Dilbert about "Lying being an art form" really puts a fine edge on my experience with your "Committee."
Do yourselves a favor: ignore me. You've got me banned from your blog. You'll get your ass handed to you if you try to engage me on Truth & Shadows. You've been losing this email debate, despite the Committee tag-teaming. Your side ain't fairing too well (because you lack integrity and are fucking liars.) And were it not so, your 300,000 daily readers would have done your dirty work of trying to put me in my place without you lifting a banishing finger.
It already has been done why waste time with someone whom, denies facts of what occurred on 91101 and replaces them with self created trues that have no facts to back them up.
This applies to your statements alone.
++++++
{Email from Mr. DGW to me 2013-06-19}
{SEO wrote}
Do yourselves a favor: ignore me. You've got me banned from your blog. You'll get your ass handed to you if you try to engage me on Truth & Shadows. You've been losing this email debate, despite the Committee tag-teaming. Your side ain't fairing too well (because you lack integrity and are fucking liars.) And were it not so, your 300,000 daily readers would have done your dirty work of trying to put me in my place without you lifting a banishing finger.
Let us correct your statement.
1. You banned yourself.
2. We have effectively won the e-mail debate as you have thoroughly debunked and discredited yourself.
3. You never had any integrity. You were stating your own trues as facts and they are nonfactual they are based upon empirical and not factual reasoning base upon physical evidence.
4. The Factual evidence is faring well as watch the steady decline in the 911truth movement as they lack any credibility or ability to speak about the facts.
5. None of your transference hides your ignorance of the subjet you attempt to discuss
x29 Señor El Once : Committee Troll One-Oh-One
2013-06-20
Dear Mr. OneOhOne, Mr. DGW, and others on "the Committee",
For a brief moment, let us set aside all of "the committe's" communications with me that have transpired so far on the theme of 9/11.
My assumptions are that "the Committee" believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. "The Committee" can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on "the Committee's" fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.
If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your "keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths" onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation.
So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...
True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.
Prove it, otherwise you earn the label "fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."
As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.
What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what radiation signagure a neutron bomb would give off and its duration. Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elements. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
Here's something from Wikipedia on neutron bombs:
A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.
The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)
Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.
No, not at all. Here's me being honest: "Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile." Satisfied?
Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
You use the term "fires". What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) that some cars were torched in the basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
Bullshit.
A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles "popping off."
Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:
When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles into the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.
I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase "self-truth" that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.
The original wording was:
Wux shilta ti witani mrith pothoc persvek wer sulta ilfis geou vucot. Zyak wer ultrinninanir gewjle ui ti ekess lehhav. Nomeno sultanic jaka wux re lokria lae vi screruq.
The translation appears to be:
You cannot argue with the unintelligent in the end nobody will know difference of the two. So the winning action is not to play. This ends because he is banished as a troll.
Ah, yes, but you played anyway. How unintelligent does that make you and the committee?
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
You already failed to carry non an intelligent conversation and wish add distraction intro the fray.
This statement is a data point that fits the trend line of all the other lies from your email and from those of other committee members.
I have most certainly succeeded in carrying on an intelligent conversation, and this makes me dangerous to your agenda and is why you've banned me so quickly. Nothing I've written has been a distraction; it has all been on topic. After all, I am a principle participant in the exchange that Mr. Quinazagga extracted from Truth & Shadows (after running away like a scared cat).
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Nope if you look at the feed on Truth & Shadows you have gotten your ass handed to you a couple of times over.
Prove it. Provide the reference URLs and relevant quotes. Otherwise, this is just your unsubstantiated opinion. Lest you be tempted to offer up my exchange with Mr. Quinazagga, he's the one who ran away like a scared cat; it is his blog that bans me and won't let me defend my words.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
So no real problem when we see a lack of research or honesty we just call it a Troll
Shit, then I guess I should be calling you "Mr. OneOhOne Troll" from now on.
As for your link to a DOC file [Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc]? If you want to extract its contents and put it into an email, I'll look into it. Otherwise, I'm sure its just a honeypot of VBA viruses.
Mr. TrollOneOhOne concludes:
[Engaging me on Truth & Shadows] already has been done why waste time with someone whom, denies facts of what occurred on 91101 and replaces them with self created trues that have no facts to back them up.
First of all, Mr. Quinazagga ran away from T&S like a scaredy-cat crying "censorship-foul" when there was no such thing.
Secondly, not only are facts and substantiation supplied to back up my views, but also the errors & omissions in the foundations of your beliefs are pointed out.
Thirdly, I have to admit that you make a good point about "why waste time with someone who denies facts", makes up lies, and deploys other under-handed techniques in their argumentation (like banning rational & intelligent debate).
I do it because I'm religiously fanatical about Truth. Truth is a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue.
Now we progress on to Mr. DGW's email, who tries to correct the record with lies:
1. You banned yourself.
An impossibility. And if you'd like to try to substantiate this with actual instances of any of my allegedly banning worthy offenses, fresh eyes will overturn your judgment and apply it to you. But don't let me stop you; prove it, Mr. DGW.
2. We have effectively won the e-mail debate as you have thoroughly debunked and discredited yourself.
Oh-hum. More words without substantiation. Have you debunked free-fall in WTC-7 yet? Or that the BBC knew about WTC-7 collapse and told the public 20 minutes before it happened? How about WTC-1 and WTC-2 destroying themselves at near free-fall speeds?
3. You never had any integrity. You were stating your own trues as facts and they are nonfactual they are based upon empirical and not factual reasoning base upon physical evidence.
You who ran away from Truth & Shadows with the false claim of censorship like a scaredy-cat. You who lacks the integrity to properly credit authors throughout your site. You who lacks the integrity to FIX a massive formatting fuck-up done at your hands or to REMOVE the article in question. You who has had lie after lie exposed in both small things and large.
Don't go lecturing me about integrity.
4. The Factual evidence is faring well as watch the steady decline in the 911truth movement as they lack any credibility or ability to speak about the facts.
Ooooo! I guess we can chalk up this statement about "the decline in the 911Truth Movement" as one of those "self-trues" you've been harping about, eh?
After more than 11 years, maybe there is some validity to the movement and its activism sputtering down, but that does not mean that there is any decline whatsoever in the numbers of people on the planet who KNOW that everything the government told us was a pack of lies and is defended by a pack of liars, such as yourselves. The numbers of people coming to awareness of this fact is increasing.
5. None of your transference hides your ignorance of the subjet you attempt to discuss
I noticed that you don't have the intellectual balls to discuss it or to even intelligently defend your lies. The only question remaining in my mind is whether you know them to be lies or are simply deluded into believing lies as "self-trues".
Here is a final piece for your "committee" to chew on, particularly if any are US Citizens. Treason. Yep, if any are US Citizens, then their participation in the propagation of the lies of 9/11 to continue to dupe the population will be deemed treason, particularly when the facts of the event are that nukes were used.
You were incapable of ignoring me before. Let us hope with this latest email from me you will be able to improve upon your ignoring efforts. But if you can't contain yourself and feel you must respond, Truth & Shadows awaits.
// Señor El Once
x30 Mr. DGW : Enhanced Radiation Warhead
2013-06-21
{Email from Mr. DGW to SEO and Mr. OneOhOne. Pay attention to the nested levels to figure out who is writing what. Mr. DGW's responses are in red. His original formatting was not so pretty.}
{Indentations at this level represent SEO's words.}
From: {SEO}
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 13:24
To: Mr. DGW, Mr. OneOhOne
Subject: Re: Follow your own advice, Mr. CAWS<
Dear Mr. A.L.OneOhOne, Mr. Wilks, and others on "the Committee",
For a brief moment, let us set aside all of "the committee's" communications with me that have transpired so far on the theme of 9/11.
My assumptions are that "the Committee" believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. "The Committee" can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on "the Committee's" fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
Facts linked to physical evidence tell what happened factually on an forensic level. Backed by observations of active participants and correlation of their observations of the incident.
If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
We are focusing on the events on 91101 and leading up to the attack. Now the dishonesty starts at muddying the well with other non- related incidents.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.
If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your "keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths" onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation.
So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981
Now that is a neutron bomb primary effects. Now here is where you
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...
True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.
Prove it, otherwise you earn the label "fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."
Already proven before your erroneous statements that it was not fission but another source.
Interpretation
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.
As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/
is the correct address of the
Sorry to say that Non-thermite is not found more like rustproofing paint burns in an acetylene torch. Also since there is no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.
What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what level of gamma radiation signature a neutron bomb would give off and its duration.
Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elemtns. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
Bullshit it does not and the problem here is a term you don't understand Fusion and Fission they are two different processes and in your misapplied nuclear physics
Here's something from Wikipedia on neutron bombs:A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.
The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)
Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
Actually they do not and if you looked at the lack of a Gamma Burst then all of your empirical Nuclear Truth goes to you are creating a false appeal ad hoc.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.
No, not at all. Here's me being honest: "Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile." Satisfied?
Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
You use the term "fires". What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
I am not speculating just stating actual observations of the aftermath and the fact that there were fires from cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers . Now these are hotspots in a 16 acre Bathtub That housed the old union pacific subway that the Towers were built upon. The station platforms were converted into parking garages. An underground mall storage vaults and other offices. There was oxygen, Hydrogen sulfide gas from seawater introduction and auxiliary generators near the communications complex under south WTC tower. So in looking at the steel you have to take into the whole observation that it was heated by secondary fires in some areas where there was still a connection to the entrance ramps air literally was pulled in so you had active fires in some areas acting like blast furnaces for short duration. Problem these are underground in a structure and are a whole different creature the first car catches fire gasoline moves to lowest are secon and soo full blown multiple fires with metal transmissions that contain the same elements found in the dust samples and groundwater samples.
I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
Actually Kentic energy transfer within the collapse does explain it
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) that the cars came from first levels of garages and from street level in front of the buildings; (b) some cars were torched in the lower basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
Bullshit.
No bullshit. I had to correct your misleading and inaccurate statement keeps it factual and hopefully prevents you from confusing your truths or opinion from the facts..
A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles "popping off."
Yes after WTC south collapsed they were hit by pieces of the south tower.
Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
Well that is a boldfaced lie and discredits your lack of knowledge about the vehicles being towed there.
Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:
When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
No I stated the Facts and the statement still applies to your erroneous statements.
First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
So it points out also it was put on Truth and Shadows so again lie and use weasel words.
Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles into the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
Yes you are a liar and you don't realize the fact it was a holding lot for cars taken off the street after the WTC tower collapses and placed there. Yes the fires were after wtc south collapsed. Caused by debris from the tower.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase "self-truth" that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.
Yes it does it means you create a truth that is only based in your opinion and it is not factual it is delusional. It is a form of lying. You continue to attempt to mirror so let us just stop the propaganda dance you do.
We have no problem with the English language or seeing through a troll. Trolls are devious and this deflection instead of owning up to the fact that you falsely state an opinion as truth means you sell a self-truth that is unsubstantiated factually.
We can also see the difference between Active collapse, rescue after collapse, search and rescue, aftermath and recovery operations. These are terms you and other truthers are unaccustomed to.
x31 Señor El Once : Another data point to the integrity trend line
2013-06-24
Dear Mr. DGW and "the committee,"
You are a published author, the owner of a publishing company, and the owner of a blog. Please demonstrate more proficiency in this regards by paying attention to wordsmithing details, such as incomplete sentences and formatting that will more easily differentiate the words of the participants in this discussion.
Your research efforts improved slightly, although the data point represented by your analysis of such still fits in with the integrity trend line I have for you.
{SEO:}
My assumptions are that "the Committee" believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. "The Committee" can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such {good} marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on "the Committee's" fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
{DGW:}
Facts linked to physical evidence tell what happened factually on an forensic level. Backed by observations of active participants and correlation of their observations of the incident.
We are focusing on the events on 91101 and leading up to the attack. Now the dishonesty starts at muddying the well with other non- related incidents.
{SEO}:
Mr. DGW, it is not dishonest to pose questions that would help establish a common footing for further discussions so that we don't have to argue over things that we might already agree on. It is not dishonest to pose questions that would help readers guage your open-mindedness or agenda.
What does it mean if you cannot: find fault with the government; can't acknowledge other historical instances of false-flag events; can't perceive recent instances when the corporate media acted as an integrated branch of government as "the scribe hired by the victor to write history according to its desires?"
You weren't expected to offer up details on other non-9/11 events (i.e., JFK, RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, ...), so even I can understand your reluctance to "muddy the well" in this regard.
However, the direct 9/11 question remains that you're avoiding: "What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion?" If you can't acknowledge as valid some of the many things that fuel the 911TM's ire, then perhaps you aren't being honest and expose an agenda. On this front, you might be tempted to frame those valid anomalies-to-be-questioned as "human error or incompetence, and inconvenient coincidences"... Woes to the miniscule probability of coincidence after coincidence happening.
Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and "the committee's" efforts.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.
{SEO:}
If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your "keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths" onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
{DGW:}
Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.
{SEO:}
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. Cummulative arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation.{SEO:}
So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
{DGW:}
Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981
Now that is a neutron bomb primary effects. Now here is where you
{SEO:}
Very good, Mr. DGW. I commend you on your copying-and-pasting effort for its relevance, but ~not~ on your ability: (a) to attribute the abstract properly to its correct source (such as http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/neutron%20bomb); (b) to offer up analysis based on your own understanding and in your own words; and (b) to deviate in thought from the framing it puts forth of a omni-directional spherical neutron emission for its intended application on the battlefield.
I dispute nothing from what you have quoted, which ironically puts us into agreement.
Furthermore, neutron bombs have other configurations. In particularly, the neutrons -- instead of a spherical emission -- can be aimed, which then puts them into the classification of weapons known as DEW (incompletely speculated by Dr. Wood).
The first deviation in thought from the original application where neutrons are used to kill life forms indiscriminately, would be targeting the neutrons in a manner that focuses them where they can do the most damage and then throws the rest away, rather wastefully into the sky. The second deviation from the framing above is any semblance of using the released energy efficiently or to its maximum capabilities possible. No, one needs to think of wasting the energy, but in a manner that at the same time reduces collaterial damage to life forms.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...{SEO:}
True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.{SEO:}
Prove it, otherwise you earn the label "fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."
{DGW:}
Already proven before your erroneous statements that it was not fission but another source.
{SEO:}
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. I've seen this same game played with tritium. Namely, the reports typically have a slightly skewed purpose, like to identify "probable sources" for the anomalous element. The skew is that not all "probable sources" were identified or explored, because they held to the assumptions of "a pile-driver driven by gravity decimating the towers", therefore the anomalous elements could only be attributed to office equipment. The report succeeds in its purpose, but that does not mean: (a) if it assumptions had been lifted, the conclusions would be the same; or (b) this in its present skewed form definitively debunks the alternative of multiple neutron nuclear DEW.
{
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/:}DGW:
Interpretation
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.
{SEO:}
Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding.
{SEO:}
As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
{DGW:}
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/
is the correct address of the
{SEO:}
Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions.
Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it.
{DGW:}
Sorry to say that Non-thermite is not found more like rustproofing paint burns in an acetylene torch. Also since there is no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses
{SEO:}
No skin off of my nose whether or not the dust contains nano-thermite, because I think that was a limited hang-out to distract from the nuclear evidence. Be that as it may, substantiate your claim in more detail, and I'm sure you'd become the darling of the 911TM.
With regards to your claim of "no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses," (a) you don't know what you're talking about with your "radiological burst"; and (b) how can you be so sure there was "no gamma burst" when the shaped-nuclear charges were detonated (1) within the towers within the core areas thus being shielded, (2) directed upwards with the highly energetic neutron emissions.
{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.
What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
{DGW:}
Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what level of gamma radiation signature a neutron bomb would give off and its duration.
{SEO:}
This is a rather snippy, unprofessional, and unhelpful comment that disproves nothing and is substantiated by nothing, and you are trying to pass it off as reasoned debate? My question remains open: What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
You statement in context with mine seems to imply that the reason the lower basement subfloors were deconstructed had to do with lingering gamma radiation. Owing to the unique configuration of a neutron DEW, I do not believe 9/11 had significant levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and those levels themselves quickly dissipated.
However, were I to speculate why the lower basement subfloors underwent deconstruction, my answer would be (a) physical damage from the "kinetic energy transfer" of material falling from great heights onto them, and (b) embrittlement, which is an after-effect of neutron radiation. The Banker's Trust building received damage to its face from flung-pieces of WTC tower steel wall assemblies, however, this and other damage was repaired. Still, after those repairs were completed and before occupancy, the Banker's Trust building was "pulled." Why? I speculate "embrittlement" as if one or more of the neutron devices became misaligned or mis-aimed during the chaos of the pulverization.
{SEO:}
Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elemtns. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
{DGW:}
Bullshit it does not and the problem here is a term you don't understand Fusion and Fission they are two different processes and in your misapplied nuclear physics
{SEO:}
You need to be a tad more specific with regards to what you are calling "bullshit" and substantiating it, otherwise loyal readers won't know what you are referring to and will logically think the understanding problem is yours.
If your comment referred to the statement -- "Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation" --, then I partly agree. This was slightly re-worded hyperbole from Jeff Prager that I re-used with full knowledge that it didn't apply 100%. The point of Mr. Prager's hyperbole was that (short-lived) neutron radiation is the primary output of a neutron device. In truth, some alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are generated by neutron devices, but their levels and short-duration are starkly limited compared to unfettered fission or fusion devices.
Fission and fusion are indeed two different processes. What we're talking about on 9/11 is both. Fission-triggered-fusion configured as a neutron device. Got it? Fission is necessary to get the initial energy required to initiate fusion.
{SEO:}
Here's something from Wikipedia on neutron bombs:A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.
The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
{DGW:}
Actually they do not and if you looked at the lack of a Gamma Burst then all of your empirical Nuclear Truth goes to you are creating a false appeal ad hoc.
{SEO:}
"Saying something isn't, does not make is so" without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.{SEO:}
No, not at all. Here's me being honest: "Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile." Satisfied?
Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
You use the term "fires". What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
{DGW:}
I am not speculating just stating actual observations of the aftermath and the fact that there were fires from cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers . Now these are hotspots in a 16 acre Bathtub That housed the old union pacific subway that the Towers were built upon. The station platforms were converted into parking garages. An underground mall storage vaults and other offices. There was oxygen, Hydrogen sulfide gas from seawater introduction and auxiliary generators near the communications complex under south WTC tower. So in looking at the steel you have to take into the whole observation that it was heated by secondary fires in some areas where there was still a connection to the entrance ramps air literally was pulled in so you had active fires in some areas acting like blast furnaces for short duration. Problem these are underground in a structure and are a whole different creature the first car catches fire gasoline moves to lowest are secon and soo full blown multiple fires with metal transmissions that contain the same elements found in the dust samples and groundwater samples.
You aren't speculating?!! Then where's your source to your new theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about "cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers" having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?
Ponder this: (1) How long can a typical economy car idle with a full tank of gasoline? (2) How long can it idle in a contained space, like a closed garage or buried under rubble? Due to the oxygen constraints, the latter #2 is shorter than the former #1. (3) How long can gasoline burn that is spilled out of a ruptured gas tank, an uncontrolled situation? My educated guess is that #3 is significantly less than either #1 or #2. Moreover, my educated opinion is that #1-#3 are all significantly shorter than the measured duration of many of the hot-spots [several weeks].
"[A]ctual observations" do not substantiate your (new) theory that "cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers" had fires of sufficient magnitude and duration (without fresh air) to heat steel beams sufficiently to bend them into arches and horseshoes.
Now if the under-rubble hot-spots were unspent but fizzling remnants of the redundant nuclear devices that decimated the WTC, it is much easier to fathom (a) sufficient temperatures to weaken steel and (b) long hot-spot duration without regular sources of oxygen.
Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg
Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC106.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg
This next one is the image deceitfully used by your committee to say that cars were towed to the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how "crushed" and "torched" the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg
Vehicles torched next to WTC-7.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image17swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
{SEO:}
I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
{DGW:}
Actually Kentic energy transfer within the collapse does explain it
{SEO:}
No, it does not. But if you think it does, then explain it in your own words to demonstrate your superior understanding of physics.
My inferior understanding of Newton's physics says that if one (assumed) feature of a steel structure's decimation is that only the force of gravity was acting on it while a second (observable) feature is near free-fall speeds, then the decimation cannot pulverize content and cannot eject content, because both consume large amounts of kinetic energy that would slow the decimation well outside the range of near free-fall speeds. The only way to balance the energy equation is to add more energy to it (like to pulverize and take structure out of the way).
My inferior understanding of Newton's physics and construction is that steel structures have thicker & heavier beams in the lower part of the building and grow relatively thinner & lighter towards the top of the structure (albeit over-designed for the expect loads), because the top beams don't need to support as much weight. Thus, it does not make sense that a pile-driver consisting of approximately the top 1/5 of a steel structure could decimate more than 1/5 of the structure immediately below it, let alone 4/5 (or really 5/5). Even if 10 or more stories were "vaporated" to give that 20-30 story-high pile-driver sudden free-fall equivalent to the distance of 10 floors, the observed decimation exhibiting pulverization, energetic ejection of materials, and near near free-fall speeds is not possible... without adding energy.
But please, explain where this is wrong.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.{SEO:}
If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) that the cars came from first levels of garages and from street level in front of the buildings; (b) some cars were torched in the lower basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
Bullshit.
{DGW:}
No bullshit. I had to correct your misleading and inaccurate statement keeps it factual and hopefully prevents you from confusing your truths or opinion from the facts..
{SEO:}
Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.
How did they get torched? And why not flags, trees, leaves, paper, humans, and other more combustible things?
{SEO:}
A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles "popping off."
{DGW:}
Yes after WTC south collapsed they were hit by pieces of the south tower.
{SEO:}
Really? What pieces? Let's see some pictures. Look up EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]
{SEO:}
Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
{DGW:}
Well that is a boldfaced lie and discredits your lack of knowledge about the vehicles being towed there.
{SEO:}
Au Contraire! Your corrected statement and your contradition remain bold-faced lies.
{SEO:}
Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
{DGW:}
No I stated the Facts and the statement still applies to your erroneous statements.
{SEO:}
First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
{DGW:}
So it points out also it was put on Truth and Shadows so again lie and use weasel words.
{SEO:}
No, nothing you've said is true.
Mr. Quinazagga attempted a confused posting on T&S that was rejected, owing to the poor attribution of who wrote what [that is still reflected in a majority of what you or the committee write to me.] I only know about "a confused posting" but not of its actual contents, because Mr. McKee told Mr. Quinazagga in a posting to improve it and re-submit it. [Evidently, "the confused posting" was posted on Mr. Quinazagga's blog, though hard to say whether or not it improved anything.] The date stamps prove that Mr. Quinazagga subsequently posted comments to T&S, which rational readers can only assume was the requested improved posting, and this is from where discussion on T&S commenced. Mr. Quinazagga's posting on the Quinazagga blog has differences.
{SEO:}
Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles into the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
{DGW:}
Yes you are a liar and you don't realize the fact it was a holding lot for cars taken off the street after the WTC tower collapses and placed there. Yes the fires were after wtc south collapsed. Caused by debris from the tower.
{SEO:}
In the linked images above [according to your fucking lying premise] how could the vehicles crushed and burned UNDER the towers be so quickly towed to the lot catticorner from the towers BEFORE the dust of the towers had even settled?
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.{SEO:}
I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase "self-truth" that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.{DGW:}
Yes it does it means you create a truth that is only based in your opinion and it is not factual it is delusional. It is a form of lying. You continue to attempt to mirror so let us just stop the propaganda dance you do.
We have no problem with the English language or seeing through a troll. Trolls are devious and this deflection instead of owning up to the fact that you falsely state an opinion as truth means you sell a self-truth that is unsubstantiated factually.
We can also see the difference between Active collapse, rescue after collapse, search and rescue, aftermath and recovery operations. These are terms you and other truthers are unaccustomed to.
{SEO:}
Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.
In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the troll mirror that you hold up to me reflects you.
But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your "committee of clowns" is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any "Ah-ha! Mea culpa!" moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous.
Just be weary of the "T" and "P" words also reflected in your staunch actions: treason and propaganda.
//
x32 Señor El Once : Government is Lying
2013-06-27
- 9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying
- 9-11 WTC Biggest Gold Heist in History: $300 Billion in Bars
x33 Mr. DGW : Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts.
2013-06-26
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM, {Mr. DGW} wrote:
From:{Señor El Once}
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:36
To: {Mr. DGW}
Cc: {Mr. OneOhOne}
Subject: Re: Follow your own advice, Mr. CAWS
Dear Mr. DGW and "the committee,"
You are a published author, the owner of a publishing company, and the owner of a blog. Please demonstrate more proficiency in this regards by paying attention to wordsmithing details, such as incomplete sentences and formatting that will more easily differentiate the words of the participants in this discussion.
Your research efforts improved slightly, although the data point represented by your analysis of such still fits in with the integrity trend line I have for you.
{SEO:}
My assumptions are that "the Committee" believes all aspects of the official government story on 9/11 and that it finds no unexplained or poorly explained 9/11 anomalies worth questioning. "The Committee" can give the US Government, its agencies, and a complicit media such {good} marks for trustworthiness and integrity, because it has a history of honesty in all its actions and dealings. This assumption is based on "the Committee's" fawning over the infallibility of the government sponsored reports on the events of 9/11.
If I am incorrect in my assumptions, please enlighten me. What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion? If the government has a history of dishonesty in its actions and dealings, what are some historical events that fall into this dishonest category?
{DGW:}
Facts linked to physical evidence tell what happened factually on an forensic level. Backed by observations of active participants and correlation of their observations of the incident.
We are focusing on the events on 91101 and leading up to the attack. Now the dishonesty starts at muddying the well with other non- related incidents.
{SEO}:
Mr. DGW, it is not dishonest to pose questions that would help establish a common footing for further discussions so that we don't have to argue over things that we might already agree on. It is not dishonest to pose questions that would help readers gauge your open-mindedness or agenda.
What does it mean if you cannot: find fault with the government; can't acknowledge other historical instances of false-flag events; can't perceive recent instances when the corporate media acted as an integrated branch of government as "the scribe hired by the victor to write history according to its desires?"
You weren't expected to offer up details on other non-9/11 events (i.e., JFK, RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, ...), so even I can understand your reluctance to "muddy the well" in this regard.
However, the direct 9/11 question remains that you're avoiding: "What 9/11 anomalies haven't been explained or poorly explained in your opinion?" If you can't acknowledge as valid some of the many things that fuel the 911TM's ire, then perhaps you aren't being honest and expose an agenda. On this front, you might be tempted to frame those valid anomalies-to-be-questioned as "human error or incompetence, and inconvenient coincidences"... Woes to the miniscule probability of coincidence after coincidence happening.
Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.
{DGW:}
Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts.
{SEO:}
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and "the committee's" efforts.
{DRW:}
David Ray Griffin's work is academic fraud and represents inaccuracies of empirical reasoning without facts to back himself up.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Actually I can spot the frauds and those whom use unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence of the incident to back their findings.
{SEO:}
If this is the case, Mr. OneOhOne, why have you not turned your "keen eye for frauds and unsubstantiated truths" onto the baloney fed to us by the government and media about 9/11? Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?
{DGW:}
Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.
{SEO:}
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece.
{DGW:}
The word is Cumulative o.k. and readers don't need to take your opinions as truth. They require facts not fodder as you give them. The go to the BBC that explains what happened and it is a reporter's error in reading the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
Ergo, you are not educated in Nuclear physics or in Nuclear Chemical and Biological offensive and defensive weapons effect, use, and abatement. This is shown by your ignorance of Neutron Bombs and gamma radiation being straight line ionizing radiation.
{SEO:}
So if your education in nuclear physics is so superior to mine, explain the significance of what you just wrote.
While you're at it, explain the primary radiation released by a neutron bomb. Hint: it is not gamma radiation.
{DGW:}
Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centers only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft. In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981
Now that is a neutron bomb primary effects. Now here is where you
{SEO:}
Very good, Mr. DGW. I commend you on your copying-and-pasting effort for its relevance, but ~not~ on your ability: (a) to attribute the abstract properly to its correct source (such as http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/neutron%20bomb); (b) to offer up analysis based on your own understanding and in your own words; and (b) to deviate in thought from the framing it puts forth of a omni-directional spherical neutron emission for its intended application on the battlefield.
I dispute nothing from what you have quoted, which ironically puts us into agreement.
Furthermore, neutron bombs have other configurations. In particularly, the neutrons -- instead of a spherical emission -- can be aimed, which then puts them into the classification of weapons known as DEW (incompletely speculated by Dr. Wood).
The first deviation in thought from the original application where neutrons are used to kill life forms indiscriminately, would be targeting the neutrons in a manner that focuses them where they can do the most damage and then throws the rest away, rather wastefully into the sky. The second deviation from the framing above is any semblance of using the released energy efficiently or to its maximum capabilities possible. No, one needs to think of wasting the energy, but in a manner that at the same time reduces collaterial damage to life forms.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:
The radiological decay of thorium and the type of thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust is not associated with a neutron bomb...
{SEO:}
True, but it is associated with fission. Fission-triggered-fusion is where that comes into play, of which neutron bombs are variants.
Mr. OneOhOne wrote:[Thorium and Strontium in the WTC dust] is however connected to UPS systems and electronic components as the uranium also is connected to paint, ceramics, and plastics.
{SEO:}
Prove it, otherwise you earn the label "fraud who uses unsubstantiated truths that originate in the mind and not in physical evidence."
{DGW:}
Already proven before your erroneous statements that it was not fission but another source.
{SEO:}
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. I've seen this same game played with tritium. Namely, the reports typically have a slightly skewed purpose, like to identify "probable sources" for the anomalous element. The skew is that not all "probable sources" were identified or explored, because they held to the assumptions of "a pile-driver driven by gravity decimating the towers", therefore the anomalous elements could only be attributed to office equipment. The report succeeds in its purpose, but that does not mean: (a) if it assumptions had been lifted, the conclusions would be the same; or (b) this in its present skewed form definitively debunks the alternative of multiple neutron nuclear DEW.
::}
Interpretation
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.
{SEO:}
Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding.
Your problem is you are being presented facts not you over inflated unsubstantiated self-truth . So what if it is Cut and paste it does not change the fact. Your problem is the facts speak for themselves and expose the lies you call truth. You problem with denial is not mine or my staff's. The problem is the tritium and strontium are not isotopes one finds from a neutron bomb detonation. You also don't know the difference beteen Fusion and Fission You do not understand energy transfer during collapse through the structure or the kinetic energy transfer that occurred
{SEO:}
As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.
{DGW:}
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/
is the correct address of the
{SEO:}
Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions.
Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it.
{DGW:}
Sorry to say that Non-thermite is not found more like rustproofing paint burns in an acetylene torch. Also since there is no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses so the source of the fires are derbies from the south tower collapse and wtc7 collapse.
{SEO:}
No skin off of my nose whether or not the dust contains nano-thermite, because I think that was a limited hang-out to distract from the nuclear evidence. Be that as it may, substantiate your claim in more detail, and I'm sure you'd become the darling of the 911TM.
With regards to your claim of "no Radiological or gamma burst associated with the WTC collapses," (a) you don't know what you're talking about with your "radiological burst"; and (b) how can you be so sure there was "no gamma burst" when the shaped-nuclear charges were detonated (1) within the towers within the core areas thus being shielded, (2) directed upwards with the highly energetic neutron emissions.
{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
{DGW:}
Source cars in garages and office equipment non-isotope non-DEW or nuke.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
{DGW:}
Source Paint and ceramic glazes used in the building and emergence signs.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
{DGW:}
Source: Uninterruptible power supply batteries.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
{DGW:}
Found in emergency signing present on every floor of each tower non-isotope.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:As was also pointed out the aftermath and site cleanup included deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors so no again no radiation signatures that are attributed to an neutron bomb.
What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
{DGW:}
Your statement demonstrates either your own ignorance or skew as to what level of gamma radiation signature a neutron bomb would give off and its duration.
{SEO:}
This is a rather snippy, unprofessional, and unhelpful comment that disproves nothing and is substantiated by nothing, and you are trying to pass it off as reasoned debate? My question remains open: What does deconstruction of the lower basement subfloors have to do with anything?
Good because once again you are trying to push a use of a fission device through fiction.
{SEO:}
You statement in context with mine seems to imply that the reason the lower basement subfloors were deconstructed had to do with lingering gamma radiation. Owing to the unique configuration of a neutron DEW, I do not believe 9/11 significant levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and those levels themselves quickly dissipated.
However, were I to speculate why the lower basement subfloors underwent deconstruction, my answer would be (a) physical damage from the "kinetic energy transfer" of material falling from great heights onto them, and (b) embrittlement, which is an after-effect of neutron radiation. The Banker's Trust building received damage to its face from flung-pieces of WTC tower steel wall assemblies, however, this and other damage was repaired. Still, after those repairs were completed and before occupancy, the Banker's Trust building was "pulled." Why? I speculate "embrittlement" as if one or more of the neutron devices became misaligned or mis-aimed during the chaos of the pulverization.
{SEO:}
Ever hear of Big Ivan from 1961, the largest nuclear detontation ever? It reduced radioactive output by 97% and left little & short-lived radioactive elemtns. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
{DGW:}
Bullshit it does not and the problem here is a term you don't understand Fusion and Fission they are two different processes and in your misapplied nuclear physics lesson you negate energy transfer.
{SEO:}
You need to be a tad more specific with regards to what you are calling "bullshit" and substantiating it, otherwise loyal readers won't know what you are referring to and will logically think the understanding problem is yours.
If your comment referred to the statement -- "Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation" --, then I partly agree. This was slightly re-worded hyperbole from Jeff Prager that I re-used with full knowledge that it didn't apply 100%. The point of Mr. Prager's hyperbole was that (short-lived) neutron radiation is the primary output of a neutron device. In truth, some alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are generated by neutron devices, but their levels and short-duration are starkly limited compared to unfettered fission or fusion devices.
Fission and fusion are indeed two different processes. What we're talking about on 9/11 is both. Fission-triggered-fusion configured as a neutron device. Got it? Fission is necessary to get the initial energy required to initiate fusion.
{SEO:}
Here's something from Wikipedia on neutron bombs:A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.
The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV)Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
{DGW:}
Actually they do not and if you looked at the lack of a Gamma Burst then all of your empirical Nuclear Truth goes to you are creating a false appeal ad hoc.
{SEO:}
"Saying something isn't, does not make is so" without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Also the bent steel was taken out of the pile about two months after the collapse. So here you don't even have the honesty of saying yes it was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile by the fires beneath it in the parking garage.
{SEO:}
No, not at all. Here's me being honest: "Yes [the bent steel] was recovered from the pile and was heated in the pile." Satisfied?
Now if you want examples of dishonesty, you can't even admit that the source for the heat that bent the steel is one of those anomalous things that is being covered over.
You use the term "fires". What fires? What was their source? You seem to be implying that it was from cars in the parking garage. FAIL.
How were the fires in those cars in the parking garage ignited? Gee, the aircraft impacts and resulting fires were 80-90 stories ABOVE the parking garage. How did they get transmitted through 80-90 "pancake" layers to ignite the cars? Keeping with the premise, the major combustible element of those vehicles was gasoline, which requires oxygen to burn. Available oxygen under the rubble was consumed quickly. How long could those vehicles have burned (without oxygen)? [Hint: not many weeks as demonstrated by the hot-spots.] How hot could those fires have gotten? I'm just guessing here, but if gasoline doesn't cause the steel in auto engines to weaken and melt, I doubt that it could heat massive steel beams to a point where they could be bent into arches and horseshoes.
{DGW:}
I am not speculating just stating actual observations of the aftermath and the fact that there were fires from cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers . Now these are hotspots in a 16 acre Bathtub That housed the old union pacific subway that the Towers were built upon. The station platforms were converted into parking garages. An underground mall storage vaults and other offices. There was oxygen, Hydrogen sulfide gas from seawater introduction and auxiliary generators near the communications complex under south WTC tower. So in looking at the steel you have to take into the whole observation that it was heated by secondary fires in some areas where there was still a connection to the entrance ramps air literally was pulled in so you had active fires in some areas acting like blast furnaces for short duration. Problem these are underground in a structure and are a whole different creature the first car catches fire gasoline moves to lowest are second and so full blown multiple fires with metal transmissions that contain the same elements found in the dust samples and groundwater samples.
You aren't speculating?!! Then where's your source to your new theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about "cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers" having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?
Ponder this: (1) How long can a typical economy car idle with a full tank of gasoline? (2) How long can it idle in a contained space, like a closed garage or buried under rubble? Due to the oxygen constraints, the latter #2 is shorter than the former #1. (3) How long can gasoline burn that is spilled out of a ruptured gas tank, an uncontrolled situation? My educated guess is that #3 is significantly less than either #1 or #2. Moreover, my educated opinion is that #1-#3 are all significantly shorter than the measured duration of many of the hot-spots [several weeks].
"[A]ctual observations" do not substantiate your (new) theory that "cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers" had fires of sufficient magnitude and duration (without fresh air) to heat steel beams sufficiently to bend them into arches and horseshoes.
Now if the under-rubble hot-spots were unspent but fizzling remnants of the redundant nuclear devices that decimated the WTC, it is much easier to fathom (a) sufficient temperatures to weaken steel and (b) long hot-spot duration without regular sources of oxygen.
Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg
{DGW:}
The flattened tires and intact wheel hub on the first car proves Cars were brought on flatbed trailer shown in other lot and unloaded. Most of them originated from the parking garages or streets near the towers.
The date on the photo from the AP is two weeks after 91101
They did not originate there stop with the bullshit and show time date of photo also name of source or photographer. Not shown on her site.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg
Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif
{DGW:}
Dust clouds above the parking lot no fires on parking lot. Note the fire trucks at the rally point Vesey and Broadway they are not on fire.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC101_toasted.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC106.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg
This next one is the image deceitfully used by your committee to say that cars were towed to the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how "crushed" and "torched" the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet
This proves you are an accomplished liar.
{DGW:}
BTW: Infowarsmedia does not own the rights to any of the photos displayed. Nor can the copyright them.
{DGW:}
Do you have links to the source photos? Answer is Dr. Judy Woods does not. She took them from stills on other 911truth sites to prove her pove that is not substantiated by any of these Arial photos. 2. Gamma burst and EMF/EMP make these photos impossible as the NYPD helicopter is not shielded against them.
{DGW:}
Therefore, No such weapons were used nor was thermite used.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg
Vehicles torched next to WTC-7. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image17swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
These pictures are taken along the street that goes between the postal building and WTC7, and are about a block north of WTC7, before WTC7 "faints
Interesting location seeming it is the same location WTC7 Fell over during rush Hour and the same location was damaged by debris from south tower.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet
{SEO:}
I'm fine with you speculating, but you need to take that speculation a few steps further and outside the box of the official story -- which I assume you champion 100%.
My premise is that the neutron nuclear reaction's heat was so intense, it quickly heated steel to a pliable state to create arches and horseshoes. These beams, however, weren't the closest. Analysis of the dust even from the lobbies of neighboring buildings shows significant quantities of tiny iron spheres. [How does gravity or jet fuel fires or car fires explain the creation of those iron spheres that were ejected into the lobbies of other buildings?]
{DGW:}
Actually Kenotic energy transfer within the collapse does explain it. Also the spheres and paint chips all are explained within the dust and separation of components also interior contents.. There was no neutron action or heating that occurred. The subway tunnel shown in the photo is the only source of fire near wtc 7 that caused secondary fires.
{SEO:}
No, it does not. But if you think it does, then explain it in your own words to demonstrate your superior understanding of physics.
My inferior understanding of Newton's physics says that if one (assumed) feature of a steel structure's decimation is that only the force of gravity was acting on it while a second (observable) feature is near free-fall speeds, then the decimation cannot pulverize content and cannot eject content, because both consume large amounts of kinetic energy that would slow the decimation well outside the range of near free-fall speeds. The only way to balance the energy equation is to add more energy to it (like to pulverize and take structure out of the way).
My inferior understanding of Newton's physics and construction is that steel structures have thicker & heavier beams in the lower part of the building and grow relatively thinner & lighter towards the top of the structure (albeit over-designed for the expect loads), because the top beams don't need to support as much weight. Thus, it does not make sense that a pile-driver consisting of approximately the top 1/5 of a steel structure could decimate more than 1/5 of the structure immediately below it, let alone 4/5 (or really 5/5). Even if 10 or more stories were "vaporated" to give that 20-30 story-high pile-driver sudden free-fall equivalent to the distance of 10 floors, the observed decimation exhibiting pulverization, energetic ejection of materials, and near near free-fall speeds is not possible... without adding energy.
But please, explain where this is wrong.
Try reading the reports on energy transfer and understand what occurred was within regular physics and kinetic energy transfer. Also a collapse of a 2,000foot tall office building 1 acre square
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
Yes that [from the parking garage] is where some of the cars came from that Dr. Woods misidentified and so did you. When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
{SEO:}
If I understand your wanking lie correctly, you believe (a) that the cars came from first levels of garages and from street level in front of the buildings; (b) some cars were torched in the lower basements of the towers; (b) fires from these cars were so hot and so long, they caused steel beams to bend into arches and horseshoes; (c)_ these cars were excavated from the parking garages and towed to the bridge and other places.
Bullshit.
{DGW:}
No bullshit. I had to correct your misleading and inaccurate statement keeps it factual and hopefully prevents you from confusing your truths or opinion from the facts..
{SEO:}
Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.
You just debunked yourself again because those cars were parked before the wtc7 collapse and were hit by debris from wtc 7 and wtc 1.
{SEO:}
How did they get torched? And why not flags, trees, leaves, paper, humans, and other more combustible things?
{SEO:}
A news reporter (Vince ?) documented torched vehicles along West Broadway before WTC-7 came down. Likewise, police helicopters documented torched vehicles in a parking lot caticorner from the towers before WTC-7 came down. Eye witness accounts document vehicles "popping off."
{DGW:}
Yes after WTC south collapsed they were hit by pieces of the south tower.
{SEO:}
Really? What pieces? Let's see some pictures. Look up EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]
{DGW:}
Nope they are straight line devices they don't Slip out flow around mystically.
Tritium is found in emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs as well as evacuation routes.
{SEO:}
Ain't none of those cars done come from the underground parking garage, Mr. OneOhOne, as you seem to imply.
{DGW:}
Well that is a boldfaced lie and discredits your lack of knowledge about the vehicles being towed there.
{SEO:}
Au Contraire! Your corrected statement and your contradition remain bold-faced lies.
{SEO:}
Oh, and before I forget. You mentioned:When shown photos of Wreckers pulling the cars from other areas within the collapse area to the holding lot you ignored the facts.
{DGW:}
No I stated the Facts and the statement still applies to your erroneous statements.
{SEO:}
First of all, the picture in question was never posted on Truth & Shadows where the discussion transpired, so I can't be accused of ignoring it. Mr. Quinazagga did all sorts of enhancements to posting before putting on his blog, and the addition of the picture was one of them.
{DGW:}
So it points out also it was put on Truth and Shadows so again lie and use weasel words.
{SEO:}
No, nothing you've said is true.
Sorry everything I said was fact not your truth which is a fabricated lie.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet
Photos taken from Flicker and then reposted by Alex
Mr. Quinazagga attempted a confused posting on T&S that was rejected, owing to the poor attribution of who wrote what [that is still reflected in a majority of what you or the committee write to me.] I only know about "a confused posting" but not of its actual contents, because Mr. McKee told Mr. Quinazagga in a posting to improve it and re-submit it. [Evidently, "the confused posting" was posted on Mr. Quinazagga's blog, though hard to say whether or not it improved anything.] The date stamps prove that Mr. Quinazagga subsequently posted comments to T&S, which rational readers can only assume was the requested improved posting, and this is from where discussion on T&S commenced. Mr. Quinazagga's posting on the Quinazagga blog has differences.
{SEO:}
Secondly, -- you fucking liars -- the photo does ~not~ show wreckers moving destroyed vehicles into the holding lot! No, the photo shows a wrecker removing destroyed vehicles from the aforementioned caticorner parking lot. Many pictures of this lot exist that show it while vehicles are still ablaze and before the dust of the towers has settled.
{DGW:}
Yes you are a liar and you don't realize the fact it was a holding lot for cars taken off the street after the WTC tower collapses and placed there. Yes the fires were after wtc south collapsed. Caused by debris from the tower.
{SEO:}
In the linked images above [according to your fucking lying premise] how could the vehicles crushed and burned UNDER the towers be so quickly towed to the lot catticorner from the towers BEFORE the dust of the towers had even settled?
Because they did not burn that was the subway entrance you see. So recovery photos.
Mr. OneOhOne continues:
The committee recognized your own propaganda as sell my opinion as truth. That is a fallacy called self-truth.
{SEO:}
I recognize that the committee and its troll patrol have issues with the English language, and are coining their own phrase "self-truth" that doesn't have any meaning in the English language.{DGW:}
Yes it does it means you create a truth that is only based in your opinion and it is not factual it is delusional. It is a form of lying. You continue to attempt to mirror so let us just stop the propaganda dance you do.
We have no problem with the English language or seeing through a troll. Trolls are devious and this deflection instead of owning up to the fact that you falsely state an opinion as truth means you sell a self-truth that is unsubstantiated factually.
We can also see the difference between Active collapse, rescue after collapse, search and rescue, aftermath and recovery operations. These are terms you and other truthers are unaccustomed to.
{SEO:}
Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.
O.k. Go educate yourself on DEW devices and their signatures and isotope's created from Fission and Fusion devices.
In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the troll mirror that you hold up to me reflects you.
Wow did your I.Q, Drop just now Barium and Strontium are used in Automobiles and there were a lot in the vicinity also
But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your "committee of clowns" is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any "Ah-ha! Mea culpa!" moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous.
Boils down to you can have your own truth just can't create your own empirical opinion and pass it off as facts. The Dr Judy Woods data is bogus information without taking all the other sources for the non-isotopic tritium Barium and Strontium. All of which are linked to Building materials found in the WTC towers. If you think you kicked anyone's asses well you did it to yourself. You are a poor researcher whom is behind the curve
Just be weary of the "T" and "P" words also reflected in your staunch actions: treason and propaganda.
//
{DGW:}
Just because you haven't a clue about fission and fusion devices also about the isotopes involved in such detonations. Also You negate the Tritium illumination on exit signs and the use of it in emergence exit signs. You also have no clue about how a Neutron bomb works it is a fusion devise not a fission device big difference in Gamma output and which would have killed the pilot and grounded the helicopter. The problem is you don't have the isotopes nor do you have the damage to living bodies or anything to prove DEW devices. You presented empirical truth without facts and got your ass handed to you. And this time Alex Jones actually helped verify the source because he also thinks Dr judy Woods is a fraud.
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html
{DGW:}
This proves you don't research fully and yes she gets her ass handed to her just like you did.
{DGW:}
The fence should have melted as well.
x34 Señor El Once : dissembling and deceit remain
2013-06-26
Dear Mr. DGW,
Your committee is trying, but the dissembling and deceit remain. I've tried to cut out extra parts of our discussion to focus on what you wrote.
{--deleted--}
{SEO}:
Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.
{DGW:}
Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts.
{SEO:}
Sums up your response to my email very well.
{SEO:}
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and "the committee's" efforts.{DGW:}David Ray Griffin's work is academic fraud and represents inaccuracies of empirical reasoning without facts to back himself up.
{SEO:}
Without specifics and substantiation, your assessment has no merit. Just words.
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?{DGW:}
Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.{SEO:}
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. Cumulative arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece.{DGW:}
Readers don't need to take your opinions as truth. They require facts not fodder as you give them. The go to the BBC that explains what happened and it is a reporter's error in reading the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in.
{SEO:}
I have zero expectations that readers would take my "opinions as truth" without first validating them. I encourage them, in fact, to do just that. "Distrust but verify."
A reporter's errors? Are your sure? As you wrote, she was just reading "the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in." No error there on the BBC's part, I agree; just stenographers of the victor's history.
So why were NYFD and NYPD reports coming in AT LEAST TWENTY MINUTES EARLY that said that the Solomon Brother's building (WTC-7) had collapsed? In my books, this demonstrates NYFD & NYPD foreknowledge and complicity, made even more damning by the WTC-7's 2.25 seconds gravitational acceleration.
{--deleted--}
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/ }DGW:
Interpretation
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.{SEO:}
Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding.{DGW:}
Your problem is you are being presented facts not you over inflated unsubstantiated self-truth . So what if it is Cut and paste it does not change the fact.
{SEO:}
Cut-&-paste is one thing. I enjoy a good quotation just like the next person. The issue is relevance, analysis, and exhibiting personal understanding. The report you linked was good, but it was incomplete. Can you say: "distracting dog & pony show?"
The report that you site had the "bent scope" of determining asbestos content and relative health effects, no? It was based on some assumptions that were valid, namely that the WTC towers were "white elephants" with regards to their usage of asbestos, making them too costly to fix and (due to the environmental impacts) too costly to destroy [unless you insure them against terrorist attacks, fake such an event, and have insurance money pay for the rebuilding.]
However that same report had other assumptions, like that "terrorists on planes wrought all of the observed destruction." Thus, the "bent scope" could rationally omit further analysis of the same dust that might show correlations in other elements which can only be attributed to nuclear methods.
As I wrote before:
{SEO:}
As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.{SEO:}
Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions.Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it.
{DGW:}
Your problem is the facts speak for themselves and expose the lies you call truth. You problem with denial is not mine or my staff's.
{SEO:}
Don't go projecting your problems and issues onto me.
{DGW:}
The problem is the tritium and strontium are not isotopes one finds from a neutron bomb detonation. You also don't know the difference beteen Fusion and Fission You do not understand energy transfer during collapse through the structure or the kinetic energy transfer that occurred
{SEO:}
The problem is that neutron devices are special configurations of "fission-triggered-fusion." Tritium is precisely one of the things that would be found from such a detonation. Don't go projecting your weaknesses and lack of (Newtonian and Nuclear) physics understanding onto me. You just blew it.
Tell you what. You should locate the official NIST or other government agency reports that explain how the cumulative evidence doesn't point to nukes. Hint: You won't find them. At best, you'll find (a) a "bent scoped" study on tritium and (b) something produced by Dr. Steven Jones from the 9/11TM, but this has several issues, one of which is acknowledging tritium yet ~not~ considering neutron bombs. In the grand scheme of things, that is a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicists to make.
{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.{DGW:}
Source cars in garages and office equipment non-isotope non-DEW or nuke.Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
{DGW:}
Source Paint and ceramic glazes used in the building and emergence signs.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.{DGW:}
Source: Uninterruptible power supply batteries.Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
{DGW:}
Found in emergency signing present on every floor of each tower non-isotope.
{SEO:}
Ho-hum, Mr. DGW. Because you aren't doing a very good job of it, I repeat:
Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data?
"Correlation" is the key word that trips you up, so tiny that you probably didn't see it in your reading of Mr. Prager's paper. Sample-to-sample in far flung places near the WTC, the USGS data displays "correlations" between elements. "For every m parts of element A discovered in a sample, n parts of element B were also present." The correlations sample-to-sample could only be possible if the elements were correlated from the beginning (e.g., part of the destructive mechanism). Office equipment, exit signs, cars in garages, uninterruptible power supply batters, etc. were not distributed through the WTC towers or complex in any manner that could lead to "correlations" between their base elements.
Worse, the "correlations" between elements spell out a recipe for nuclear methods.
But you run along, now, and find those official government reports that disprove the "correlations" between elements in the dust.
{SEO:}
"Saying something isn't, does not make is so" without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune.
Where's your source to your new theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about "cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers" having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?
{--deleted--}
Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg{DGW:}
The flattened tires and intact wheel hub on the first car proves Cars were brought on flatbed trailer shown in other lot and unloaded. Most of them originated from the parking garages or streets near the towers.The date on the photo from the AP is two weeks after 91101
They did not originate there stop with the bullshit and show time date of photo also name of source or photographer. Not shown on her site.
I will refrain from calling you names for your crappy analysis. Did you really look at all of the pictures in sequence and compare them one to another? I think not.
You can correlate off of buildings and various configurations of parked vehicles from picture to picture from the earliest ones that show flames coming from vehicles to those taken "from the AP ... two weeks after 91101".
Yeah, sure, I bet you could find a handful of vehicles that were towed there, straw-man. But what about the vehicles that weren't?
I'll simplify things for you. Let's assume that the following image was taken well after 9/11.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg
As a reference point, note the car next to the two individuals walking by and how it is parked in a manner that blocks two or three other cars. Note also behind it the burned out van that has a portion of its blue bumper not burned.
While that image is still displayed, load the following image into a new tab of your browser. This was taken from a police helicopter just after the 2nd tower went down.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
The car parked funny is near the lower right-hand corner. Notice the string of cars ON FIRE, including the blue van? Look for those same vehicles in the following image:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg
Whether or not destroyed vehicles were towed to this lot at a later point in time is immaterial. What remains germaine is that a significant number of vehicles in that parking lot were destroyed in place, and correlation between the photos does ~not~ put them at any other location, like your very lame and deceitful premise of being in the garages of the WTC.
{SEO:}
Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif
{DGW:}
Dust clouds above the parking lot no fires on parking lot. Note the fire trucks at the rally point Vesey and Broadway they are not on fire.
The same helicopter that took the above picture also took the other one from the parking lot with vehicles on fire. Same time frame.
Your straw-man fire trucks were obviously ~not~ line of sight from an EMP slipping out through window slits and falling debris. Study this one also within the same time frame:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
This next one is the image deceitfully used by your committee to say that cars were towed to the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how "crushed" and "torched" the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg
{DGW:}http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet
This proves you are an accomplished liar.
{SEO:}
I complained before about you projecting your weaknesses onto me. Well, don't go pawning your strengths (e.g., lies, deceit, bait-&-switch, straw-men) onto me either!
The first image on the page is of WTC-7 on 2001-09-18. It shows cars stacked on top of one another, a torched bus, and vehicles stacked onto of the bus.
The following images also show WTC-7, but on 2001-09-11 some time between 10:30 and 5:20, because WTC-7 is right there still standing (just to the right of the burning building and to the left of the torched bus). In these pictures,
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
Gee, an astute observer can see many of the same vehicles including the bus, only PRIOR to them being stacked on top of one another. In the images above, none of them came from the garages of the WTC.
{DGW:}
Do you have links to the source photos? Answer is Dr. Judy Woods does not. She took them from stills on other 911truth sites to prove her pove that is not substantiated by any of these Arial photos.
My understanding is that she got them from official sources. She did her best to link to the source, but many links today are now broken (because the source images were moved or whatnot.) DOESN'T MATTER! Why?
(a) Because these photos are nuggets of truth that are valid regardless of what theory is taped onto them. They represent evidence that has to be explained, and your lame gravity pile-drivers do ~not~.
(b) Because these photos -- coming from official sources originally -- have ~never~ been disputed!
{DGW:}
2. Gamma burst and EMF/EMP make these photos impossible as the NYPD helicopter is not shielded against them.
{SEO:}
Either you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying and have missed the salient points, or you have been paying attention and are deceitfully skewing the information.
It may be true that a helicopter may not shielded from "Gamma burst and EMF/EMP". Your deceit is in forgetting my often stated premise that (a) the neutron nuclear devices were detonated within the steel towers, probably within the core area. Can you say shielding? (b) The helicopter was at a significant distance from the demolition using a zoom-in lens. "Inverse square of the distance" in terms of EMP magnitude reaching the helicopter. (c)_ The neutron devices were aimed upwards, and the helicopter was not flying over the top. (d) The EMP side-effects were mostly mitigated, although timing of detonations plus the chaos of falling debris and window slits presented "gaps of oppportunity".
{DGW:}
Therefore, No such weapons were used nor was thermite used.
{SEO:}
Therefore, gravity caused all of this? El-Oh-El, you are such a wanking liar. Prove it, liar.
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.
{DGW:}
You just debunked yourself again because those cars were parked before the wtc7 collapse and were hit by debris from wtc 7 and wtc 1.
No, you correction to your correction proves you still... a fucking liar. None of the vehicles in question were hit by debris from WTC-7, because they were all photographed and proven torched ~before~ WTC-7 was demolished. Maybe you have a case for them being hit by debris from WTC-1, but you have no case, no evidence, nada for that debris being "flaming debris" (caused by gravity and jet-fuel/office-furnishing fires, no less). If there was flaming debris, why was it so selective (e.g., sheet metal in cars and not people, flags, trees, leaves)?
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Look up EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]{DGW:}
Nope they are straight line devices they don't Slip out flow around mystically.
{SEO:} Agreed. Gaps in the debris and/or window slits allowed those straight-line side-effects to vector out.
Tritium is found in emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs as well as evacuation routes.
Obviously, you didn't understand the report (and its "bent scope" skew). Given the assumption that the gravity pile-driver caused the destruction, they speculated into probable sources for the tritium measured in the water leaving the WTC complex. They did not speculate it was "emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs"... No, no, no. They said it was the emergency signage from the impacting aircrafts. And when their speculative wild-ass models for this didn't work out, they included gun sights from weapons stored at the WTC without determining (a) what weapons were originally in the WTC complex, (b) where they were stored within the WTC complex, and (c)_ correlating with the number of weapons that were recovered from the debris [damaged or not].
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.O.k. Go educate yourself on DEW devices and their signatures and isotope's created from Fission and Fusion devices.
{SEO:}
My education on neutron DEW devices may have gaps, but nothing -- in all of your postings -- demonstrates that you know more (or that your committee knows more) or has anything that could improve my education.
{SEO:}
In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the troll mirror that you hold up to me reflects you.
{DGW:}
Wow did your I.Q, Drop just now Barium and Strontium are used in Automobiles and there were a lot in the vicinity also
{SEO:}
Or did yours just drop instead? The Barium and Strontium in question came from the dust samples. And they came in correlated quantities.
But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your "committee of clowns" is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any "Ah-ha! Mea culpa!" moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous.
{DGW:}
Boils down to you can have your own truth just can't create your own empirical opinion and pass it off as facts. The Dr Judy Woods data is bogus information without taking all the other sources for the non-isotopic tritium Barium and Strontium. All of which are linked to Building materials found in the WTC towers. If you think you kicked anyone's asses well you did it to yourself. You are a poor researcher whom is behind the curve
Building another straw-man, I see. (a) The pictures from Dr. Wood's website and book are not bogus. Quite the contrary, they are valid evidence that must be explained by whatever theory-du-jour is being peddled. (b) I'm not championing any of Dr. Wood's work except the nuggets of truth, the evidence.
{DGW:}
Just because you haven't a clue about fission and fusion devices also about the isotopes involved in such detonations.
{SEO:}
If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, show, don't tell. Enlighten me, don't insult me. Be sure to that you are also talking about a fission-triggered-fusion neutron device, okay?
{DGW:}
Also You negate the Tritium illumination on exit signs and the use of it in emergence exit signs.
{SEO:}
No, you negate that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about regarding exit signs. Tritium was used in aircraft exit signs, not building exit signs (if you read the report). You fucked up.
{DGW:}
You also have no clue about how a Neutron bomb works it is a fusion devise not a fission device big difference in Gamma output and which would have killed the pilot and grounded the helicopter. The problem is you don't have the isotopes nor do you have the damage to living bodies or anything to prove DEW devices.
{SEO:}
If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, enlighten me, don't insult me. Without the understanding to back-up your bravado, all you are is words... words that over and over are proven to be lies.
With regards to the damage to living bodies, you negate that I've explained over-and-over the unique configuration of the neutron device -- that of a shaped nuclear charge. You negate the likely direction that the device was aimed that would avoid too much collateral damage, like to a helicopter. Can you say "up?" That's where it was targeted. The helicopter wasn't up or directly overhead with respect to the towers.
{DGW:}
You presented empirical truth without facts and got your ass handed to you. And this time Alex Jones actually helped verify the source because he also thinks Dr judy Woods is a fraud.
{SEO:}
So what? Had you been paying attention, I've discovered enough discrepancies in her work to potentially come to the same conclusion. Doesn't mean her pictorial evidence or other nuggets of truth from her work are fraudulent.
{DGW:}
This proves you don't research fully and yes she gets her ass handed to her just like you did.
{SEO:}
Nope, it doesn't prove squat, Mr. DGW. I am very familiar with Mr. OneBornFree having debated him many times on Truth & Shadows and observed his dishonest behavior. Like you, he's a government shill. Unlike you, the obtuse postion (ala Simon Shack) he has taken in the past has been: "All of the 9/11 imagery has been tainted and hasn't been validated so can't be used to explain squat... Errr... They used dynomite to destroy the WTC complex, but did all of this manipulation of the imagery to get the public to 'see' something else."
Meanwhile, I thank you for the recent links to Mr. OneBornFree's work. (a) However, those efforts are so recent, they can't really be foisted up as having been missed. (b) Debunking Dr. Wood is no skin off my nose or off my premise of neutron nuclear DEW. (c)_ I'll bet you that once I start exploring Mr. OneBornFree's work, it'll be full of holes JUST LIKE YOUR WORK (AND BELIEFS) ARE FULL OF HOLES, Mr. DGW, making both him and you on the same disinformation team, and traitors to both TRUTH and the republic.
Check out this quote from Mr. OBF:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31XyPwgu5dy7-ubMuH69AqAd10hTq5YYZSGUHhkKbKi3kPDp6ZOvyxJVNLuMDBThGtiIPBJAW5qc4ajcBoPInN16e3jBBjWP9gVU_Ya-8aPh1PubRYplM39UjoziWwunxs4gonEDR0Ak/s1600/Picture+11.png
The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go", is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event.
Mr. OBF and Mr. Simon Shack (just like you) often say something is "a proven fraud" without actually substantiating it. When I get the time and feel the need for kicks-and-giggles, I'll review Mr. OBF's disinfo work.
{DGW:}
The fence should have melted as well.
No, but it is no surprise that your "superior" understanding of physics has grasped why. So I'll use my inferior understanding of physics to explain it to you and your committee.
The damage an EMP can do is inversely proportional to the distance from the source. An EMP effectively induces Eddy electrical currents in metalic things, like vehicle sheet metal. The larger the magnitude of the EMP incident on the sheet metal, the larger the Eddy currents. The larger the Eddy currents, the more heat is generated. If the EMP incidence is great enough, it will cause things with lower combustible points to burn, like the paint on the sheet metal of vehicles or things touching the metal like plastic door handles, rubber seals on doors/windows, plastic gas caps, etc. Steel-belted tires and steering wheels could also be very effective "secondary windings" to snag energy from an incident EMP; get enough current going through those windings and the tires/steering wheel can burst into flame.
The chain link fence, while metal wire, also has lots air space between its wires which can help keep it cool to any induced Eddy currents (assuming the metalic & electric conductive properties of the fence are similar to that of sheet metal.) And even if the chain fence did heat up excessively, what is on the metal of the fence or touching it that could burn?
And because I know you will purposely forget it in your skewed response, the above is dependent on being line-of-sight with the EMP.
So, not many data points from this exchange deviate from your (negative) integrity trend line. Treasonous fucking liars.
//
x35 Mr. DGW : a lie stating there is an "official version" and the "911truther truth"
2013-06-26
From:< {SEO}
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 17:28
To: {Mr. DGW}
Subject: Re: Follow your own advice, Mr. CAWS good admitted for you
Dear Mr. DGW,
Your committee is trying, but the dissembling and deceit remain. I've tried to cut out extra parts of our discussion to focus on what you wrote.
{--deleted--}
You came peddling a lie stating there is an "official version" and the "911truther truth" and the response you can have your own truth empirically without facts it is a lie. What happened is 91101 was a terrorist attack it was a proxy attack using the same group proxy warriors that America Used and then discarded.
{SEO}:
Further, if my assumption is correct into your unwaivering belief and support into the official conspiracy theory (OCT) as presented by the government and corporate media, then you will have to defend it much better. You see, the OCT and its supporting documentation made lots of unsubstantiated assumptions and stilted itself to many unscientific conclusions to support its larger agenda in the world. As such, it makes deductive arguments to make its case about 9/11 who, what, how, why. [Because of A, then B. Because of B, then C... Because of Y, then Z.] Logically, if any of those deductive arguments are proven wrong, like for being based on unsubstantiated assumptions and ignoring all other possibilities, then major holes get poked into the OCT. [M is wrong and Q is wrong, so conclusion Z can't be reached.] It falls like a house of cards.
{DGW:}
Ad-hoc augment and unfounded self-truth no foundation in facts.
{SEO:}
Sums up your response to my email very well.
Yep denial of reality 101 "There is an official version that has facts" and here is our 911truther syndicated lies for profit and politacal change. We don't have to be factual just Empirically
{SEO:}
The 9/11TM, on the other hand, is making a cummulative argument, and you'd know this if your were familiar with any of David Ray Griffin's work. Quite possibly various points that undergird the 9/11TM's position can be proven wrong; this is actually welcomed, because it trims the fat and hones the case. However, the weight of the combined remaining unaddressed issues makes the case for how the world was lied to and manipulated and that continues to this day... and might even be embodied by your and "the committee's" efforts.{DGW:}David Ray Griffin's work is academic fraud and represents inaccuracies of empirical reasoning without facts to back himself up.
{SEO:}
Without specifics and substantiation, your assessment has no merit. Just words.
There is massive substitution
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Doesn't it seem strange to you that any well-designed steel structure could exhibit any sudden stages of uniform & symmetric free-fall if asymmetric, non-uniform weak fires are being attributed as the cause? How could the BBC have reported that the Solomon Brother's Building (WTC-7) collapsed to the ground 20 minutes before it did and with images of that building still standing appearing behind the reporter making the claim?{DGW:}
Simple misquote and that was covered by the BBC already so plop another case of reporter error and misuse by a bias researcher trying to push a false truth.{SEO:}
Not so fast, Mr. DGW. Cumulative arguments are at play here, and you've lamely tried to address only one of them. Furthermore, readers should make their own decision after viewing the BBC piece.{DGW:}
Readers don't need to take your opinions as truth. They require facts not fodder as you give them. The go to the BBC that explains what happened and it is a reporter's error in reading the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in.
{SEO:}
I have zero expectations that readers would take my "opinions as truth" without first validating them. I encourage them, in fact, to do just that. "Distrust but verify."
A reporter's errors? Are your sure? As you wrote, she was just reading "the NYFD report and the NYPD reports coming in." No error there on the BBC's part, I agree; just stenographers of the victor's history.
So why were NYFD and NYPD reports coming in AT LEAST TWENTY MINUTES EARLY that said that the Solomon Brother's building (WTC-7) had collapsed? In my books, this demonstrates NYFD & NYPD foreknowledge and complicity, made even more damning by the WTC-7's 2.25 seconds gravitational acceleration.
No in your opinion which has no basis in fact it is your own opinion (Group think) that edges on delusional thinking. You just had a major collapse of an 2,000 foot tall office building and it hit WTC 7 setting it ablaze Major damage reported by NYFD and the order was to pull the command team back to secondary fall back positions. The word pull is not a demolition term in firefighting lingo so any father use of it in regards to demolition is key wording and disinformation.
{--deleted--}
DGW:http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/ }
Interpretation
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
It is important to note that the total chemical analyses presented in this section do not provide an indication of the metals in the dusts and girder coating materials that may potentially be bioavailable (readily assimilated by organisms). For example, heavy metals, such as lead, may occur in forms that range from highly soluble to highly insoluble in water or body fluids. Consequently, high concentrations of total lead in dust samples may or may not translate into elevated concentrations of readily bioavailable lead. Chemical leach tests such as those presented in the next section of this study aid in understanding potential release and bioavailability of heavy metals and other constituents from the girder coatings and dust samples.{SEO:}
Copy-&-paste and lacking any semblance of personal understanding.{DGW:}
Your problem is you are being presented facts not you over inflated unsubstantiated self-truth . So what if it is Cut and paste it does not change the fact.
{SEO:}
Cut-&-Paste is one thing. I enjoy a good quotation just like the next person. The issue is relevance, analysis, and exhibiting personal understanding. The report you linked was good, but it was incomplete. Can you say: "distracting dog & pony show?"
The report was complete and factual to a tee you just denied it like normal and fell back upon the indoctrinated fantasy you perceive as truth.
The report that you site had the "bent scope" of determining asbestos content and relative health effects, no? It was based on some assumptions that were valid, namely that the WTC towers were "white elephants" with regards to their usage of asbestos, making them too costly to fix and (due to the environmental impacts) too costly to destroy [unless you insure them against terrorist attacks, fake such an event, and have insurance money pay for the rebuilding.]
Ad-hoc and general undereducated hearsay. Since you really show your ignorance here about insurance and liability on the WTC towers and complex so your self created truth is relegated to your opinion that has no merit to it in facts.
However that same report had other assumptions, like that "terrorists on planes wrought all of the observed destruction." Thus, the "bent scope" could rationally omit further analysis of the same dust that might show correlations in other elements which can only be attributed to nuclear methods.
The other report is inaccurate and not factual. So is your statement it is more proof of irrational and illogical thinking of a bent scope determined on proving a fantasy of mni-nukes. They did not exist and were not present. You have failed to provide facts to back your truth.
As I wrote before:
{SEO:}
As for my part, refer to the US Geological Survey of the dust samples (different samples than the ones exhibiting nano-thermite), and more importantly to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] in determining correlations in the elements found in the dust.{SEO:}
Not so fast in your sleight of hand. We're talking two different reports both based on the same data of samples collected by the USGS. The difference in Prager's report is the correlation of elements from sample to sample that reveals other conclusions.Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data? Let this be a clue that to date it has been ignored, because to address it, validates it.
{DGW:}
Your problem is the facts speak for themselves and expose the lies you call truth. You problem with denial is not mine or my staff's.
{SEO:}
Don't go projecting your problems and issues onto me.
No stating observer able patterned facts that you exhibit.
{DGW:}
The problem is the tritium and strontium are not isotopes one finds from a neutron bomb detonation. You also don't know the difference beteen Fusion and Fission You do not understand energy transfer during collapse through the structure or the kinetic energy transfer that occurred
{SEO:}
The problem is that neutron devices are special configurations of "fission-triggered-fusion." Tritium is precisely one of the things that would be found from such a detonation. Don't go projecting your weaknesses and lack of (Newtonian and Nuclear) physics understanding onto me. You just blew it.
Tell you what. You should locate the official NIST or other government agency reports that explain how the cumulative evidence doesn't point to nukes. Hint: You won't find them. At best, you'll find (a) a "bent scoped" study on tritium and (b) something produced by Dr. Steven Jones from the 9/11TM, but this has several issues, one of which is acknowledging tritium yet ~not~ considering neutron bombs. In the grand scheme of things, that is a pretty glaring omission for a nuclear physicists to make.
{Jeff Prager paraphrased:}
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.{DGW:}
Source cars in garages and office equipment non-isotope non-DEW or nuke.Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
{DGW:}
Source Paint and ceramic glazes used in the building and emergence signs.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.{DGW:}
Source: Uninterruptible power supply batteries.Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
{DGW:}
Found in emergency signing present on every floor of each tower non-isotope.
{SEO:}
Ho-hum, Mr. DGW. Because you aren't doing a very good job of it, I repeat:
Where's the official debunking of Jeff Prager's analysis of the public USGS data?
"Correlation" is the key word that trips you up, so tiny that you probably didn't see it in your reading of Mr. Prager's paper. Sample-to-sample in far flung places near the WTC, the USGS data displays "correlations" between elements. "For every m parts of element A discovered in a sample, n parts of element B were also present." The correlations sample-to-sample could only be possible if the elements were correlated from the beginning (e.g., part of the destructive mechanism). Office equipment, exit signs, cars in garages, uninterruptible power supply batters, etc. were not distributed through the WTC towers or complex in any manner that could lead to "correlations" between their base elements.
Worse, the "correlations" between elements spell out a recipe for nuclear methods.
But you run along, now, and find those official government reports that disprove the "correlations" between elements in the dust.
{SEO:}
"Saying something isn't, does not make is so" without substantiation. Your beef isn't with me, hombre. It is with Jeff Prager.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
Prove the authors of the above article wrong, and I'll apologize and start singing a different tune.
Where's your source to your new theory (one that I have never heard before, neither from the government nor from the 9/11TM) about "cars crushed in the garages under the WTC towers" having fires of any consequence? Where's your physics that proves uncontrolled burns of gasoline can reach sustained temperatures sufficient to weaken steel to create horseshoes and arches?
{--deleted--}
Here's the lot catticorner to the towers. Cars were not towed here; they were damaged in place here.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg{DGW:}
The flattened tires and intact wheel hub on the first car proves Cars were brought on flatbed trailer shown in other lot and unloaded. Most of them originated from the parking garages or streets near the towers.The date on the photo from the AP is two weeks after 91101
They did not originate there stop with the bullshit and show time date of photo also name of source or photographer. Not shown on her site.
I will refrain from calling you names for your crappy analysis. Did you really look at all of the pictures in sequence and compare them one to another? I think not.
You can correlate off of buildings and various configurations of parked vehicles from picture to picture from the earliest ones that show flames coming from vehicles to those taken "from the AP ... two weeks after 91101".
Yeah, sure, I bet you could find a handful of vehicles that were towed there, straw-man. But what about the vehicles that weren't?
I'll simplify things for you. Let's assume that the following image was taken well after 9/11.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378944031921077S600x600.jpg
As a reference point, note the car next to the two individuals walking by and how it is parked in a manner that blocks two or three other cars. Note also behind it the burned out van that has a portion of its blue bumper not burned.
While that image is still displayed, load the following image into a new tab of your browser. This was taken from a police helicopter just after the 2nd tower went down.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
The car parked funny is near the lower right-hand corner. Notice the string of cars ON FIRE, including the blue van? Look for those same vehicles in the following image:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg
Whether or not destroyed vehicles were towed to this lot at a later point in time is immaterial. What remains germaine is that a significant number of vehicles in that parking lot were destroyed in place, and correlation between the photos does ~not~ put them at any other location, like your very lame and deceitful premise of being in the garages of the WTC.
{SEO:}
Here's a sequence that shows the catticorner lot before the dust clouds roll in and that soon vehicles in that lot went ablaze.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif
{DGW:}
Dust clouds above the parking lot no fires on parking lot. Note the fire trucks at the rally point Vesey and Broadway they are not on fire.
The same helicopter that took the above picture also took the other one from the parking lot with vehicles on fire. Same time frame.
Your straw-man fire trucks were obviously ~not~ line of sight from an EMP slipping out through window slits and falling debris. Study this one also within the same time frame:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
This next one is the image deceitfully used by your committee to say that cars were towed to the lot catticorner. [sarcasm] Look how "crushed" and "torched" the vehicle from the WTC garages looks! [\sarcasm] In reality, the previous images show those vehicles catching fire in place, and the following image depicts the cleaning up of that catticorner parking lot.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1022378952031921077S600x600.jpg
{DGW:}http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PrisonPlanet.html#cleanstreet
This proves you are an accomplished liar.
{SEO:}
I complained before about you projecting your weaknesses onto me. Well, don't go pawning your strengths (e.g., lies, deceit, bait-&-switch, straw-men) onto me either!
The first image on the page is of WTC-7 on 2001-09-18. It shows cars stacked on top of one another, a torched bus, and vehicles stacked onto of the bus.
The following images also show WTC-7, but on 2001-09-11 some time between 10:30 and 5:20, because WTC-7 is right there still standing (just to the right of the burning building and to the left of the torched bus). In these pictures, http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
Gee, an astute observer can see many of the same vehicles including the bus, only PRIOR to them being stacked on top of one another. In the images above, none of them came from the garages of the WTC.
{DGW:}
Do you have links to the source photos? Answer is Dr. Judy Woods does not. She took them from stills on other 911truth sites to prove her pove that is not substantiated by any of these Arial photos.
My understanding is that she got them from official sources. She did her best to link to the source, but many links today are now broken (because the source images were moved or whatnot.) DOESN'T MATTER! Why?
(a) Because these photos are nuggets of truth that are valid regardless of what theory is taped onto them. They represent evidence that has to be explained, and your lame gravity pile-drivers do ~not~.
(b) Because these photos -- coming from official sources originally -- have ~never~ been disputed!
{DGW:}
2. Gamma burst and EMF/EMP make these photos impossible as the NYPD helicopter is not shielded against them.
{SEO:}
Either you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying and have missed the salient points, or you have been paying attention and are deceitfully skewing the information.
Not at all I just know the nature of the proposed device and what its capabilities are and both you and Dr. woods do not.
The problem here it would have Knocked the NYPD helicopter out of the air at the altitude they were at also
It may be true that a helicopter may not shielded from "Gamma burst and EMF/EMP". Your deceit is in forgetting my often stated premise that (a) the neutron nuclear devices were detonated within the steel towers, probably within the core area. Can you say shielding? (b) The helicopter was at a significant distance from the demolition using a zoom-in lens. "Inverse square of the distance" in terms of EMP magnitude reaching the helicopter. (c)_ The neutron devices were aimed upwards, and the helicopter was not flying over the top. (d) The EMP side-effects were mostly mitigated, although timing of detonations plus the chaos of falling debris and window slits presented "gaps of oppportunity".
{DGW:}
Therefore, No such weapons were used nor was thermite used.
{SEO:}
Therefore, gravity caused all of this? El-Oh-El, you are such a wanking liar. Prove it, liar.
Yes you are Already proven without a doubt. You don't know Fusion from fission. And your ignorance about Gamma burst radiation is comical. None of what you state is plausible not even with a small nuke or nutron bomb.
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Your correction to your wanking lie hasn't helped it one bit. Again, refer to the images linked above that show the cars in the parking lot getting torched before the dust of a tower had settled; that show cars along West Broadway and next to WTC-7 torched before WTC-7 was pulled.
{DGW:}
You just debunked yourself again because those cars were parked before the wtc7 collapse and were hit by debris from wtc 7 and wtc 1.
No, you correction to your correction proves you still... a fucking liar. None of the vehicles in question were hit by debris from WTC-7, because they were all photographed and proven torched ~before~ WTC-7 was demolished. Maybe you have a case for them being hit by debris from WTC-1, but you have no case, no evidence, nada for that debris being "flaming debris" (caused by gravity and jet-fuel/office-furnishing fires, no less). If there was flaming debris, why was it so selective (e.g., sheet metal in cars and not people, flags, trees, leaves)?
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Look up EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, as well as that of others. El, she wasn't hit by a piece of tower, but she was hit by the door of a vehicle that laterally popped right off of its hinges and slammed her into a wall. How did that happen? [Hint: errant EMP slipping out of the buildings and a neutron nuclear explosion comes pretty close.]{DGW:}
Nope they are straight line devices they don't Slip out flow around mystically.
{SEO:} Agreed. Gaps in the debris and/or window slits allowed those straight-line side-effects to vector out.
Tritium is found in emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs as well as evacuation routes.
Obviously, you didn't understand the report (and its "bent scope" skew). Given the assumption that the gravity pile-driver caused the destruction, they speculated into probable sources for the tritium measured in the water leaving the WTC complex. They did not speculate it was "emergency signing for the WTC stairwells and emergency stairs"... No, no, no. They said it was the emergency signage from the impacting aircrafts. And when their speculative wild-ass models for this didn't work out, they included gun sights from weapons stored at the WTC without determining (a) what weapons were originally in the WTC complex, (b) where they were stored within the WTC complex, and (c)_ correlating with the number of weapons that were recovered from the debris [damaged or not].
No I understood his fraudulent report and his bias reporting he did the same exact thing you are. WTC 6 was the customs house and they had evidence lockers with weapons that were recovered
{--deleted--}
{SEO:}
Oooo! I'm excited to learn about the bullshit you'll spin about these concepts that you made up as being significant to the discussion.O.k. Go educate yourself on DEW devices and their signatures and isotope's created from Fission and Fusion devices.
{SEO:}
My education on neutron DEW devices may have gaps, but nothing -- in all of your postings -- demonstrates that you know more (or that your committee knows more) or has anything that could improve my education.
Gaps hell you are so far away from facts that make statements that expose you as an complete fool. You merely think by stating an ignorant falsity that it will empirically become real.
{SEO:}
In summary, you have neither (a) debunked that 9/11 was neutron nuclear DEW nor (b) substantiated that the government's version [that adds no energy to gravity at all to achieve observable outcomes] is even remotely possible. Because that version defies physics the troll mirror that you hold up to me reflects you.
{DGW:}
Wow did your I.Q, Drop just now Barium and Strontium are used in Automobiles and there were a lot in the vicinity also
{SEO:}
Or did yours just drop instead? The Barium and Strontium in question came from the dust samples. And they came in correlated quantities.
But hey, you & your committee are such experts on these things, I encourage you to take it up with:
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11
By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
I wish I could say that I've enjoyed the debate and kicking your asses, but I didn't, because your "committee of clowns" is so disenguous on everything, so stilted, so infallible, so gullible when it comes to actions of the US government, clearly there will never be any "Ah-ha! Mea culpa!" moment coming from your side on ANYTHING anomalous.
{DGW:}
Boils down to you can have your own truth just can't create your own empirical opinion and pass it off as facts. The Dr Judy Woods data is bogus information without taking all the other sources for the non-isotopic tritium Barium and Strontium. All of which are linked to Building materials found in the WTC towers. If you think you kicked anyone's asses well you did it to yourself. You are a poor researcher whom is behind the curve
Building another straw-man, I see. (a) The pictures from Dr. Wood's website and book are not bogus. Quite the contrary, they are valid evidence that must be explained by whatever theory-du-jour is being peddled. (b) I'm not championing any of Dr. Wood's work except the nuggets of truth, the evidence.
{DGW:}
Just because you haven't a clue about fission and fusion devices also about the isotopes involved in such detonations.
{SEO:}
If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, show, don't tell. Enlighten me, don't insult me. Be sure to that you are also talking about a fission-triggered-fusion neutron device, okay?
{DGW:}
Also You negate the Tritium illumination on exit signs and the use of it in emergence exit signs.
{SEO:}
No, you negate that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about regarding exit signs. Tritium was used in aircraft exit signs, not building exit signs (if you read the report). You fucked up.
Correction Dumbass you fucked up because you never did any independent research ad rely on academic frauds to spoon feed you fodder instead of facts.
.
{DGW:}
You also have no clue about how a Neutron bomb works it is a fusion devise not a fission device big difference in Gamma output and which would have killed the pilot and grounded the helicopter. The problem is you don't have the isotopes nor do you have the damage to living bodies or anything to prove DEW devices.
{SEO:}
If my understanding of nuclear physics is so inferior to yours, enlighten me, don't insult me. Without the understanding to back-up your bravado, all you are is words... words that over and over are proven to be lies.
With regards to the damage to living bodies, you negate that I've explained over-and-over the unique configuration of the neutron device -- that of a shaped nuclear charge. You negate the likely direction that the device was aimed that would avoid too much collateral damage, like to a helicopter. Can you say "up?" That's where it was targeted. The helicopter wasn't up or directly overhead with respect to the towers.
{DGW:}
You presented empirical truth without facts and got your ass handed to you. And this time Alex Jones actually helped verify the source because he also thinks Dr judy Woods is a fraud.
{SEO:}
So what? Had you been paying attention, I've discovered enough discrepancies in her work to potentially come to the same conclusion. Doesn't mean her pictorial evidence or other nuggets of truth from her work are fraudulent.
{DGW:}
This proves you don't research fully and yes she gets her ass handed to her just like you did.
{SEO:}
Nope, it doesn't prove squat, Mr. DGW. I am very familiar with Mr. OneBornFree having debated him many times on Truth & Shadows and observed his dishonest behavior. Like you, he's a government shill. Unlike you, the obtuse postion (ala Simon Shack) he has taken in the past has been: "All of the 9/11 imagery has been tainted and hasn't been validated so can't be used to explain squat... Errr... They used dynomite to destroy the WTC complex, but did all of this manipulation of the imagery to get the public to 'see' something else."
Meanwhile, I thank you for the recent links to Mr. OneBornFree's work. (a) However, those efforts are so recent, they can't really be foisted up as having been missed. (b) Debunking Dr. Wood is no skin off my nose or off my premise of neutron nuclear DEW. (c)_ I'll bet you that once I start exploring Mr. OneBornFree's work, it'll be full of holes JUST LIKE YOUR WORK (AND BELIEFS) ARE FULL OF HOLES, Mr. DGW, making both him and you on the same disinformation team, and traitors to both TRUTH and the republic.
Thanks for telling the truth about your own self you came here stating a delusional unfounded self perpetuating truth with nothing but your opinion to back it up.
Factual truth "The paper was not near the fire"
As promised, here are some plausible explanations. Thanks for your interest, casseia, and I would like to hear if you have any other ideas ----
Before addressing the burnt paper, it is instructive to note how vehicles typically burn. A video of a fire in the K-Mart parking lot shows a minivan aflame, and illustrates several pertinent points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58
- The pavement underneath the minivan is ablaze
- The car in the immediate vicinity of the minivan catches fire demonstrating how an entire parking lot or underground parking garage of cars parked close together, as is the case in NYC, can burn serially
- The driver-side front tire of the minivan is completely burned off
- The driver-side door handle is missing
- The burnt minivan resembles many of the same characteristics as burnt vehicles at ground zero including missing headlights and deformed hood
Some paper had to burn, especially since vehicle fires leak fluid and drip melted organics onto the ground beneath the vehicle. The ground beneath the vehicle is usually engulfed in flames at some point during the vehicle fire. Any paper located beneath the vehicle would surely have caught fire, and some paper, judging by the density of paper debris on the streets, was surely located beneath some of the aflame vehicles in photographs.
How do you distinguish between burning paper and other burning organic material from the photographs that exist? You can't. Some of the pictures could very well show paper burning but is indistinguishable from other organic materials which are concurrently burning
Furthermore, single sheets of loose paper dominated the surrounding streets where most pictures exist of vehicle fires. That is to say, large books were not present, only single sheets of loose paper. A single sheet of paper will completely burn in seconds. Statistically speaking, the probability of photographing single sheets of paper on fire is low compared to that of the vehicle fires.
Why is there no burnt paper seen in photographs? Spotting small, crumpled, black remains of burnt single sheets of paper from photographs is near impossible upon a background consisting of various sorts of debris and dust. Burned bits of paper probably are in the photographs but near impossible to distinguish from other debris. Almost no photographs exist of close-up shots of the ground.
Lastly, I do recall seeing a photograph of a stack of charred compressed papers in the rubble pile at GZ. I cannot find this photograph, but I do recall seeing it. It is one of the few photographs taken at a zoom level where you can clearly distinguish the charred stack of paper from other debris. However, this was the only photograph I ever recall seeing of burnt paper.
Facts are more accurate in telling what happened than fictional self-created truth
Check out this quote from Mr. OBF:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31XyPwgu5dy7-ubMuH69AqAd10hTq5YYZSGUHhkKbKi3kPDp6ZOvyxJVNLuMDBThGtiIPBJAW5qc4ajcBoPInN16e3jBBjWP9gVU_Ya-8aPh1PubRYplM39UjoziWwunxs4gonEDR0Ak/s1600/Picture+11.png
The above photo, used on the cover of Prof. Judy Wood's book "Where Did The Towers Go", is a proven fraud, a pure, fabricated, 100% digital creation, not in any way a genuine photograph of a 9/11 event.
Mr. OBF and Mr. Simon Shack (just like you) often say something is "a proven fraud" without actually substantiating it. When I get the time and feel the need for kicks-and-giggles, I'll review Mr. OBF's disinfo work.
{DGW:}
The fence should have melted as well.
No, but it is no surprise that your "superior" understanding of physics has grasped why. So I'll use my inferior understanding of physics to explain it to you and your committee.
The damage an EMP can do is inversely proportional to the distance from the source. An EMP effectively induces Eddy electrical currents in metalic things, like vehicle sheet metal. The larger the magnitude of the EMP incident on the sheet metal, the larger the Eddy currents. The larger the Eddy currents, the more heat is generated. If the EMP incidence is great enough, it will cause things with lower combustible points to burn, like the paint on the sheet metal of vehicles or things touching the metal like plastic door handles, rubber seals on doors/windows, plastic gas caps, etc. Steel-belted tires and steering wheels could also be very effective "secondary windings" to snag energy from an incident EMP; get enough current going through those windings and the tires/steering wheel can burst into flame.
The chain link fence, while metal wire, also has lots air space between its wires which can help keep it cool to any induced Eddy currents (assuming the metalic & electric conductive properties of the fence are similar to that of sheet metal.) And even if the chain fence did heat up excessively, what is on the metal of the fence or touching it that could burn?
And because I know you will purposely forget it in your skewed response, the above is dependent on being line-of-sight with the EMP.
So, not many data points from this exchange deviate from your (negative) integrity trend line. Treasonous fucking liars.
Yes you are spreading unsubstantiated lies as your truths Yes we are holding facts you a bucket of unsubstantiated bunk and junk science. EMP if present would have knocked the helicopter out of the air as the propagation of the DEW wave. That is what you describe and it is implausible here as you can't have it both ways.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
The fire is coming from the subway not from the lot. There are secondary fires caused by debris from wtc south Tower That is obvious.
BTW: Yes Gama burst goes through concrete and steel armor Lead shielding stops it To put the nail in the coffin here of DEW Nukes N bombs act
Go read some facts do some real independent research
The Overwhelming Implausibility of
Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish
the World Trade Center Towers
(Updated 4/12/07)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
Co-author: Matt Sullivan
Also another factual report
//
x36 Señor El Once : You are a WINNER!!!
2013-06-27
Dear Mr. DGW,
"You win. You've fully and completely convinced me of everything you've ever written. You are such a scholar and a gentleman, with the backing of a stellar "committee". I stand in awe, both of your research ability as well as your analysis thereof. Woes to me that I ever could have believed anything else but your salient version of things."
Satisfied?
"Agree with the adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, ..."
Whether in debate or in life, when dealing with someone who hasn't the smallest bit of wiggle room in their opinions to acknowledge when certain elements of their belief foundation are not factual and who will not perform any re-evaluation of their opinions due to this, then it is probably time to admit admit defeat... Just to get the fuck away from them.
You and your committee have been fucking with me, I know. Very little of what you've written have you been serious about, except in a saluting way -- "Ours in not to question why, ours is but to do or die."
Think about this.
The NSA Echelon spying can cut both ways. The government shouldn't be monitoring the people; the people should be monitoring the government.
Your lying emails and postings will document your complicity in treasonous actions. Such pride your decendants will have not.
Now go back to satisfying your "300,000 daily readers." I've been a distraction for your attentions, but please no more.
// Señor El Once
Part 2: Rising up to the challenge
{mcb:
I sent an email -- the first entry -- to a dozen or so people with whom I had had 9/11 discussions in the past. I got a response from Dr. James Fetzer and Mr. Daniel Wilks. The stiltedness of Daniel Wilks & his committee remains. Not only can he not format an entry to make it more readable, he does not attribute authorship appropriately. He may still have a blog, but the one discussed above no longer exists. It is interesting the work that he re-purposes from Ken Doc without giving attribution.
My debate opponents in the discussion below unravel as disinformation operatives. Although they call themselves a committee, it is clearly a team of members with different roles and rules of engagement in maintaining their agenda.
They engage by poorly formatted copy and paste. They are avoiding the source material, not to mention participating on my home court. They try to re-frame the discussion back to Dr. Judy Wood and her work, a topic where they have prepared responses: copy-and-paste from Ken Doc without attribution.
I don't blame them for trying to move the goal posts into Dr. Wood, but I don't have to take it. The topic is FGNW. Particularly when so poorly executed, from presentation formatting to rebuttal comments. No attention to detail in their reading, rebuttal subject, or word formatting. Which cuts the committee multiple ways.
Why is a committee using the email address of a singular entity? As a committee and peer-review of the effort, though, the shoddy work puts them all to shame.
I don't need the carousel.
mcb: end}
x38 Maxwell Bridges : an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction
2016-05-18
Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances!
I've corresponded with you in the past on topics related to 9/11. I wanted to give you an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction. My hobby-horse is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW).
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.
++++ Boring details ++++
Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:
(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.
(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.
(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.
(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.
(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.
I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.
Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).
It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.
What you do with this is up to you. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.
//
x39 Maxwell Bridges : EMF and EMF propagation
2016-05-20
Dear Mr. Wilks,
You wrote:
"It comes down to EMF and EMF propagation..."
Based on my research into FGNW, I disagree that "electromagnetic fields" and their propagation are what 9/11 at the WTC boils down to. Instead, I say it comes down to (1) directed electromagnetic energy at wavelengths on the order of molecular distances and (2) neutron emissions. Refer to section 14 of my article.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
"and (it comes down to) the fact that no thermite was found in any of the WTC debries."
I agree that no thermite was found in any of the WTC dust. NT is a distraction.
You wrote:
Also all the steel was recovered...
No it wasn't. Large amounts were recovered, but not all. This is discussed in the comments under the article at:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html?showComment=1459635743007#c2369135544535447674
You wrote:
no dustification
I also disagree, but it really boils down to what does "dustification" mean. The RJ Lee Group when analyzing the dust in the lobby of a neigbhoring building discovered a high percentage of iron spheres. (NT tried to associate this with a thermitic reaction, but the calculated quantities of such were obscene.) Such iron spheres indicate (1) where some of the steel went and (2) energy requirements to turn steel into iron spheres.
You wrote:
no explosives or any other fantasies
Mutual exclusivity is a game of disinfo agents.
You wrote:
(no fantasies) other than a structual collapse of the WTC towers.
You are correct that structural collapse of the WTC towers without any influx of energy is a fantasy, but you are incorrect in the implication that the WTC towers' destruction was not aided.
The WTC towers exhibited free-fall speeds AND pulverization AND ejection of content. Very basic physics proves this an impossibility, unless energy is added.
//
x40 Daniel Wilks : holding the line of the official conspiracy theory & its unscientific findings
2016-05-22
2016-05-20 (Part 1/6)
Daniel Wilks
The results of the investigations are not "exclusive" Nor was there free fall speeds achieved in regard to the WTC tower collapses. There is Horizontal, lateral and vertical loading of each structure and substructures below them within the fishbowl. You take in effects the mechanical layout of the structure as well as the 1 acre footprint of each tower. The dynamics of each collapse has to be looked at individually so yes the impact of the jet liner started fires that weakened structural connections and floors via heat and other secondary in building devices UPS systems and the damage from the plane. WTC south was cut like a tree by the initial Airliner impact and fires. Now the collapse of such a massive structure has resistance it is further proven in http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf That your free fall statement is not accurate.
But it explains the Pulverization of concrete and energy transfer.
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
In order to understand how the world famous "Twin Towers" fell in the aftermath of two commercial aircraft impacts we need to understand the underlying physics of the processes involved. We have therefore developed a simple collision theory based on a detailed analysis of the well known, and much discussed, collapse events. This you have not done independently as you incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW.
There is no argument as to the ineffective and implausiblity of DEW on 91101 as well as the primary fact that basement levels were left inteact and had to be deconstructed. Also reflections of the sun on the WTC glass don't make for lasers.
Fact the WTC towers nor Buildng 7 exhibited free fall the collapses were less than that speed. The aother thing is WTC 7 was hit by the top of wtc south that caused a 20 story gash in the SW side and also additional damage when the tower on the roof of WTC south speared wtc 7. The Con Edison plant did catch fire this combined with emergency generators on site and fuel supply systems being ruptured. This is why WTC 7 collapsed toward the damaged area and rolled over towrd the postal/federal building.
As for games of Disinfo go 911truth is nothing more than disinfo and it gose for most researchers whom are just recanting others research and making a profit off it.
2016-05-20 (Part 2/6)
Daniel Wilks
In addition Dr Judy woods misrepresents the Damage of WTC 6 as caused by an DEW when in fact WTC 6 was impacted by south tower collapse and the fires inside that reached evidence lockers from the port authority. Yes it was the customs houst it was the only building housing explosives and munitions ceased and held as customs evidence. Photos of the after math of the collapse show collapse patterns of wtc south and they show the path leading to WTC 7 it is from the upper floors of
WTC south
Theses are impact related not DEW related and are misrepresented by Dr Woods and you, The cause for the damage is verified not to be DEW, Therefor, your argument is moot.
As this shows clearly the cause of the damage
This proves Dr. Judy woods is speculating and fabricating disinformation and you have bought into a red herring.
2016-05-20 (Part 3/6)
Daniel Wilks
Another thing you omit Seawater introduction into the derbies field hot spots and the creation of hydrogen Sulfide Gas. This is the reason there were extended fires in the underground parking areas that still housed cars and remains of the mall that was under the 16 acre complex.
2016-05-21 (Part 4/6)
Daniel Wilks
After reading your blog it still screams the fact that you really have no idea of what you are trying to talk about probably because your limited knowledge through internet databases and intentional misleading information on " tritium is a signature trace element" Ok genus what Tritium isotope has to be present for the verifcation of a neutron bomb. I will tell you this much it is not the same that is found in glow sticks and emergency signage as was in both of the WTC towers. Hmm seemes that you are not a nuclear physicist and should not be ranting about DEW if you have no operational knowledge of the weapons or an understanding that Hutchenson faked his research so again red herring.
2016-05-21 (Part 5/6)
Daniel Wilks
In closing there are a few documents Dr. Woods should be aware of that already report the facts that is
FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) She apparently failed to read it and so did you. The fabication starts when you are trying to deny the factual and replace it with what did not occur because you and Dr. Woods are making a profit off of this hussel.
2016-05-22 (Part 6/6)
Daniel Wilks
I am not wasting any time here arguing with an individual whom is in denial of facts and I have read your blog. Know Nuclear physicists that work in regards to weaponized DEW and neutron bombs as well as nuclear explosives. You mentioned that the research of such is a hobby not a profession and certainly not of any expertise in the FGNW Feild nor is Dr woods whom just makes assumptions based on logical failures. The problem is the cause for the WTC tower collapses already has been established and since you cannot answer what isotope of tritium must be present to prove FGNW use it is obvious you are outside your field of expertise Anyone with Military CBRN training can spot the "talking head" that does not have a clue about what they are talking about. In the case of Dr wood's book it is a great work of fiction sorry but that is what it is. She fails to actually forensically look at anything as she is not even educated in that field nor is book entirely her work. Herfriend helped her research it and write it so this tells me she will gladly take credit for another author's work. She used photos from infowars on her website. To boot
.John Hutchison is a video faker, pure and simple. He's been making odd little videos for over 25 years, claiming to have produced bizarre and powerful energy effects. In his videos, objects are seen spontaneously flying upwards, and moving around with no apparent cause. Samples bend or bulge instantly. Bent pieces of metal appear to defy gravity, leaning sideways but not falling over.
A recent (Novemeber 2007) Hutchison video depicts a toy battleship floating in a tub of water. The ship moves around, little flames instantly appear and then disappear on the deck, the water has patterns of ripples which come and go just as immediately. Another 2007 offering shows a Red Bull Can, leaning over sideways, but not falling all the way onto the table top. The can bends in the middle, and eventually flies upwards out of the picture.
Hutchison also presents video of metal samples which he says have been transformed by the "Hutchison Effect". A butter knife is embedded in some other kind of metal. A metal rod is bent. A copper pipe is bent into a U-shape. A pile of tiny chunks lays next to the scarred sample which spawned it.
I'll dispense with the metal samples before moving on to the video fakery. The butter knife is probably stainless steel, the surrounding metal looks like a very soft aluminum. He poured liquid aluminum around the knife, and when it cooled, he ground off the face. The bent metal is . . . bent metal. He heated up pieces of metal and bent them. Notice that the samples are charred in the area of the bend. He took a grinder and attacked the one sample, gouging out a pile of little metal chunks. So what?
You simply cannot understand that Jhon Hutchingson is a fraud just like the misleading assumptions Dr woods makes about the damage to Cars WTC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All of Dr woods assumptions are not scientific they are imaginative. When parts of the WTC towers have been recovered from the same buildings you and her falsely claim were caused by DEW. Empirical reasoning no it is simply disseminating disinfo as she has no expertise the feild of nuclear physics or in FGNW yes you even make a very idiotic claim of directed nuclear explosives and still can't understand the isotopes are not there so it did not occur.
Radiation in the fishbowl caused by construction of the union pacific subway station that was converted into parking and into an underground mall as well as wtc south was built on the main portion of the subway station that was revamped as parking space when the PATH station was put in. Yes Concrete is slightly radioactive even more so if you have re bar in it add other debries from the structure and cars lighting and there you have the sources.
Also, there is no factual proof to the piles were still heated after September 23 2001. USGS and NASA " Dozens of hot spots are seen on September 16, but most had cooled or the fires had been put out by September 23." http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
x41 Maxwell Bridges : acknowledging receipt of the 6 emails
2016-05-22
Dear Mr. Wilks,
Thank you for your many replies. You probably shouldn't have, at least until you read my blog posting and its comments so far. If you would have waited until you read it, your many emails might not be.
I promise to address them later (a few days) point by point. Up front I can tell you that you miss the mark by bringing Dr. Wood into the discussion as you do. My work stands on her work's shoulders, but doesn't depend it, because nuggets of truth once identified remain true even when extracted for use in a deviant premise.
If you really want to discuss this, please data-mine your emails and post some comments to the blog. I'd prefer to see your position made more public as well as my response, or we're just wasting time.
//
x42 Maxwell Bridges : assure that the material is relevant to the discussion
2016-05-24
Dear Mr. Wilks,
Again thank you for your six part reply made over three days (May 20-22). Alas, if you are going to copy-&-paste portions of your response, (a) you should assure that the material is relevant to the discussion and (b) you shouldn't promote explanations that themselves have major issues & have been debunked.
In your part 1/6, you reference the work of F.R. Greening and write: your free fall statement is not accurate. Mr. Greening has "blinded you with science" and lots of equations. Too bad Mr. Greening's reference paper is full of faulty assumptions and errors, and does not match the observed destruction. Therefore, his analysis is wrong.
[1] The assumption of "an upper block of n floor" is the first error from Mr. Greening, because it does not match video evidence. Those n floor "accordioned" in on themselves before the collapse wave progressed below the impact point of the aircraft. It did this at a constant rate of 2/3 gravitational acceleration (refer to the work of David Chandler.) Greening doesn't explain how this was possible. What acted on those upper n floors? How did they get decimated?
[2] For the sake of discussion, let's continue with Mr. Greening's premise of an initial mass impacting a floor below it "is sufficient to rupture not only the vertical columns supporting the impacted floor but also the steel truss supports that span the gap between the outer perimeter wall and the inner core of the building." Too bad that this also doesn't match the video evidence which plainly shows (a) wall assemblies being pushed outside the destruction path and (b) a "spire" of inner core remaining for a second, most visible with WTC-1, but a similar anomaly is present with WTC-2. This means that the initial mass did ~not~ rupture the vertical columns supporting the impacted floors.
[3] Mr. Greening assumes that the descending mass grew neatly in increments of individual floor mass, mf. Video evidence shows building content being ejected outside the path of greatest resistance, and therefore any enlarged mass did not happen in such discrete increments.
[4] The structural strength of floor x was greater than the structural strength of floor x+1. Thickness of the sheets used in the hollow box columns of wall assemblies became thinner the higher you are in a tower, because they didn't have to support has much weight. Therefore, the weight or mass of building components at each floor became less as you go up.
[5] Although Mr. Greening calculates new velocities after each floor impact as dictated by conservation of momentum, Mr. Greening assumes the newly calculated velocity (v2) is constant over the distance of a floor hf until hit hits the next floor. Velocity was not constant. The new mass would start at v2 and accelerate under the forces of gravity over the distance of a floor hf to equate to a new v3 at impact with next floor.
These faulty assumptions and analysis allowed Mr. Greening to pull out of his ass (with no supporting calculations) a stage 1 collapse time of 11.6 (and 9.7) seconds, to which he adds a stage 2 collapse time of 1 (and 1.8) seconds. All of his mumbo-jumbo still puts both towers collapse WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR for free-fall.
Mr. Greening erroneously concludes:
The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.
Reminds of a physics teacher analogy. Professor A perform an elaborate calculation on the blackboard and discovers his final answer to be negative of what he aimed to prove. Professor B who watched the proof concludes: "An odd number of mistakes."
Mr. Greening's goal was to be able to state: "Such (an unknown additional) source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers" because his munged calculations match the actual destruction times within the margin of error for free-fall.
In this opening gambit, Mr. Wilks, your beliefs are pinned to error-prone analysis whose goal was to distract with faulty physics from the true nature of the destruction. Although you expressed a "need to understand the underlying physics of the processes involved," you obviously don't.
At a point in time when you still had not read my blog that I had not "developed a simple collision theory base on a detailed analysis". Too bad that I had and it is contained in the first section of my article.
Moreover, (1) destruction within the margin of error of free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection -- all observed -- defy physics, unless energy was added from other sources is as simple a collision theory as it gets.
Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you claim ignorantly that "[I] incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW." Major fail, Mr. Wilks. I'd ask you to substantiate your claims, but you can't. FTR, I include evidence of vehicle damage collected by Dr. Wood, but do not use her analysis or conclusions.
You wrote: "There is no argument as to the ineffective and implausiblity of DEW on 91101..."
Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you have defined what you mean by DEW, so there is ample room for argument. The fact of the matter is that all fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND) fall into the category of DEW, would be totally effective, and are totally plausible.
You wrote: "Fact the WTC towers nor Buildng 7 exhibited free fall the collapses were less than that speed." Fact: you are wrong. Already proven with WTC-1 and WTC-2 were within margin of error for free-fall. Further, according to NIST, WTC-7 had a stage 2 of its collapse that spanned 8 floors or over 100 feet that was indistinguishable from free-fall.
You wrote: "WTC 7 collapsed toward the damaged area and rolled over towrd the postal/federal building." This is wrong. WTC-7 did not roll onto any other buildings, and certainly not the postal/federal building. It fell into its own footprint.
I don't charge money for my research, therefore no profit is possible.
Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you continued in your Part 2/6 by bringing Dr. Judy Wood back into the discussion, assuming in a brain-dead fashion that this was part of my premise. Fail.
You wrote: "Photos of the after math of the collapse show collapse patterns of wtc south and they show the path leading to WTC 7 it is from the upper floors of
WTC south." This is a stupid error and is completely wrong. WTC-1 and WTC-2 were both completely destroyed for several hours before WTC-7 came down. WTC-7 did not have any crippling portion of WTC-2 (south) on it.
Quite possibly you meant WTC-6 as being impacted by WTC-2. Alas, photos of the aftermath does not provide sufficient "weighty" debris from WTC-2 to merit the giant crater that was bored into WTC-6 with such symmetry and straightness with regards to the hole bored.
Part 2/6 tries mightily to conflate my work with Dr. Wood, and for this reason fails. You would have had to read my article to know how much or how little of Dr. Wood's research that I re-purpose. This you had not done.
Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you continued in your Part 3/6 by saying I "[omitted] seawater introduction into the derbies field hot spots and the creation of hydrogen Sulfide Gas." Provide some substantiation about how hydrogen sulfide gas could have been created and affected the duration of hot-spots.
I'll chalk it up to you talking through your ass. Based on your (faulty) premise of no extra energy sources, then we're talking about jet fuel (largely burned off) and office furnishing fires that might have ignited diesel fuel. Unfortunately, all of these fires require oxygen to burn which would have been in shorter supply under the rubble... and most definitely when under (sea) water. Should have been snuffed. They weren't, so if there was this huge presence of (sea) water [which there actually wasn't; the bathtub by and large held back the Hudson River], it did not affect the true hot-spot sources [that I say were fizzled FGND.]
In part 4/6 of your response, you claim that you read my blog article. You don't address a single point from the article, yet claim "[I] really have no idea of what [I am] trying to talk about probably because [my] limited knowledge through internet databases and intentional misleading information on 'tritium is a signature trace element.'"
Too bad that tritium is a trace element of FGND, and you have no internet databases or substantiation to refute this. Fail, Mr. Wilks.
You wrote: "Ok genus what Tritium isotope has to be present for the verifcation of a neutron bomb." Because you are obviously the (spelling) "genus" here, why don't you tell me?
You wrote: "I will tell you this much [the Tritium isotope of a neutron bomb] is not the same that is found in glow sticks and emergency signage as was in both of the WTC towers."
I will tell you this much, you do shitty research even into the reports that try to account for the measure tritium and dispel nuclear devices. Case in point: none of the emergency signage of both WTC towers used tritium. Instead, the "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" attributed the tritium first to the emergency signage of the impacting aircraft, second to sights from weapons stored at the WTC, and third to watches and time pieces, and even then due to the inadequate sample sizes, delays in measurement, and redefinition of trace levels could they achieve the objectives of the report, which was to see if building content might possibly, remotely account for tritium.
I don't even think glow sticks were a trendy thing in 2001, and even if they were, they weren't speculated to have been significantly represented in the content of the towers.
You then go on to spew: "Hmm seemes that you are not a nuclear physicist and should not be ranting about DEW if you have no operational knowledge of the weapons..."
Mr. Wilks, you are not a nuclear physicist. Worse, you don't have even a basic understanding Newtonian physics, which is why Mr. Greening duped you so badly with his faulty research paper.
My information comes from public sources, but of course, not from any "operational knowledge of the weapons." Doesn't mean it is wrong.
You continue with a non-sequitor: "(you have no) an understanding that Hutchenson faked his research so again red herring."
The true red herring here is you, Mr. Wilks, even bringing up the name Hutchison. Not mentioned even once in my derivative work. Fail.
In Part 5/6 after supposedly reading my article, you again bring up Dr. Wood, as if her premise were mine. It is not.
You then mention in passing "FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002)" and make the claim that I failed to read it. This, you don't know. What is known is that you didn't read it, because you provided nothing from this source to refute anything I've written.
Maybe you should read: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
It'll point out several of its errors. Did you know "W. Gene Corley, Ph.D, Senior Vice President of Construction Technologies Laboratory in Skokie, IL, served as principal investigator. Corley was also the principal investigator for FEMA's study of the 1995 Murrah Federal Office Building attack"? Quite the coincidence given that the 1995 Murrah building had its own cover-up & patsies to its true causes.
You conclude part 5/6 with the faulty charge that "[I] and Dr. Woods are making a profit off of this hussel." I am not associated with Dr. Wood, and have no mechanisms in place for making a profit. Fail.
In part 6/6, you begin: "I am not wasting any time here arguing with an individual whom is in denial of facts..." Which facts are those? How about you point out specific ones from my article that you claim to have read?
With poor grammar and punctuation, you seem to ask: "Know Nuclear physicists that work in regards to weaponized DEW and neutron bombs as well as nuclear explosives." That's a red herring, because anybody you or I would know who worked in nuclear physics, weaponized DEW, or neutron bombs would have signed oaths with strict penalties from discussing it.
Your grammar challenged part 6/6 then goes on to associate me with Dr. Wood. Fail.
You wrote: "The problem is the cause for the WTC tower collapses already has been established..." Substantiate this. Otherwise, it is you have have the logical fallacy.
Another logical fallacy was: "since you cannot answer what isotope of tritium must be present to prove FGNW use it is obvious you are outside your field of expertise." Other than the courteous reply to acknowledge receipt of your many emails, I had not had time to research tritium isotypes, so it isn't a matter of not being able to answer.
You seem to imply that you might be a "[someone] with Military CBRN training [who] can spot the 'talking head' that does not have a clue about what they are talking about." In your case, you'd just have to look in the mirror. Case in point in part 6/6, you then go on and on text that from its formatting is obviously copy-and-pasted. Worse, NONE OF IT IS APPLICABLE. I'm not championing Dr. Wood, or John Hutchison.
With six or so meaty copy-&-paste paragraphs to go in part 6/6, I've stopped my point-by-point analysis of your multi-part reply, because it wasn't relevant. It demonstrated that you didn't understand my work, if it doesn't prove you didn't read it. Therefore, the finger gets pointed at you for being the "the 'talking head' who does not have a clue about what they are talking about."
However, the above makes for a great re-purposing on my blog. The world still has idiots who defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory VERY POORLY.
Before on your blog when I had exchanges with you, you were an idiot and couldn't defend your beliefs, let alone dissuade me from mine. Nothing has changed.
If your future effort to reply to me is going to be just as stupid and unsubstantiated, you shouldn't even bother. I desire an intellectual exchange, not a moronic one.
//
x43 Daniel Wilks : discussion into the weeds
2016-05-25
Daniel Wilks,
Part 1/7(B)
Then stop denying facts the problem is you did not read the FEMA report sand there is no logical failure only a proof positive of delusional personality that i am addressing. You deny the fact sand then try to say free fall when it did not occur.
Maxwell you simply have no clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to buildin "Know Nuclear physicists that work in regards to weaponized DEW and neutron bombs as well as nuclear explosives." That's a red herring, because anybody you or I would know who worked in nuclear physics, weaponized DEW, or neutron bombs would have signed oaths with strict penalties from discussing it." No you again have no clue what you are speaking about so you make a strawman argument and invalid statements regarding DEW and weaponized use. If it were true there would be nothing on the internet about it. Also You simply cannot argue with someone whom denies the factual reality of 91101 and also is willing to fabricate a conspiracy to create asocial enterpenuership. You just make speculations that are not scientific just like your fake news from sand hook.
Part 2/7(B)
In closing there are a few documents Dr. Woods should be aware of that already report the facts that is
FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) She apparently failed to read it and so did you. The fabrication starts when you are trying to deny the factual and replace it with what did not occur because you and Dr. Woods are making a profit off of this hussel.
"The problem is the cause for the WTC tower collapses already has been established..." Substantiate this. Otherwise, it is you have have the logical fallacy.
Wait up before you lie about reading the
FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) because you would have no basis for your baseless arguments.
I guess that is why you fail in court.
Part 3/7(B)
It helps to use the final FEMA reports not the preliminary ones. also not reading the orignal documents is about as scientificly accurate as gussing the full collapse times from vidieo sources. As NIST points out, sections of both cores remained standing after the collapse, and any time of total collapse should include the time it took for these structures to fall as well. There's just no way to get a handle on a precise time for total collapse of these buildings. AE911Truth's attempt to do so in order to claim "near free fall acceleration" shows their unscientific methods of investigation
Part 4/7(B)
Again thank you for your six part reply made over three days (May 20-22). Alas, if you are going to copy-&-paste portions of your response, (a) you should assure that the material is relevant to the discussion and (b) you shouldn't promote explanations that themselves have major issues & have been debunked.
Dude take your own advice and apply it to your blog and to your baseless research. It is based in assumption of a DEW that never happened. Why because you lack understanding of DEWs and really so does Dr Wood. she bases her assumptions on fictional DEW. The fact is even the director of DEW research has told her it is not possible at that time to do so although an interesting idea. No strontium 290 was present at the WTC complex or more important within the steel neutron activation it would make many building materials in WTC complex, such as zinc coated steel/galvanized steel highly radioactive and would not produce the rubble piles that workers could walk upon. Therefor your whole assumption falls apart due to a lack of operational knowledge of the weapons you are assuming were used on 91101 asa form of denial of reality.
Part 5/7(B)
Here is your major fail
Self-powered lighting
Swiss Military Watch Commander model with tritium-illuminated face
Tritium illumination
The emitted electrons from the radioactive decay of small amounts of tritium cause phosphors to glow so as to make self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used i rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens.
Also another problem is a lack of your understanding theses effects cannot be negated.
Upon detonation, a 1 kiloton neutron bomb near the ground, in an airburst would produce a large blast wave, and a powerful pulse of both thermal radiation and ionizing radiation, mostly in the form of fast (14.1 MeV) neutrons. The thermal pulse would cause third degree burns to unprotected skin out to approximately 500 meters. The blast would create at least 4.6 psi out to a radius of 600 meters, which would severely damage all non-reinforced concrete structures, at the conventional effective combat range against modern main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers (<690-900 m) the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of non-usability almost all un-reinforced civilian buildings. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy armored attack by rapidly incapacitating the crew with a dose of 8000+ rads of radiation,[48] which would require exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all normal civilian buildings in the same immediate area ~600 meters,[48][49] and via neutron activation it would make many building materials in the city radioactive, such as zinc coated steel/galvanized steel (see area denial use below). Although at this ~600 meter distance the 4-5 psi blast overpressure would cause very few direct casualties because liquid-filled objects such as a human body are resistant to gross overpressure, the powerful winds produced by this overpressure can throw bodies into objects or throw objects, including window glass at high velocity, both with potentially lethal results, rendering casualties highly dependent on surroundings, including on if the building they are in collapses.[50] The pulse of neutron radiation would cause immediate and permanent incapacitation to unprotected outdoor humans in the open out to 900 meters,[6] with death occurring in one or two days. The median lethal dose (LD50) of 600 rads would extend to about 1350-1400 meters for those unprotected and outdoors,[48] where approximately half of those exposed would die of radiation sickness after several weeks.
However a human residing within, or simply shielded by, at least one of the aforementioned concrete buildings with walls and ceilings 30 cm (12 in) thick, or alternatively of damp soil 24 inches thick, would receive a neutron radiation exposure reduced by a factor of 10.[51][52] Even near ground zero, basement sheltering or buildings with similar radiation shielding characteristics, would drastically reduce the radiation dose.[53]
Furthermore, the neutron absorption spectrum of air is disputed by some authorities and depends in part on absorption by hydrogen from water vapor. Thus, it might vary exponentially with humidity, making neutron bombs far more deadly in desert climates than in humid ones.[48]
So what if it is cut and paste it is fact no matter what the yield there are direct isotopes traceable to the weapon. Strontium 290 and a specific Isotope of tritium that emits releases an 18 Kev beta particle. Now this could be a byproduct of seawater being used on the hotpots as well as hydrogen sulfide production.
Part 6/7(B)
Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you claim ignorantly that "[I] incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW." Major fail, Mr. Wilks. I'd ask you to substantiate your claims, but you can't. FTR, I include evidence of vehicle damage collected by Dr. Wood, but do not use her analysis or conclusions.
Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicals is fabrication.
http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event
wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicals due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW.
Part 7/7(B)
2016-05-26
You failed in each of these areas and
1- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.
2- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.
3- the pulverized remains.
4- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
5- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.
All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you have not been able to change for 15 years to date no matter how much. Empr
6- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed".
7- the first-responder ailments.
8- the security around the WTC.
9- the rapid destruction of evidence.
10- the lack of testing on the evidence.
11- the elevated tritium levels.
12- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).
you make yous living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work. Then fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories..."
Mere trace amounts of Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) found in Hudson River sediments "Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist... "Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers, which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the attacks. Also, the iodine probably didn't leak from nuclear power plants upstream because other telltale radioactive isotopes didn't turn up. Instead, says Oktay, the iodine-which is used in various medical treatments and sometimes carried home internally by patients-probably entered the river through local sewage systems. The researchers report their findings in the Jan. 21 Eos."
5
So, Iodine concentrations were LESS in the upper debris layers associated with the WTC dust! And Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) was only found in very low-level trace amounts anyway. These data provide strong evidence against "mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction" hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a "small" fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.
The problem here again is you fail to prove and of your assumptions as theory has a foundation in facts not fiction. Where are the signifigat radilogical signatures?
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com> wrote:
Still at a point in time when you had not read my blog, you claim ignorantly that "[I] incorporate fictional research by Dr judy woods which should be excluded due to the fact it is a work of fiction based on the Fraud she commit ed with the speculative misrepresentation of damage to vehicals that already had the cause of damage recorded before they were moved by NYPW." Major fail, Mr. Wilks. I'd ask you to substantiate your claims, but you can't. FTR, I include evidence of vehicle damage collected by Dr. Wood, but do not use her analysis or conclusions.
Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicals is fabrication. http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1688/find-a-vehicle-that-was-moved-due-to-an-event
wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicals due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW .
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Daniel Wilks <phantasypublishing@gmail.com> wrote:It comes down to EMF and EMF propagation and the fact that no thermite was found in any of the WTC debries. Also all the steel was recovered no dustification no explosives or any other fantasies other than a structual collapse.of the WTC towers.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Maxwell C. Bridges <maxwell.bridges@maxbridges.us> wrote:Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances!
I've corresponded with you in the past on topics related to 9/11. I wanted to give you an update on my evolution in thought regarding the WTC destruction. My hobby-horse is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW).
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.
++++ Boring details ++++
Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:
(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.
No proof of nukes no isotopes and the steel exhibits normal radiation after collapse
(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.
(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.
(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.
(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.
I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.
Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).
It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.
What you do with this is up to day. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.
//
You're spreading propaganda / disinformation. You run away when you are challenged. Examples here:
You've developed a reputation for running away from challenges to your propaganda.
The more you run, the more obvious you become.
x44 Maxwell Bridges : very little intellectual growth
2016-05-26
2016-05-26
Dear Mr. Wilks,
Your responses show very little intellectual growth since I last had exchanges with you almost exactly three years ago. The multiple replies in a short space of time suggest team involvement. The voice and formatting are different between replies, with the only consistency being how poorly formatted they were and largely cut-&-paste.
Some of the team members appear to be bots who are a bit slow to adjust their algorithms to my content. As such, they paste irrelevant red-herring content (e.g., Dr. Judy Wood) that have little to do with my topic.
Let me help even the playing field. In my last reply to you:
(1) I went through each of your arguments point-by-point.
(2) I went into your source material and showed where it was in error.
(3) When I didn't debunk source material outright, I provided reference links that did.
(4) The supporting material for my deviant nuclear premise is sourced.
Whereas you have tried to throw down various reports (A1) to substantiate your views, you fail if the blogosphere has debunking rebuttals (B1). Your substantiation or arguments C1 should have evolved to adequately address the rebuttals (B1).
You haven't been doing this, and it shows. It reflects on your research abilities, your understanding, your honesty, and your agenda when you park yourself at A1.
Every good lawyer only asks questions in court that they already know the answer to. In "The Art of War", you are taught to know your enemy. For you to be throwing down ancient A1 substantiation from the government that a simple google search reveals to have multiple websites and blogs almost as old whose B1 rips A1 a new asshole, it discredits you.
From your Part 2/7(B):
... Then stop denying facts the problem is you did not read the FEMA report...
The FEMA report isn't relevant to my FGNW premise, and you have data-mined nothing to show how it might be relevant. I can assure you that not only have I read it, but I can also easily google lots of references that expose its many flaws.
You wrote:
If (DEW and weaponized use) were true, there would be nothing on the internet about it.
"Nothing" is an over-generalization that trips you up. Refer to Section 15 Directed Energy and Section 27. Nuclear Scientific Research.
You wrote:
Also You simply cannot argue with someone whom denies the factual reality of 91101 and also is willing to fabricate a conspiracy to create asocial enterpenuership...
A point of agreement between us. Except that that "social entrepreneurship" doesn't apply to me, but does apply to your PhantasyPublishing. I bet (not) you got a lot of hate mail from "300,000 daily readers" who discovered that your web site suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
You just make speculations that are not scientific just like your fake news from sand hook.
You haven't pointed out specifics on what makes my FGNW "not scientific." Your Sandy Hook reference? Doesn't really apply to me. Not my hobby-horse. Ergo, an example of a bot copy-and-paste error.
Part 2/7(B) is largely a copy-&-paste repeat from your previous part 5/6. Ho-hum. Already addressed. You wrote:
Wait up before you lie about reading the FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) because you would have no basis for your baseless arguments.
The ground rules for when you call someone a liar are:
* You have to substantiate what makes their statement false or a lie.
* Without substantiation, your accusation of lying is an ad hominem attack and can legitimately be turned against you as being the true liar.
You haven't proved applicability of the report to this FGNW discussion. Not only have I read FEMA report (A1), but I've also read the (B1) rebuttals that rip it a new one. To my knowledge, no C1 rebuttals address the B1 concerns. Given your stilted attitude, it would be a safe bet that you and your team either haven't read the B1 debunking or are forbidden from acknowledging the validity of the errors pointed out.
Your Part 3/7(B) sheds no new light on the discussion. Your copy-&-paste fails: inapplicable.
You wrote in Part 4/7(B):
Dude take your own advice and apply it to your blog and to your baseless research. It is based in assumption of a DEW that never happened. Why because you lack understanding of DEWs and really so does Dr Wood.
Ho-hum. I'm not promoting DEW or Dr. Wood. I've told you this multiple time. My hobby-horse is FGNW. Another bot copy-&-paste fail.
Second, if you don't substantiate with specifics what makes my research "baseless", well... doofus, it just makes your claim baseless.
Another bot copy-&-paste fail with your comment:
No strontium 290 was present at the WTC complex or more important within the steel neutron activation it would make many building materials in WTC complex, such as zinc coated steel/galvanized steel highly radioactive and would not produce the rubble piles that workers could walk upon.
The first sentence is factually wrong. Refer to Section 11 that in turn data mines Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al. Table 2 lists various inorganic elements and metals, including Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), and Uranium (U). The USGS also measures this.
You cannot prove your contention about the alleged lack of neutron activation. We have no record of such being systematically measured, and we certainly don't have any reports documenting the findings (that aren't full of holes.)
Secondly, you malframe FGNW to fit your pre-conceived notions. Energy expelled at a specific wavelength and directed would have its own effects. If neutron expulsion were part of it, it too could have been aimed and would not have "radiated" everything. Just mostly the debris that the cover-up carted up for recycling.
I'll throw this poorly written sentence right back at you as being applicable more to you than me:
Therefor your whole assumption falls apart due to a lack of operational knowledge of the weapons you are assuming were used on 91101 asa form of denial of reality.
In your Part 5/7(B), you did such a crappy job of bot copy-&-paste, I can't tell where you've put your own words in. Refer to Section 10 that dives into Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center, which could conceivably be where you are getting your information from... Except that your information is wrong:
... self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used i rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens.
Most of those items listed do not apply to the WTC for September 2001. The alleged aircraft had such emergency exit signs, but the towers did not. It was complete and utter unfounded speculation on the report's part to claim (1) aircraft exit signs, (2) firearm night sights, and (3) time pieces accounted for the haphazard measurement of tritium at only a couple of locations, and delayed.
My premise is FGNW, which admittedly would be a close cousin of the neutron bomb.
So what if it is cut and paste
If it isn't applicable, it isn't applicable. Further, if it can't be read and/or if it can't be observed where the copy-&-paste starts and stops so that your words can be recognized, then it is plagiarism and a form of dishonesty (that only re-enforces the trend line for you.)
it is fact no matter what the yield there are direct isotopes traceable to the weapon.
Measurements not taken or results suppressed does not equate to traceable isotopes of tritium not ever being present. So "sure" were "they" that airplanes and gravity-driven pile-drivers did the damage, "they" wouldn't even let Fire Investigators test for the usual range of accelerants and wouldn't let them at the debris until much later.
Strontium 290 and a specific Isotope of tritium that emits releases an 18 Kev beta particle. Now this could be a byproduct of seawater being used on the hotpots as well as hydrogen sulfide production.
Substantiate your claim (a) of what would be a by-product of seawater on hotspots and (b) that they used sea water. It was the Hudson River (that I assume was largely fresh water) that flowed by.
What doesn't add up in your hypnotism is that if the hot-spots were "normal" fires, why did they burn so long even when doused with millions of gallons of water.
You wrote in Part 6/7(B) referring to vehicle damage:
Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicals is fabrication.
Such a lame rebuttal. To prove that you read my article, you tell me in your own words what I think causes the damage to vehicles. I'll give you a hint: It isn't what Dr. Wood promotes. You keep conflating me with her, you think you can smear me with mistakes that she made.
wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicals due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW
To your point, many cars pictured at the bridge were towed there; they weren't destroyed there. This is a major flaw in Dr. Wood's work.
However, the cars along West Broadway and in the car park are observed as being shortly after the towers came down. Ho-hum. Refer to Section 23. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars. In particular, watch the videos from Vince Dementri. No time for them to get towed here between towers falling and while WTC-7 still standing.
Your reading failed.
In Part 7/7(B) on 2016-05-26, you wrote the following hypnotic suggestion:
You failed in each of these areas and
1- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.
2- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.
3- the pulverized remains.
4- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
On the contrary, you failed in each of the above. You don't address specifics in any of those areas.
5- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.
All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you
You are proven factually wrong (via Vince Dementri's videos) & tons of pictures of burning vehicles from the air before the dust has settle. You prove yet again to not having read my article. That demonstrates some special kind of ignorance.
6- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed".
7- the first-responder ailments.
8- the security around the WTC.
9- the rapid destruction of evidence.
10- the lack of testing on the evidence.
11- the elevated tritium levels.
12- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).
Your hypnotic suggestion that I fail on the above? Prove it. One-by-one. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
Another copy-&-paste fail:
you make yous living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work.
Talking about yourself, I see. You don't know how I make my living.
Then fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories..."
That final errant double-quotation mark. Another bot copy-&-paste error. Fail. Provide your source for that.
Your Iodine-131 bot copy-&-paste: provide your source. Specify its relevance. And be sure to frame the FGNW properly. Whether or you or the source, the phrase "mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction" hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a "small" fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb. already hints to how it attempts to frame the discussion away from FGNW.
The problem here again is you fail to prove and of your assumptions as theory has a foundation in facts not fiction. Where are the signifigat radilogical signatures?
Ho-hum. Can you say "tritium"? That's the leading radiological signature that has not been adequately explained. Give Section 14 a good read.
The problem here again is that you failed to read my work, aren't referencing specific passages from my work, and certainly aren't refuting specifics with applicable specifics, making your rebuttal "a theory with a foundation in fiction."
No proof of nukes no isotopes and the steel exhibits normal radiation after collapse
Ho-hum. Sure, because of the suppression of measurements, analysis of measurements, and publication of analysis (and all three), you are enabled to say "no proof of nukes", while at the same time, I am enabled to say "no proof of no nukes." If we were being fair with one another, we'd say that no proof was published one way or another, so this point of contention should be taken off of the table, while the bulk of the other evidence (that you continue to ignore) is used to make the case.
You're spreading propaganda / disinformation.
Dude, if I am wrong and you can prove it with substantiation and properly applied science to all of the evidence, then what I'm spreading is "misinformation", not "disinformation," because I honestly and sincerely believe my premise. Furthermore, if proven wrong -- which is why I've earnestly sought a reasoned rational discussion with you (that still eludes you) --, I will publicly apologize and spread a different message.
You run away when you are challenged. Examples here: You've developed a reputation for running away from challenges to your propaganda. The more you run, the more obvious you become.
This is one of those bot copy-&-paste WTF moments. WTF are you talking about? Please substantiate. EARLY WARNING: Failure to provide links and specific examples will henceforth peg you as a liar.
Oh, and while you're searching for links (look through my blog to see where I've participated), banishment isn't the same as running away.
//
x45 Daniel Wilks : one that brings in fantasy
2016-05-27
From: Daniel Wilks
Thanks for exposing yourself again as one that brings in fantasy
Letter received and corrected due to author's willful omissions of = facts.
Dear Mr. Wilks,
Your responses show very little intellectual growth since I last had exchanges with you almost exactly three years ago http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-17605. The multiple replies in a short space of time suggest team involvement. The voice and formatting are different between replies, with the only consistency being how poorly formatted they were and largely cut-&-paste.
Some of the team members appear to be bots who are a bit slow to adjust their algorithms to my content. As such, they paste irrelevant red-herring content (e.g., Dr. Judy Wood) that have little to do with my topic.
Let me help even the playing field. In my last reply to you: (1) I went through each of your arguments point-by-point.
(2) I went into your source material and showed where it was in error. (3) When I didn't debunk source material outright, I provided reference links that did.
(4) The supporting material for my deviant nuclear premise is sourced.
Whereas you have tried to throw down various reports (A1) to substantiate your views, you fail if the blogosphere has debunking rebuttals (B1). Your substantiation or arguments C1 should have evolved to adequately address the rebuttals (B1).
You haven't been doing this, and it shows. It reflects on your research abilities, your understanding, your honesty, and your agenda when you park yourself at A1.
Every good lawyer only asks questions in court that they already know the answer to. In "The Art of War", you are taught to know your enemy. For you to be throwing down ancient A1 substantiation from the government that a simple google search reveals to have multiple websites and blogs almost as old whose B1 rips A1 a new asshole, it discredits you.
From your Part 2/7(B):
... Then stop denying facts the problem is you did not read the FEMA report...
The FEMA report isn't relevant to my FGNW premise, and you have data-mined nothing to show how it might be relevant. I can assure you that not only have I read it, but I can also easily google lots of references that expose its many flaws.
You wrote:
If (DEW and weaponized use) were true, there would be nothing on the internet about it.
*"Nothing"* is an over-generalization that trips you up. Refer to Section 15 Directed Energy and Section 27. Nuclear Scientific Research http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html.
You wrote:
Also You simply cannot argue with someone whom denies the factual reality of 91101 and also is willing to fabricate a conspiracy to create asocial enterpenuership...
A point of agreement between us. Except that that "social entrepreneurship" doesn't apply to me, but does apply to your PhantasyPublishing. I bet (not) you got a lot of hate mail from *"300,000 daily readers"* who discovered that your web site suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
You just make speculations that are not scientific just like your fake news from sand hook.
You haven't pointed out specifics on what makes my FGNW *"not scientific."* Your Sandy Hook reference? Doesn't really apply to me. Not my hobby-horse. Ergo, an example of a bot copy-and-paste error.
Part 2/7(B) is largely a copy-&-paste repeat from your previous part 5/6. Ho-hum. Already addressed. You wrote:
Wait up before you lie about reading the FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) because you would have no basis for your baseless arguments.
The ground rules for when you call someone a liar are:
* You have to substantiate what makes their statement false or a lie.
* Without substantiation, your accusation of lying is an ad hominem attack and can legitimately be turned against you as being the true liar.
You haven't proved applicability of the report to this FGNW discussion. Not only have I read FEMA report (A1), but I've also read the (B1) rebuttals that rip it a new one. To my knowledge, no C1 rebuttals address the B1 concerns. Given your stilted attitude, it would be a safe bet that you and your team either haven't read the B1 debunking or are forbidden from acknowledging the validity of the errors pointed out.
Your Part 3/7(B) sheds no new light on the discussion. Your copy-&-paste fails: inapplicable.
You wrote in Part 4/7(B):
Dude take your own advice and apply it to your blog and to your baseless research. It is based in assumption of a DEW that never happened. Why because you lack understanding of DEWs and really so does Dr Wood.
Ho-hum. I'm not promoting DEW or Dr. Wood. I've told you this multiple time. My hobby-horse is FGNW. Another bot copy-&-paste fail.
Second, if you don't substantiate with specifics what makes my research *"baseless"*, well... doofus, it just makes your claim baseless.
Another bot copy-&-paste fail with your comment:
No strontium 290 was present at the WTC complex or more important within the steel neutron activation it would make many building materials in WTC complex, such as zinc coated steel/galvanized steel highly radioactive and would not produce the rubble piles that workers could walk upon.
The first sentence is factually wrong. Refer to Section 11 that in turn data mines Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al . Table 2 lists various inorganic elements and metals, including Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), and Uranium (U). The USGS also measures this.
You cannot prove your contention about the alleged lack of neutron activation. We have no record of such being systematically measured, and we certainly don't have any reports documenting the findings (that aren't full of holes.)
(yes and therefor since Neutron activation never occurred nor did any use FGNW or any thin close to a neutron bomb sorry to say your ignorance of the devices is glaring)
Secondly, you malframe FGNW to fit your pre-conceived notions. Energy expelled at a specific wavelength and directed would have its own effects. If neutron expulsion were part of it, it too could have been aimed and would not have "radiated" everything. Just mostly the debris that the cover-up carted up for recycling.
(Stop this is you fantasizing and speculating based on zero physical knowledge of FGNW You fail to prove any of the following occurred in regards to WTC 1 and 2 collapse nor does it negate the damage to other buildings including wtc 7 from the collapse of south tower.
- Hot fission bomb: soft X-rays and some fission neutrons;
- H-bomb: soft X-rays and some fission and fusion neutrons;
- Pure fusion bomb: 14 MeV neutrons and soft X-rays;
- Pure isomer bomb: 0.1 to 5 MeV gamma-rays;
- Pure positron bomb: 0.511 MeV gamma-rays;
- Pure antiproton bomb: ~ 200 MeV pions and gamma-rays.
Because most of the energy of a DT-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation= . This implies a coupling coefficient of almost 50%, that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons.
So where is the signature in WTC steel? It does not exist nor did the use of FGNW.)
I'll throw this poorly written sentence right back at you as being applicable more to you than me:
Therefore, your whole assumption falls apart due to a lack of operational knowledge of the weapons you are assuming were used on 91101 as a form of denial of reality.
(The statement is entirely accurate you failed to prove any neutron activation of steel also since you do not know anything about FGNW it is obviously beyond your level of education to discuss it without fabrication on your part by attempting to put the stink on me.)
In your Part 5/7(B), you did such a crappy job of bot copy-&-paste, I can't tell where you've put your own words in. Refer to Section 10 that dives into Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center , which could conceivably be where you are getting your information from...
Except that your information is wrong:
(Thanks for your opinion and it is comedy as you are oblivious to any real physical facts about the emergency markings in the WTC towers. It is your lack of research and knowledge of the WTC towers is now glaringly evident. Mr. Wilks is correct in what he stated as and is backed up by the following facts that you intentionally try to distract from again by mentioning the 767 aircraft which you really know about as much as you do the WTC towers.
... self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used in rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens..
Most of those items listed do not apply to the WTC for September 2001.
(Yes they do and your response below is the observable omission of facts as you don't have a clue about the emergency sinage in either WTC towe= rs let alone WTC 6 or 7)
The alleged aircraft had such emergency exit signs, but the towers did not. It was complete and utter unfounded speculation on the report's part to claim (1) aircraft exit signs, (2) firearm night sights, and (3) time pieces accounted for the haphazard measurement of tritium at only a couple of locations, and delayed.
(thank you for you display of utter willful ignorance of facts.
Read this as it is fully documented and verified.
source
http://plsafety.org/news/10-years-after-911-how-photoluminescent-path-marki= ngs-are-making-buildings-safer/
quote
=E2=80=9CThe NIST study also documented the increased rate of occupant evac= uation with photoluminescent egress markings. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center complex, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey added Photoluminescent Egress Markings to all emergency stairwells in the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2. Although causalities in the 1993 bombing were significantly less than on 9/11, the loss of power due to the bomb blast was almost instantaneous. Because of this, it took more than 6 hours to totally evacuate the Twin Towers in the dark. Recognizing the need to improve the evacuation times, the Photoluminescent Exit Path Markings were added to improve egress rates in the event of another power failure. On September 11, 2001, the total elapsed time between the first airplane impact on the first tower until the collapse of the second tower was only 102 minutes. Even with the failure of the emergency back-up power systems more than 16,000 people escaped during that time, many in total darkness. The twin towers Photoluminescent Exit Path Marking Systems worked=E2=80=93e= ven when the back-up electrical lighting systems failed.=E2=80=9D
So again you don't know what you are talking about because you have= not researched it.)
My premise is FGNW, which admittedly would be a close cousin of the neutron bomb.
(yep and you have failed to provide physical proof of use on the WTC towers on 91101 if the signatures are not there of explosives or Nuclear fission or fusion then you are spouting a delusional belief. Where is the coupling effect in the steel or building materials? It is not there case closed. )
So what if it is cut and paste
If it isn't applicable, it isn't applicable. Further, if it can't be read and/or if it can't be observed where the copy-&-paste starts and stops so that your words can be recognized, then it is plagiarism and a form of dishonesty (that only re-enforces the trend line for you.)
you have a promising career as a comic because that line is junk just as fantasy bots ect to distract from facts you place fiction to create a smokescreen. More like, your unwillingness or inability to make your case and defend your theory in a civilized manner, your closed-mindedness, and your paranoid insults - which, I have so far only witnessed coming from faithers, debunksters, trusters, and scientifically illiterate reality deniers - too obviously are a systemic attempt at sowing discord; even the flat-earthers were more friendly forwarding their theories, but I'm sure you are too well aware of that, so: shame on you for playing the divide et impera game.)
it is fact no matter what the yield there are direct isotopes traceable to the weapon.
(this is correct and you have a failure to produce physical proof of Maxwell C. Bridges FGNW pet hobby horse fantasy)
Measurements not taken or results suppressed does not equate to traceable isotopes of tritium not ever being present. So "sure" were "they" that airplanes and gravity-driven pile-drivers did the damage, "they" wouldn't even let Fire Investigators test for the usual range of accelerants and wouldn't let them at the debris until much later.
Strontium 290 and a specific Isotope of tritium that emits releases an 18 Kev beta particle. Now this could be a byproduct of seawater being used on the hotpots as well as hydrogen sulfide production.
Substantiate your claim (a) of what would be a by-product of seawater on hotspots and (b) that they used sea water. It was the Hudson River (that I assume was largely fresh water) that flowed by.
(Your assumptions are incorrect. https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/highlight/fireboat.htm =E2=80=9Cup adjacent to the World Trade Center site to provide pumping capa= city, as hydrants were not working. The fireboat joined New York Fire Department boats on the sea wall in North River, the closest proximity possible to World Trade Center 2, to provide the only water available at the site. Fire hoses wielded from the fireboat Wednesday provided the only area at the site that was not covered by choking dust. This area later became the main supply center for the emergency crews. The John J. Harvey worked non-stop at the site until Friday night, September 14, after hydrants had been restored.=E2=80=9D Salt water was introduced into the site and this accou= nt for Hydrogen sulfide generation and the elevated levels of Tritium as they match with Atlantic ocean water.
What doesn't add up in your hypnotism is that if the hot-spots were "normal" fires, why did they burn so long even when doused with millions of gallons of water.
You wrote in Part 6/7(B) referring to vehicle damage:
Your fail FTR they are all recorded by NYFD and have GPS tags on the so your assumptions on the cause of damages to vehicles is fabrication.
Such a lame rebuttal. To prove that you read my article, you tell me in your own words what I think causes the damage to vehicles. I'll give you a hint: It isn't what Dr. Wood promotes. You keep conflating me with her, you think you can smear me with mistakes that she made.
wow verification that NYPW moved the cars and vehicles due to the terrorist attack on 91101 again you failed to research facts about NYCPW
To your point, many cars pictured at the bridge were towed there; they weren't destroyed there. This is a major flaw in Dr. Wood's work.
(Your's as well as you make similar claims about the cause of damag= e to the cars and the NYPW not towing cars off before WTC 7 collapsed when in fact they did move them during emergency response.
However, the cars along West Broadway and in the car park are observed as being shortly after the towers came down. Ho-hum. Refer to Section 23. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars. In particular, watch the videos from Vince Dementri. No time for them to get towed here between towers falling and while WTC-7 still standing.
Your reading failed.
(Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars Sorry there was no thermite present so fabrication on your part and this is just what you do make stuff up)
In Part 7/7(B) on 2016-05-26, you wrote the following hypnotic suggestion:
(Really Hypnotic that is funny as your lack of proof. And yes you did fail in the areas.
You failed in each of these areas and
1- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission. 2- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization. 3- the pulverized remains. 4- the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
On the contrary, you failed in each of the above. You don't address specifics in any of those areas.
(Actually it has been done three years ago and the statement is factual you have failed in each of these areas and continue to fabricate opinions without any physical evidence.)
5- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.
(All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you omit)
You are proven factually wrong (via Vince Dementri's videos) & tons of pictures of burning vehicles from the air before the dust has settle. You prove yet again to not having read my article. That demonstrates some special kind of ignorance.
(Yes it does show your willingness to add an unfounded opinion to a report made by another which is fabrication as I have looked at the footage it does not support your opinions)
6- the damage to Banker's Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been "fixed". 7- the first-responder ailments. 8- the security around the WTC. 9- the rapid destruction of evidence. 10- the lack of testing on the evidence. 11- the elevated tritium levels. 12- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can't be brissant explosives).
Your hypnotic suggestion that I fail on the above? Prove it. One-by-one. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
(Yes in this case you are blowing smoke out of your ass as you don'= t seem to do any further research try looking at the archives http://wtcdata.nist.gov/)
Another copy-&-paste fail:
(thank you for your opinion it is not factual as you will soon understand.)
you make yous living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work.
Talking about yourself, I see. You don't know how I make my living.
(We have seen your fraudulent work on Sandy Hook Elementary shootings and on the Boston Marathon Bombing both came out after Hasive created the fake news article. )
Then fails to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories=E2=80=A6= "
That final errant double-quotation mark. Another bot copy-&-paste error. Fail. Provide your source for that.
(Why it is an accurate statement which you are proving with each keystroke that your whole FGNW theory is bunk. Especially when the final not preliminary FEMA report nullifies your baseless claims and that is why you choose to ignore it or try to outsource a website that is not creatable because again all of the arguments of supposed errors are made from the preliminary reports.)
Your Iodine-131 bot copy-&-paste: provide your source. Specify its relevance.
(If you don't know then you should not be discussing FGNW because y= ou obviously have no clue about Radiological signatures from fission or fusion.)
And be sure to frame the FGNW properly. Whether or you or the source, the phrase *"mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction" hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a "small" fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.* alre= ady hints to how it attempts to frame the discussion away from FGNW.
( Nobody is Framing or buying into a fantasy and a strawman argument. How about you prove the existence of iodine-131 or any isotope traces for the fabricated FGNW or better yet can you show the agents that prove the use of nuclear explosives also fabricated use in regards to 91101 and the WTC towers. The answer is no you have not and cannot. They do not exist and were never physically present at the WTC complex on 9101. Since there was no use of FGNW in regards to the collapse of the WTC towers which has been proven already that your outside websites are fabricating their own lies without physical proof just as your failure to research the WTC collapse or the physical structures of either tower.
The problem here again is you fail to prove and of your assumptions as theory has a foundation in facts not fiction. Where are the significant radiological signatures?)
Ho-hum. Can you say "tritium"? That's the leading radiological signature that has not been adequately explained. Give Section 14 a good read.
The problem here again is that you failed to read my work, aren't referencing specific passages from my work, and certainly aren't refuting specifics with applicable specifics, making your rebuttal *"a theory with a foundation in fiction."*
(Sorry but that is your logical failure as there is no proof of nukes no isotopes and the steel exhibits normal radiation after the WTC tower collapses on 91101. Also how many cases of radiation sickness were there caused by the emissions from the steel? None.)
Ho-hum. Sure, because of the suppression of measurements, analysis of measurements, and publication of analysis (and all three), you are enabled to say *"no proof of nukes"*, while at the same time, I am enabled to say *= "no proof of no nukes."* If we were being fair with one another, we'd say that no proof was published one way or another, so this point of contention should be taken off of the table, while the bulk of the other evidence (that you continue to ignore) is used to make the case.
You're spreading propaganda / disinformation.
(is that a comic reply or are you being serious You are the one that tries to say lithium and tritium were not present in the WTC towers. Then are proven wrong and go on to prove you don't have any idea what you ar= e talking about in regards to the physical structure of either WTC tower. To even start to read a report from someone whom shows willful omission of facts. Is to support their delusions.)
Dude, if I am wrong and you can prove it with substantiation and properly applied science to all of the evidence, then what I'm spreading is "misinformation", not "disinformation," because I honestly and sincerely believe my premise. Furthermore, if proven wrong -- which is why I've earnestly sought a reasoned rational discussion with you (that still eludes you) --, I will publicly apologize and spread a different message.
You run away when you are challenged. Examples here: You've developed a reputation for running away from challenges to your propaganda. The more you run, the more obvious you become.
This is one of those bot copy-&-paste WTF moments. WTF are you talking about? Please substantiate. EARLY WARNING: Failure to provide links and specific examples will henceforth peg you as a liar.
Oh, and while you're searching for links (look through my blog to see where I've participated), banishment isn't the same as running away.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html
Also this proves no there was no use of FGNW in regards to the collapse of the WTC towers
*Chemistry Table 1.* This Table summarizes data for major elements and all trace elements analyzed in the WTC dust and beam coating samples. Some elements (such as mercury and tin) were not analyzed in these samples. Major elements are listed in percent concentration and trace elements are listed in parts per million concentration. One percent equals 10,000 parts per million. ------------------------------
*Chemistry Table 1*
x46 Maxwell Bridges : your responses leave much to be desired
2016-05-31
Dear Mr. DW (and illustrious teammates),
For someone who in the past boasted about his publication prowess, your responses leave much to be desired in the realms of authoring & formatting that would improve the chances of a reader being able to understand your case. To your (dis)credit, such sloppy attention to readability obfuscates the fact that your arguments are weak.
You wrote:
(yes and therefor since Neutron activation never occurred nor did any use FGNW or any thin close to a neutron bomb sorry to say your ignorance of the devices is glaring)
Provide substantiation to your hypnotic suggestion that "neutron activation never occurred." As mentioned before, (a) not systematically and thoroughly sampling for X, (b) not analyzing all data for X or omitting data for X, and/or (c)_ not publishing detailed reports with the results of thorough sampling for X are ~NOT~ equivalent to "X never occurring."
Refer to Section 11, because it details the many blatant flaws in the one report that I am aware of ("Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.) that tried plug the fiction of "no neutron activation."
Furthermore, if there was "no neutron activation", there would have been no need for Bloomberg to attempt legislation that prevented Geiger counters from being used in NYC.
I wrote:
Secondly, you malframe FGNW to fit your pre-conceived notions. Energy expelled at a specific wavelength and directed would have its own effects. If neutron expulsion were part of it, it too could have been aimed and would not have "radiated" everything. Just mostly the debris that the cover-up carted up for recycling.
Your response furthers the malframe that you were told to avoid:
(Stop this is you fantasizing and speculating based on zero physical knowledge of FGNW You fail to prove any of the following occurred in regards to WTC 1 and 2 collapse nor does it negate the damage to other buildings including wtc 7 from the collapse of south tower.
- Hot fission bomb: soft X-rays and some fission neutrons;
- H-bomb: soft X-rays and some fission and fusion neutrons;
- Pure fusion bomb: 14 MeV neutrons and soft X-rays;
- Pure isomer bomb: 0.1 to 5 MeV gamma-rays;
- Pure positron bomb: 0.511 MeV gamma-rays;
- Pure antiproton bomb: ~ 200 MeV pions and gamma-rays.
I do ~not~ have to prove that any of the above occurred, because none of them are my FGNW premise. You are again malframing my premise. Refer to Section 14.
Because most of the energy of a DT-based FGNW is in the form of highly penetrating neutrons, almost all of the forwards going energy is coupled into any target located less than a few meters away from the point of detonation= . This implies a coupling coefficient of almost 50%, that is ten times higher than for any conventional or previous generation nuclear weapons.
Correct.
So where is the signature in WTC steel? It does not exist nor did the use of FGNW.)
To re-iterate, just as I have no proof that the signature was present, you have no proof that the signature wasn't present. The cover-up guaranteed this in the shoddy reports that were published. Refer to section 8 and section 26 for data points in the trend line. If you were being reasonable, we would agree that our mutual inability to substantiate this either way takes this off of the table, and the weight of the other evidence would make the case.
You wrote:
... you are oblivious to any real physical facts about the emergency markings in the WTC towers. It is your lack of research and knowledge of the WTC towers is now glaringly evident.
For the purposes of discussion, let's assume that the WTC had all of the devices in Mr. DW's list:
... self-powered lighting devices called betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights, watches, exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. As well as Glowsticks used in rescue operations , emergency lighting,signage, exit signs, and as well as some computer screens..
If the above were true, then the error isn't mine. The mistake was made by "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams. To my knowledge, this is the ~only~ report that attempts to explain -- via shoddy sampling & scope limits -- the fact that any tritium was measured at all.
Why didn't these expert researchers commissioned by the government speculate into glowsticks and emergency lighting within the towers (as opposed to just the aircraft's exit signs)? Because such wasn't present.
If there is any truth (which I doubt) to your argument about all of the other potential tritium sources within the WTC, then your beef isn't with me, but with the authors of the above report. Be that as it may, you are making the claim that all of the above were present, therefore the onus is on you to substantiate it.
You message said:
"Mr. Wilks is correct in what he stated..."
Here is proof that Mr. DW has a team (or "committee") involved. Could it be Mr. EB? Or maybe Mr. OneOhOne? The only thing wrong with this team effort is that when the teammates are not identified, then the authored work is assumed to be exclusively Mr. DW's with the dishonesty cutting both ways: (a) Mr. DW is committing plagiarism, and (b) the authoring mistakes and factual errors are assumed to be the stupidity of Mr. DW's alone.
A teammate submitted: https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/highlight/fireboat.htm
The fireboat joined New York Fire Department boats on the sea wall in North River, the closest proximity possible to World Trade Center 2, to provide the only water available at the site. ... Salt water was introduced into the site and this account for Hydrogen sulfide generation and the elevated levels of Tritium as they match with Atlantic ocean water.
However, the teammate has not substantiated (a) the claim that salt water added to the pile would produce hydrogen sulfide, or (b) the claim that that salt water added to the pile would account for elevated levels of tritium. You are making the claim, so the onus is on you to substantiate it.
I believe that the above is this teammate talking through his ass, because if it had any truth (particularly #b) , then the more educated authors of "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" would have included this in their analysis.
I wrote:
[M]any cars pictured at the bridge were towed there; they weren't destroyed there. This is a major flaw in Dr. Wood's work.
One of the teammate says:
(Your's as well as you make similar claims about the cause of damage to the cars and the NYPW not towing cars off before WTC 7 collapsed when in fact they did move them during emergency response.
This teammate did not understand the situation (probably on purpose), and therefore gave a completely bogus response. The situation was that many images exist of vehicles still on fire along West Broadway and the car park at a time when WTC-7 was still standing. Nobody on your team has adequately explained how "an alleged gravity-driven pulverization" could have accounted for the damage to these vehicles.
Further, the teammate makes the unsubstantiated claim that the NYPW towed damage vehicles to the West Broadway and the car park in the morning of 9/11 (and before Vince Dementri's video and before WTC-7 was demolished). Again, you make the claim, so the onus is on you to substantiate it.
Section 23 isn't a complete set of images, but it is sufficient to prove you wrong. Tow-trucks allowed into the area specifically around WTC-7 before WTC-7 came down? Didn't happen, and there was no evidence (e.g., tracks in the dust) in Vince's video to go with your claim.
You wrote:
(Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars Sorry there was no thermite present so fabrication on your part and this is just what you do make stuff up)
The fabrication is entirely on your part and demonstrates that your teammate didn't read or understand the source material. I do not champion thermitic particulates as the primary cause for vehicle damage; but others in the 9/11TM do. Section 23 debunks the premise of thermitic particulates being responsible for the vehicle damage.
In Part 7/7(B) on 2016-05-26, your team made the hypnotic claim that my premise failed in 12 different areas, but true to its hypnotic nature did not explain point-by-point why for ~any~ of them. When this failing was pointed out, all your teammate could muster was another unsubstantiated hypnotic suggestion: "And yes you did fail in the areas." And, no, you continue to fail to make even a half-assed case in any of these areas.
(Actually it has been done three years ago ....)
Liar. If it had been done three years ago, you could copy-&-paste from such effort and be done.
Referring again to the vehicles along West Broadway, your teammate writes the following fabrication / lie:
(All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you omit)
Liar. Look at Vince's videos again from before WTC-7 came down. Substantiate your claim that cars were towed from the underground garages at the WTC complex BEFORE WTC-7 came down. Didn't happen, liar.
Based on where your response has been headed, it should not surprise me that your team would write:
(Yes it does show your willingness to add an unfounded opinion to a report made by another which is fabrication as I have looked at the footage it does not support your opinions)
Ignore the context (Dr. Wood) but focus on the evidence (burning cars) in the following URLs.
The following image [Figure 66(o)] shows many vehicles along West Broadway on fire. Before WTC-7 came down. Note that paper and trees are not on fire.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image175.jpg
Figure toast 8 from the car park shows vehicles on fire. How did that happen? http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
Figure 8(a) shows those same vehicles [from Figure 66(o)] along West Broadway not on fire any more. But you can see WTC-5 (I believe, or WTC-6) in the background on fire, and you can definitely see WTC-7 still standing. How and when exactly did these vehicles get towed here?
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
And all of this dovetails the video of CBS reporting coming out of WTC-7...
Another hint to the team:
(We have seen your fraudulent work on Sandy Hook Elementary shootings and on the Boston Marathon Bombing both came out after Hasive created the fake news article. )
The team will have to be more specific: (a) About which Sandy Hook & Boston Marathon Bombing work you are referring, because I have so little; it wasn't may hobby-horse. (b) About what makes it fraudulent. Otherwise, your paragraph has more the whiff of being a distraction and a lame attempt at guilt-by-association.
Your team writes:
(Why it is an accurate statement which you are proving with each keystroke that your whole FGNW theory is bunk. Especially when the final not preliminary FEMA report nullifies your baseless claims and that is why you choose to ignore it or try to outsource a website that is not creatable because again all of the arguments of supposed errors are made from the preliminary reports.)
Hypnotism.
To my knowledge, the final FEMA report make no mention of any cause -- conventional or nuclear -- that could be construed as controlled demolition. It went to great lengths to not give details, not give its modeling, not give its reasoning, and to avoid all of the blatant indications of controlled demoliion.
But if you claim that the final FEMA report, that has no mention of FGNW, "nullifies [my] baseless claims (of FGNW)", then prove it. Should be really easy. But no! We all know that your team is talking through your ass.
Your "committee" or "team" should recruit some new members. Someone who can write and format would be helpful, because you could lose for poor presentation of your lame answers... which is probably by design.
You inspire me to publish our email exchanges from three years ago together with this round. Although your committee can't execute on what it was charged (e.g., debunk anything except gravity-driven pile-driver), it can certainly prove the existence of coordinated teams of disinfo agents deployed into cyber-space to obfuscate 9/11. Kudos.
//
x47 Daniel Wilks & the committee : DISINFO: "Toasted Cars"
2016-06-02
from: Daniel Wilks DISINFO: Direct Energy Weapons caused the "Toasted Cars" Judy Wood supporters always bring up the claim that Space Beams "Toasted" all the cars at GZ from her Directed Energy Weapon. Here is her evidence followed by my rebuttal.
"Why were cars burning but the paper was not?" - Judy Wood REBUTTAL Here is a short paper written by Greg Jenkins that refutes the hypothesis of a DEW's and explains the "Toasted Cars" with science. DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence Really Nutty 9-11 Physics (Regarding "toasted cars") It's quite possible that a Pyroclastic flow could do that, explosions mixed with Nano Thermite produces a lot of heat. Did the dust clouds burn everything in their path? No. Why? Because the "hot stuff" was SPREAD OUT in the dust cloud... Here are a few witnesses of the hot debris cloud: "When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn't have time to put my coat back on, and I had some - well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back." - Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter "Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost." -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7 "A wave - a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block." - David Handschuh, New York's Daily News "And then we're engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me" - Paramedic Manuel Delgado "I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat...." - Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter "A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me" - Firefighter Louis Giaconelli "This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn't breathe" - Firefighter Todd Heaney The cars are going to get hit with some of this "hot stuff" as well, but it can't "brush itself off". You can start a car on fire with a cigarette butt! The cars we're burned by the debris cloud, while most of the people obviously did not let themselves get burned by tiny little ashes/or "hot stuff" In this video you can clearly see the pyroclastic flow cover all of the cars. The first photo is at the Embassy Suites parking lot. Some of these cars were most likely towed there to make access for emergency vehicles. As seen here: 911 ~ Vince Dementri CBS 2 (@ 2 minutes) NIST FOIA: WTC7 Fires Between Approx. 3:42pm and 4:05pm (Vince DeMentri, WCBS Raw) Dementri does say "this must have been Ground Zero where this blew up". Suggesting that the vehicles may have been towed behind B7. He's standing at West Broadway and Barclay. COP CAR #2723 Judy Claims cop car #2723 was damaged like this a mile away from gz. Cop car #2723 in two different spots. Proving it was towed! JREF Threads about this: They came in handy here. Cars don't park on the side of highways, double parked! Do you see parking lines? This is the shoulder of a road. Not parking spots. The vehicles were TOWED there to make room for emergency vehicles to get to Ground zero! 9/11 Ground Zero Demolition Debris Removal Operations 9/15/2001 ITN "What happened to the Firetrucks Engine?" If Judy did some research on fire trucks she would know that the engine is not under the driver seat but under the middle cab. So, it's not missing. It's right here. Here are more pics of "toasted" cars in the basement of the WTC. How did "Space Beams" damage these cars but not the roof or steel columns around it? Because it's not space beams. It looks more like oxidation and high temperature corrosion to me. Perfectly normal for a car fire. Judy Wood, how did your weapon "dustify" the thick steel inside the towers but only managed to "Toast" the cars in the basement and the streets? "Paper doesn't burn" As for the paper, Heat rises! The paper was also covered in dust, acting as a fire retardant. With the door handles, they are made of plastic which burns very easily. Many car parts are also made out of aluminum which has a much lower melting point than steel. In regards to the photo, the paper is not in the fire. The flame actually has to make contact with the paper. 9/11/2001: Many cars burned but papers not (@ 20 seconds) EXAMPLES OF CAR FIRES How about these cars, did "Space Beams" cause all these cars to burn and rust? Video of Burning and Burnt Cars from 9/11 and following days. Burnt/Rusted cars (Google Search) "Burnt out: Wrecked cars are seen next to a plume of black smoke in the port of Misrata yesterday" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381068/Hundreds-dead-bodies-streets-city-reduced-rubble-Full-horror-Misrata-siege-finally-emerges.html "Lasers have staggering range, can attack land or air-based targets and are dirt-cheap to fire, making them ideal for a military with one eye on the budget. Now, Lockheed Martin has worked out that the technology could also be used for stopping a car without resorting to lethal force. The company has been testing out a new fiber-optic laser, called ATHENA, which was able to burn through the engine manifold of a truck that was over a mile away." This is what a real D.E.W does to a vehicle. CONCLUSION: The "toasted cars" were damaged by falling debris from the towers collapse and were towed to this spot to make way for emergency/rescue vehicles. As for the rust, I gave many examples of car fires above, all which show rust. Several cars were on fire even before the towers collapsed. There is nothing scientific about her theories. Judy Wood is disinformation and her "empirical evidence" is base upon speculation and assumptions which have been refuted time and time again.
to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:28 AM
subject: More proof of your inaccurate assumptions of FGNW use on 91101
----
"Toasted Cars". She uses the unscientific term of "toast/toasted" over 50 times in this article.
drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg
-----
"Toasted Cars" Miles/Blocks away from GZ. (Police car #2723)
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/whypics/11_policeCar_DSC079
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/policecar3.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/21.jpg
---
9/11 Burning Cars Across From WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dtLsTNmapY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF97uHGJM_Q&
----
"Explain the firetruck missing its engine ..." - Judy Wood
----
9/11 Meltdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_TWGSdtWmo
----
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf
---
Richard Gage asked about Judy Wood: Conspiracy Con 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JqoYrXcjTA
"So these cooling falling molten iron droplets coold easily account for the so called "toasted cars." @5:50
---
Cars Were Not Burned By Energy Beams
http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/wtc/burnedcars/
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM
----
Judy Wood "Toasted" cars DEBUNKED in HD (again)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXMiyH4NkY
----
"Partially unignited thermite, thermate, and/or nano-thermite falling through the air as it continued to react would have produced molten iron droplets. A still-reacting thermitic mixture drifting down onto the cars in the dust plumes could easily account for the singeing of their paint and even igniting the cars (since the highly exothermic thermite reaction can quickly reach temperatures exceeding 4000 °F). A reporter and a firefighter (see the last two links at the end of this article), and perhaps others, described the dust cloud as feeling hot - whereas Wood claims that the dust clouds were cool."
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/505-faq-3.html
----
-----
WTC Tower 2 Debris Crushes Marriott, slow motion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNOf3up3HU
http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mr52b965bf.jpg
http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kb52b965bd.jpg
http://www.files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lf52b965c4.jpg
----
Judy can't keep her stories straight, first she claims DEW's caused all the rusted cars but then she shows us a picture of cars burning above. So which is it? Did "Space Beams" cause the rust or cause the fires? Here is live footage of it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fk_bmFe8Zg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKCSmnR3ow
----
http://www.i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723wtc.jpg
http://www.i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/2723.png
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208961
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189087
http://www.inlinethumb32.webshots.com/1311/1022378952031921077S600x600Q85.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/1026275165001123068S600x600.jpg
----
Here's video of a car being loaded onto a flatbed. @12 seocnds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ot7UCVsUaU
----
http://www.westshorefire.com/images/equipment_repair/firetrucks_up600.jpg
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/imgs/media.images/11664/art2026381.widea.jpg
----
http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%201
http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%202
http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%205
http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%206
http://www.ultruth.com/Parking%207
----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF97uHGJM_Q
----
http://www.newprophecy.net/Burned_cars_seen_near_plume_of_black_smoke_in_Misrata.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVNxpTk6XQ&
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200810/r307732_1347542.jpg
http://www.fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1623785_10202544010955298_206048485_n.jpg
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1190735905
http://www.google.ca/search?q=burnt+cars&client=safari&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SqIGU7SkIMO7oQSLzIKQAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=320&bih=372
----
----
High-rise tower catches fire in Emirati city of Sharjah
http://www.am590theanswer.com/news/articles/high-rise-tower-catches-fire-in-emirati-city-of-sharjah
-----
Tianjin explosions: dozens feared dead in blasts at Chinese port
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/13/china-explosions-dozens-feared-dead-blasts-port-tianjin
-----
Lockheed Martin's laser can stop a truck from over a mile away
http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/04/lockheed-martin-laser-athena-test/
-------
DISINFO: "Toasted Cars"
x48 Daniel Wilks & the committee : Moving goal posts into Dr. Wood
2016-06-02
from: Daniel Wilks
to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
date: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:46 PM
DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"
DISINFO: The WTC Spire "Dustified"
Here is a picture that Judy Wood likes to use as proof that DEW's were used to bring down the Towers. She claims that this spire turns to dust. Here is her poor quality videos.
"Dustified"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyM9y2xo4RQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4
"The Steel turned to dust" - Judy Wood
"I'm not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had some, like, pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down. But it's not a significant volume of material." - Judy Wood
------
REBUTTAL
First of all, Judy Wood does not source these 5 frames that she uses. The first 3 frames shows it falling and then the last 2 frames are not in sync. They are several seconds later. Why does Judy Wood not source where she got the video footage from?
Now let's watch from a better angle and quality. Video of the Spire that Judy Wood does not want to show you.
WTC1 Spires Dropped-not vaporized NIST FOIA: WTC1 Collapse (WNBC Dub10 54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes& (1:00)
-----
@1:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um64B1NZXes
-----
@45 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K33s99I2dcU
----
@2:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbD_Q6kmh8
-----
North Tower Spire Close Up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wozwfj2WM0
-----
Photo of Spire before it fell.
------
WHAT STEEL TURNED TO DUST? I SEE MORE THAN JUST PENNIES.
http://www.dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg
http://www.cavegrad.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5a3096a970c0120a5bacf28970c-800wi
http://www.ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2007/04/29/september_11_ground_zero.jpg
http://www.static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wtc-6.jpg
http://www.stopviolence.com/images/9-11/groundzero-cut.jpg
------
How did DEW's manage to only "toast" the cars but "dustified" the towers?
Judy Wood is full of it. Her job is to have people looking at pointless arguments while obfuscating the hard evidence of Controlled demolition and Nano thermite found in the dust. She is a plant in this movement.
------
CONCLUSION: DISINFO
It's clear to see that this Spire did not turn to "dust", it simply fell. I can agree that the concrete was pulverized into dust but the 1.6 Million tons of steel and debris that was recovered was spread out over a 600' radius.
x49 Maxwell Bridges : acknowledge receipt of your emails
2016-06-08
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: Daniel Wilks
date: Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM
subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
Dear Mr. Wilks,
I was out of town and off the grid over a long weekend, so only recently saw the many messages from your committee from June 2.
I may (or may not) get around to composing replies to the committee. I don't find you very sincere (see below).
I appreciate the effort to compose your work off-line in Word, but owing to the perceived insincerity, the only certain thing is that I will not open Word or Excel attachments from you. If you want me to read it, save it as a PDF and resend. (Or publish it to a blog.)
In scanning the many messages, the first noted instance of insincerity was in your malframing of images of vehicles along West Broadway and the car park. In my scan, I do not recall seeing you address the vehicles along West Broadway and the timing of image being before WTC-7 came down. Further, you conflate images of the car park from 9/17 with those taken on 9/11 before WTC-7 came down and even while the dust from freshly destroyed WTC-1 was still billowing about that documented vehicle fires. Ends up being a despicable, lying trick on your part.
Similarly, whereas the 2345(?) police car was towed to the bridge after destruction, it does not negate the facts (1) that images of the same car on fire but in a different location exist and (2) that the vehicle fire defies explanation by those who champion "gravity-driven pile-drivers."
Maybe this weekend or next week, I'll consider drafting a detailed response. Don't hold your breath or expect anything before then.
Have a good week.
//
x50 Daniel Wilks : Diving deeper into the woods
2016-06-09
from: Daniel Wilks
to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
date: Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:31 PM
subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
Dear El Senior (Maxwell)
Dear Mr. Wilks,
I was out of town and off the grid over a long weekend, so only recently saw the many messages from your committee from June 2.
I may (or may not) get around to composing replies to the committee. I don't find you very sincere (see below).
I appreciate the effort to compose your work off-line in Word, but owing to the perceived insincerity, the only certain thing is that I will not open Word or Excel attachments from you. If you want me to read it, save it as a PDF and resend. (Or publish it to a blog.)
(Already have and this is the full exposure of your willingness to lie in order to fabricate your new fiction regarding the denial of reality called delusion and decent in to such)
In scanning the many messages, the first noted instance of insincerity was in your malframing of images of vehicles along West Broadway and the car park.
(Yes it showed the photos were taken after the collapse of wtc 7 and therefore all of your following commentary is your opinion not based on any facts.)
Further, you conflate images of the car park from 9/17 with those taken on 9/11 before WTC-7 came down and even while the dust from freshly destroyed WTC-1 was still billowing about that documented vehicle fires. Ends up being a despicable, lying trick on your part.
(further the photos you did not scan and instead grabbed from Dr Judy wood's fraud site which means you are just repeating fiction. Also, since you have no time date or location all of your assumptions are incorrect. How about the photos were on 91201 and 91701 so you have nothing once again you are defeated by simple google search and going to AP archives. So that one fact and the fact that you cannot prove any of the radiological signatures were present on 91101 . Also paint chips are not thermite so when you lie about thermite the time photos were taken of vehicles and ignore the real cause of damage.)
Similarly, whereas the 2345(?) police car was towed to the bridge after destruction, it does not negate the facts (1) that images of the same car on fire but in a different location exist and (2) that the vehicle fire defies explanation by those who champion " gravity-driven pile-drivers."
(you are funny as you show photos that Dr woods lied about and claim you don't back her delusions, yet, speak about postal trucks and police cars removed from their location where they were damaged.)
Maybe this weekend or next week, I'll consider drafting a detailed response. Don't hold your breath or expect anything before then.
Have a good week.
(I am having a great week and have been at the CMA awards and fest in Nashville. You have fun creating your work of fiction as that is what you create as you have failed to prove any of your opinionated baseless claims. The fact is your lack of knowledge in regards to the clearing of roads and movement of two separate NYPD police cars one shown on 91101 and another on 91201 both have different numbers so different units and different cars. Good strawman arguments but still just fiction because facts eliminate your fake victim status. The lie here is the one you are selling. "O, what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive"
You have a great promising career in writing fiction about 91101 but nothing you have exchanged was factual. You omit the impact of the debris from the WTC towers and the collapse debris impact upon WTC 7 and have no idea of what caused wtc 7 to collapse. You are not a building engineer and you never have spoken to the WTC 7 Building Engineer I have and can pm him anytime or e mail him. That is how I know you misrepresent facts and replace them with delusions that never occurred on 91101.
The reality of 91101 is that you choose to create fiction to deny the facts and good at it biding your target audience is not educated. The argument against nukes being used at WTC on 9/11 is easy and simple, because there is simply zero evidence. Those making the argument for nukes, and DEW are cranks and charlatans.)
x51 Daniel Wilks : can't stop lying
2016-06-09
from: Daniel Wilks
to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
date: Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:44 PM
subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
Maxwell Bridges can't stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely. Understand he is just another fictional writer he has no facts to back his delusions.
from: Daniel Wilks
to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
date: Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:50 PM
subject: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
{mcb: empty email except included originals of previous emails in chain. Might have had some payload, like a file "max1.docx", which I didn't open.}
{mcb: Extracted from Max1.docx open in Word's safe mode. This version does not contain my original comments; they were removed to allow proper highlighting of these new comments brought to the discussion.}
+++
{Max you are a bad liar that has no degree of knowledge on how fission/fusion devices work nobody is referring to your fiction as DOD and actual reports on the physical use of FGNW are more accurate as they are written by Nuclear physics that understand that since you failed to prove any neutron activation of steel it just comes down to the fact is it is a fantasy and logical fail to come up with excuses and fantasy instead of physical facts.
Thanks for your opinion and it is comedy as you are oblivious to any real physical facts about the emergency markings in the WTC towers. It is your lack of research and knowledge of the WTC towers is now glaringly evident. Mr. Wilks is correct in what he stated as and is backed up by the following facts that you intentionally try to distract from again by mentioning the 767 aircraft which you really know about as much as you do the WTC towers.
+++
{it is time for you to produce valid evidence of radiation sickness due to exposure to the steel from wtc towers. Here is the problem they made a warship out of it and not a single crewmate has had radiation sickness from the WTC steel. Yes I have proof no fusion or fission of any sort took place and it has been presented to you over an d over again. "
+++
{ yes and your failure to properly quote Wilks shows you refabricating your claim this means again yes you do have to prove the steel was radioactive and had
+++
{Sorry to say the fact that sweater was used is physical fact and it produces chemical reations with hot steel that do create hydrogen sulfide gas also since you have no clue about chemistry or Nuclear physics or weaponization
+++
{really from photos of holding lots that the cars were towed to and they were taken on 91701 not on 91101 do again fail on your assumed cause as this is the same parking lot fires that were clearly being put out by fire personnel so just give this fantasy a rest because it did not happen on 91101
The answer to this is that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices are still on the drawing table as of late date of July 2014. They are on the "military wish list", they are being "outlawed in concept" by anti-nuclear watchdog organizations. But there is no proof of the existence of any such operative 4th gen nukes. So there were none in production in 2001 or previous and this would place your whole assumption and Dr judy wood's under fraudulent research therefor dismissed as very strong delusions without any physical proof to back them .
+++
{you are pathetic using the word Hypnotism is just proving you are ignorant. No you case failed when you could not verify the effects of a Fission/Fusion device on WTC steel which because there were no cases of radiation sickness you whole basis is gone.}
+++
{Duh you used the same lame DEW proof as a holding lot from September 17 2001 and failed to realize that it was not from 91101. Wilks never has been a liar you and Dr. woods show a photo of a storage yard on September 17 2001 as DEW proof and falsely claim it was taken on 91101 Wilks exposed this three years ago and you still persist with a lie. To support a delusional assumption of any Nuclear device being used because no physical evidence existed on 91101 or ever was there.}
+++
{we are supposed to take this from an person that failed to do an image search and found out that the photo was misrepresented from dr Judy woods whom you don't back her claims according to your own statements yet quite her debunked assumptions because these photos prove the road was cleared by
(All proved to be storage for cars removed from WTC complex underground garages and ascent streets. Sorry facts you omit}
{http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread853633/pg13}
+++
{Maxwell C. Bridges you are a con man that is what you are doing a fabricated conspiracy hussel with no proof to anything you asserting. You were shut down three years ago and again now because you have no proof of the fictional Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices they did not exist at the time of the incident so you have nothing not even a radiological signature as Wilks has pointed out."
+++
{Note image Google image search proves her pictures are already copyrighted previously to her false claims of copyright and she does not hold the registration numbers to the copyright and patent office to those photos. They bear the time and date state September 17.2001 so these are not proof of DEW but a willing ness to deceive people through a delusion that did not occur as a cause. You have logically failed to produce any proof of DEW or Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices that were not present on or before 91101 nor was any form of controlled demolition.}
{So you quote from a fraudulent researcher's site that is like you a scam artist making assumptions and being a talking head for fantasy because no physical evidence backs either assumptions so it is you whom speaks out of his ass in the end.}
+++
{So you quote from a fraudulent researcher's site that is like you a scam artist making assumptions and being a talking head for fantasy because no physical evidence backs either assumptions so it is you whom speaks out of his ass in the end.}
+++
{http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread853633/pg13}
The origin of the parking lot fire appears to be from the burnt out shack pointed out by the orange arrow.
The remnants of the shack can also be seen in this photo.
And you can see it's still ablaze in this photo but most of the car fires have been put out.
The shack most likely housed a gas vent which had underground pipe damage during the collapse. The fire started there and chain reacted through the cars.
There were reports of a gas explosion, this is most likely the source of those reports. It's the only evidence of one happening.
So why would the firemen put out the car fires and leave the shack to burn ? It's a really really bad idea to put out a gas fire. It's a much better idea to let it burn until someone turns off the gas.
You say you have 20 20 vision... Why don't you use it ?
+++
{we have already proved I is you whom is talking out of his ass when FGNW are theoretical and none have been created or produced and the just turned up in 2013 so they were not present on 91101 simply put they were not used and you lack any physical proof they were used so just stop the delusion.}
+++
{ I would not bother because it would prove you to be delusional El senior aka: yes it will prove that you know nothing about what you type and are trying to place nukes at WTC towers or at the WTC center sit for which no proof even the dust results prove no isotopes or radioactive steel.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
This is the URL Max Bridges posted on T&S ... it is the exact article by Andre Gsponer that I quoted from in my rebuttal above, which notes that this dialog pertaining to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons is all framed in the future-tense. In other words the whole thing is based on conjecture; what might be developed within the next 20 years or so.
Bridges should have noted such himself - but he will never admit that his entire gambit is based on conjecture spun to Woowooland by disingenuous rhetoric.
But it is a good article on nuclear physics, so anyone wishing to discover how totally full of shit Bridges is, would do well to read it. Debating whether nukes were used at WTC on 9/11 is like debating whether Martians actually attacked Earth during Orson Welles' broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938. }
Part 3: Attack Blogs and Cyberbullying
{ mcb:
The initial entries to this section were originally made as comments ~under~ this article. Some time later, the author decided to remove them (although this left a placeholder.) The comments were public and had been saved, so could easily be re-created. Later, more comments were submitted by the same author to be approved by MCB; and they are approved, but with a slightly different publication path and time schedule.
In effect, Part 3 pulled published and unpublished comments from the comment section ~below~ this article ~into~ this article (along with some emails), and then resets the comments section to a clean slate.
//}
x53 phantasypublishing : Maxwell, you are the disinformation agent
2018-03-28
phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at March 28, 2018 at 12:08 PM
{mcb: After 2018-04-03: "This comment has been removed by the author."}
Actually, Maxwell, you are the disinformation agent you print fictional statements about Phatasypublishing and basically write an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying. Since you have no background in Nuclear physics or Metallurgical sciences you cannot make any of the false and misleading claims about nukes or their non existent use on 91101. You simply lack the technical expertise to comment on the subject matter and ever keystroke proves you to be an misinformed fool. You already showed that in the email exchange that you lost.
We can substantiate the cars were moved from underground garages and other areas to staging areas for removal
x54 phantasypublishing : plagiarism example
2018-03-28
Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at March 28, 2018 at 12:21 PM
{mcb: After 2018-04-03: "This comment has been removed by the author."}
When each jet cut its way into a building, it took with it parts of walls and ceilings, Simensen said. Steel bars in those walls would have gashed its fuel tanks, which would have caught fire. With the plane positioned somewhere in the middle of the building, blanketed in debris and with no route for heat to escape, the temperature would have rapidly escalated, reaching 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit), the melting point of aluminum - of which there was 30 tons in each plane fuselage - within an hour. The molten aluminum would then have heated up further to between 800 and 850 C (1,470 and 1,560 F).
"Then molten aluminum becomes [as liquid as] water and has so much heat that it will flow through cracks in the floor and down to the next floor," Simensen explained in an email. There was an automatic sprinkler system installed in each ceiling, and it was filled with water. "When huge amount of molten aluminum gets in contact with water, a fierce exothermic reaction will take place, enormous amount of hydrogen is formed and the temperature is locally raised to 1,200 to 1,500 C," or 2,200 to 2,700 F.
Chaos rapidly ensues: "A series of explosions will take place and a whole floor will be blown to pieces," he wrote. "Then the top part of the building will fall on the bottom part, and the tower will collapse within seconds." This is what Simensen believes happened in the two World Trade Center towers.
This isn't obscure chemistry, Simensen says; the U.S. Aluminum Association has recorded 250 accidental molten aluminum/water explosions worldwide since 1980. "Alcoa in Pittsburgh [the worldwide leader in aluminum production] has done a series of such explosions in special laboratory in order to understand what can prevent such explosions and what are the most dangerous situations," he wrote. "For instance they let 30 kilograms [66 pounds] of aluminum react with 20 liters [5.3 gallons] of water, which resulted in a large hole 30 meters [98 feet] in diameter, and nothing left of the laboratory."
The third tower
A third building, World Trade Center 7, fell eight hours after the others. Scientists explained that this happened because of fires that ignited in the building upon the collapse of WTC 1, but some conspiracy theorists take it as further proof that the impacts of the hijacked airplanes weren't what brought any of the buildings down.
Simensen says his theory does not challenge the accepted scientific explanation of the collapse of WTC7.
Full summary
Oh BTW WTC 1 is the north tower and it is confirmed it did impact WTC 6 and 7. problem is you could not figure out the logistics of either WTC tower or the location of WTC 7 So this proves you know nothing logistically about the WTC site. Since there is no isotope or radioactive steel to prove your nuclear scam and Also Dr woods was told the device she lied about did not exist in 2001. So again You have been proven not to to have any expertise on what you are talking about and are incompetent to speak about WTC 1 and WTC 2 because you don't even know their location in the WTC complex. That just verifies what we have known all along. You area talking head with zero scientific knowledge and saying you can look at a Collapse of two skyscrapers and say DEW or Nuke is total idiocy Nor can you determine free fall by that either.
We are done with you as you have proven yourself to be an incompetent researcher.
x55 phantasypublishing : you do not have any permission
2018-03-28
Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at March 28, 2018 at 12:28 PM
{mcb: After 2018-04-10: "This comment has been removed by the author." It should noted that the comments before and after this were removed 2018-04-03. This one wasn't removed until after it was pointed out.}
Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff.
x56 Maxwell Bridges : four part response about living up to "phantasypublishing" namesake
April 3, 2018 at 3:07 PM
Dear Mr. Phantasypublishing, Part 1/4
I apologize for my tardiness in approving your three comments, waiting until I had time to compose a worthy response. I thank you for validating that the above discussions did transpire.
In your comments, you live up to the proper spelling of your namesake: "Fantasy Publishing." You wrote the fantasy:
"... you print fictional statements about Phatasypublishing and basically write an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying."
The above article consists of "real" (not "fictional") exchanges between your committee (hereafter simply as "you") and me {MCB}, whether on various public blogs (including yours, now de-commissioned) or through email. I, at least, attempted a rational discussion with you about 9/11 themes. My blog preserves my words and the context for my words, which meant re-purposing some of your words being responded to. Such techniques in old school publishing -- not fantasy publishing -- is called "quoting" and giving proper accreditation towards authorship.
The exchanges which occurred on ~public~ blogs had no expectations of privacy. No demands for keeping emails private were ever expressed. But even graciously accepting this faulty premise as valid for a brief moment, such privacy was first breeched by you by expanding the email recepients to "the committee." Fail.
Further, the seed email for part 2 was sent by me "to a dozen or so people with whom I had had 9/11 discussions in the past." It had no expectation of privacy. Worse, anybody Googling me at any point in time such as after receiving the seed email or during a discussion to ask "who the F is this {MCB}" would have found my blog that consists entirely of me re-purposing my words written in exchanges with other to get at 9/11 Truth.
You call the above "an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying."
You are too funny, Mr. Phantasypublishing. Go ahead and take me to court, el-oh-el!
If it gets that far (and it won't), the judge will ask both of us: Were we the original authors of the words attributed to each of us (me, you, and your committee) in this blog posting? Affirmative. Does the blog posting accurately represent the original discussion context? Affirmative. [I use Google's gmail, so it'll be easy for authorities to validate.]
Sincere cyber debate participants in the 9/11 realm often re-use their own words, in part or in whole, when they go from one forum or venue to another, be they blogs, websites, emails, or publications. If passages from the "alleged private" emails can be found published in other venues, then those "private" opinions are already public.
I admit, I haven't and won't do this leg work into your public words (because they aren't that worthy), but know that it would be fruitful. How so? The errors in your responses (still in the original form, like email) display all the classic signs of piss-pour copy-and-pasting: bad and inconsistent formatting, incomplete sentences, context that doesn't flow, etc. You were copying it from some place, and I'm betting that the source was used in multiple public venues.
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4
Of course, "cyberbullying" is the alleged crime. For the sake of the court records and for me to offer apologies, please identify specific passages authored by me where such deeds occurred aimed at you. The judge will also want to know what damages you have suffered from such.
I'll give you this one concession. This blog article as a collection of our exchanges does damage your reputation, but the culprit isn't me; it is you. You (the committee) have such poor argumentative, writing, formatting, and organizational skills, they reflect badly on your "publishing" abilities. I certainly wouldn't use or recommend you, and this is before I opinion that I think you are a deceitful liar and government shill. The lack of honesty is for me a show-stopper.
And there -- the accurate reflection of your publishing skills -- we have the real motivation for your after-thought: "Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff."
I don't need permission for reasons already given... and for it being well beyond the stature of limitations for when this "dastardly" alleged offense occurred. Showed up on my blog 2016-06-06, and your complaint 2018-03-28.
Because I'm having fun, let's continue to rip you a new one. You wrote: "Since you have no background in Nuclear physics or Metallurgical sciences you cannot make any of the false and misleading claims about nukes or their non existent use on 91101."
You don't know what my background is. But if that is the standard you are holding to, then you have no background (nor understanding) to be able to label my work "false and misleading claims about nukes (on 9/11)." If you can't point out what is "false or misleading", then you not only fail in convincing anyone of your position, but you expose yourself as a liar.
Stop projecting your weaknesses onto me: "You simply lack the technical expertise to comment on the subject matter ... "
You write typos and all: "... and ever keystroke proves you to be an misinformed fool. You already showed that in the email exchange that you lost." Well, if I lost the exchange(s) so badly, then why do you demand that your side -- the supposed "winning" side -- be removed? My guess is that maybe you weren't sincere and therefore didn't and don't stand behind your own words.
You wrote: "We can substantiate the cars were moved from underground garages and other areas to staging areas for removal"
So what? I'd even agree. The point your agenda won't let you admit is that no cars were moved from underground garages and other areas to staging areas (like all of West Broadway and the car park catticorner from WTC) for removal ~BEFORE~ WTC-7 came down. Torched cars that your pulverization at near gravitational acceleration with no energy added can't explain.
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4
Your second comment? Serves as an excellent example of your dishonesty.
How so? Most of it, you didn't even write yourself, nor did you have the integrity to give credit where credit was due.
New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies by Natalie Wolchover, September 22, 2011
The judge will not look favorably upon this plagarism, and neither will any clients considering your "publishing" services. Fantasy is right.
Ms. Wolchover wrote her article in 2011. I wrote my latest posting about FGNW in 2018. Mine is newer.
My premise is fourth generation nuclear devices, and you have yet to identify any specific part of that premise as being faulty or in error.
You wrote the following lie: "Since there is no isotope or radioactive steel to prove your nuclear scam".
If no tests for a given condition were ever undertaken or if such tests were delayed and scope limited to certain areas or samples, then you can't conclude such conditions didn't exist.
But they did.
Refer to section 9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras
It should be noted that FGNW aim the release of their highly energetic neutrons, so that most of the outer shell steel wall assemblies were never directly in the line of fire, and therefore wouldn't necessarily exhibit radioactive characteristics, particularly when tested days or weeks later.
As for the steel directly in the line of fire of those highly energetic neutrons? An anomaly measured by the RJ Lee Group from the dust in the lobby of a neighboring building (Deutsches Bank, that they repaired but then decided to demolish anyway) was a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres. You should look up the word "ablate."
// Part 3/4
Part 4/4
I just totally adored your "original" contribution to this rational discussion about 9/11 FGNW and defending the worthiness of your words.
"You have been proven not to to have any expertise on what you are talking about and are incompetent to speak about WTC 1 and WTC 2... That just verifies what we have known all along. You area talking head with zero scientific knowledge and saying you can look at a Collapse of two skyscrapers and say DEW or Nuke is total idiocy Nor can you determine free fall by that either."
But this little gem from you inspires truly riotous joyful laughter:
"We are done with you as you have proven yourself to be an incompetent researcher."
Coming from "the committee" I assume (ergo the "we") who did not attribute properly the authorship of most of the content of the very same comment, it is ironic who they prove to be "an incompetent researcher." But hardly 7 minutes later the true irony of their heartfelt promise -- "We are done with you" -- appears in the form of... [drum roll please]... another comment. Quite the failing of the integrity test to make a promise that is broken 7 minutes later.
I already addressed once what appeared 7 minutes later in their broken promise:
"Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff."
Full summary:
"Phantasy publishing" lives up to its name in this brief continuation of the Part 1 and Part 2 discussions about 9/11 that were the content of my blog posting.
When I look at "the committee" a little squinty-eyed, I swear if they don't reveal that their squad has a bot, whose AI is limited in not being able to talk intelligently, meaningfully, and originally on technical subjects. Generalizations, no deep dive into specifics. Locates quotes that don't apply, and plagarizes other's work as its own.
The reason "the committee" wants all content removed that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff is: legacy is a bitch for disinformation agents. Too much exposes inconsistencies and lies (even plagarism), which is why "Phantasy publishing" eventually torpedoed its Quinazagga wordpress blog.
And if there is any legitimacy to "Phantasy publishing" [I am not making a case either way, nor do I care], then yes, their reputation for "quality publishing" is called into question with each comment that contains blatant defects. It is the quality of their own words that dings their reputation, and could even be called against themselves "an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying." Talk about shooting themselves in the foot! With their own words.
To the tactical disinfo squad behind "the committee", you learn the important lesson here of "taking ownership of your words" and what can happen when others take control of your words. You can't as easily push the plunger and dynomite past project failures, clear the slate, and have no baggage for your online personas going into the next disinfo "Phantasy publishing" project. Your legacy... on my blog... such as it is... proves the existence of organized government trolls paid to infiltrate discussions on the internet and promote various agendas, but never the truth. The line from Scoobey-Doo: "And it would have worked, too, if not for those pesky kids." [Or if not for those pesky kids who saw Scoobey-Doo when originally aired now grown up.]
Good thing they are done with me.
// Part 4/4
x57 Maxwell Bridges : personalized notification email
2018-04-05
Dear Mr. Wilks,
Because I was tardy in approving your comments and replying to them, I'd figure I'd give you notification that I responsed.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html?showComment=1522793159628#c5673423779002644486
I had forgotten about the several spins years ago made on your carousel. When you complain about allegedly private email (that you exposed to a committee) being made public on my blog, I remind you of this passage also contained with in the collection and provides intention our our exchanges.
If you really want to discuss this, please data-mine your emails and post some comments to the blog. I'd prefer to see your position made more public as well as my response, or we're just wasting time.~Maxwell C. Bridges 2016-05-22
I thank you for finally posting some comments to the blog.
//
x58 phantasypublishing : data mined your article
2018-04-09
Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at April 9, 2018 at 3:19 PM
{mcb: Submitted to moderation 2018-04-09. Not approved and published the normal way; instead moved comment into content of article. Prevents it from being disappeared by author.}
{mcb: For clarification purposes, Mr. Wilks posted the header to an email from me from 2016, an excerpt from my blog comment (2018), and inserted some comments but with the notable distinction that they lack any tagging, delination, or formatting to separate his words from mine.}
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: Daniel Wilks
date: Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:39 PM
subject: Re: 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation
This proves you data mined your article and manipulated it into a true fascist appeal to emotion response pattern a common social engineering tactic
I'll give you this one concession. This blog article as a collection of our exchanges does damage your reputation, but the culprit isn't me; it is you. You (the committee) have such poor argumentative, writing, formatting, and organizational skills, they reflect badly on your "publishing" abilities. I certainly wouldn't use or recommend you, and this is before I opinion that I think you are a deceitful liar and government shill. The lack of honesty is for me a show-stopper.
And there -- the accurate reflection of your publishing skills -- we have the real motivation for your after-thought: "Maxwell C. Bridges you do not have any permission to post any private email from Phantasy publishing on your blog at all. Remove all content within 24 hrs that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff."
I don't need permission for reasons already given...(Yes you do) and for it is well beyond the statute of limitations for when this "dastardly" alleged offense occurred. Showed up on my blog 2016-06-06, (Yep you control the date you place on your article) and your complaint 2018-03-28 Yes and having a record archived of our conversation along with email headers that give the trace information on the senders and receivers. Since there is no statute of limitations on Liable and printing fake news like you do Maxwell enjoy the consequences of having the full email exchanges published along with the parts you omitted since they refute your claims and render further discussion with you without any merit. As to the claims of government, operatives ect Show me a check stub or just shut yp with the phony fascist social engineering ploy.
Sorry without any Strontium 290 or zinc-65 or HTO you have no basis for your speculation as there is no signature stops in the steel or building materials. so fail in the area of
FGNW Just as I stated before on my blog you don't know about the weapon system so time for another fictionalized assumption.
x59 phantasypublishing : can't stop lying
2018-04-09
Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at April 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM
{mcb: Submitted to moderation 2018-04-09. Not approved and published the normal way; instead moved comment into content of article. Prevents it from being disappeared by author.}
Maxwell Bridges can't stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely. Understand he is just another fictional writer he has no facts to back his delusions. Corrected from your omission about Daniel Wilks and his commentary on you degeneration into a delusional rant
"Phantasy publishing" lives up to its name in this brief continuation of the Part 1 and Part 2 discussions about 9/11 that were the content of my blog posting.
When I look at "the committee" a little squinty-eyed, I swear if they don't reveal that their squad has a bot, whose AI is limited in not being able to talk intelligently, meaningfully, and originally on technical subjects. Generalizations, no deep dive into specifics. Locates quotes that don't apply, and plagarizes other's work as its own.
The reason "the committee" wants all content removed that refers to phantasy publishing or its staff is: legacy is a bitch for disinformation agents. Too much exposes inconsistencies and lies (even plagarism), which is why "Phantasy publishing" eventually torpedoed its Quinazagga wordpress blog.
And if there is any legitimacy to "Phantasy publishing" [I am not making a case either way, nor do I care], then yes, their reputation for "quality publishing" is called into question with each comment that contains blatant defects. It is the quality of their own words that dings their reputation, and could even be called against themselves "an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying." Talk about shooting themselves in the foot! With their own words.
To the tactical disinfo squad behind "the committee", you learn the important lesson here of "taking ownership of your words" and what can happen when others take control of your words. You can't as easily push the plunger and dynomite past project failures, clear the slate, and have no baggage for your online personas going into the next disinfo "Phantasy publishing" project. Your legacy... on my blog... such as it is... proves the existence of organized government trolls paid to infiltrate discussions on the internet and promote various agendas, but never the truth. The line from Scoobey-Doo: "And it would have worked, too, if not for those pesky kids." [Or if not for those pesky kids who saw Scoobey-Doo when originally aired now grown up.]
Maxwell, do you see how many grammar errors are in your own text? Man you can apply your fascist grammar cop to your self before trying to hit others for integrity try having a little yourself.
Also here is a big thing for you to explain why did the fishbowl survive a nuclear blast? because there was no such device used.
https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html
You are refuted so are the use of any nuclear fusion device on 91101
x60 phantasypublishing : Absolutely! It is astounding...
2018-04-09
Posted by phantasypublishing to Maxwell C. Bridges at April 9, 2018 at 6:39 PM
{mcb: Submitted to moderation 2018-04-09. Not approved and published the normal way; instead moved comment into content of article. Prevents it from being disappeared by author.
Note that it reads like a separate committee member posting under the same alias but mere minutes later.}
Absolutely!
It is astounding that people simply ascribe power and effect they wish for to the technology of their choice or imagination. Nukes at ground zero is no different in that respect than Judy Wood's steel-dustifying-space-a-beams. For that matter its no different than the ridiculous notion that a layer of thermete "paint" could melt the steel members of the towers or those silent high explosives are even possible.
x61 Maxwell Bridges : will not venture to your lame blog
2018-04-10
{mcb: Email.}
Dear Mr. Wilks,
I don't know if you noticed, but in Part 2 of my blog posting "Playing Disinfo Games", I let you have the last words words (x50 and x51 comments.) Why? Because they were so muddled and fucked up in their reasoning, writing, and formatting, they didn't need me to wallow in their incoherence and point out their mud is dirty. Their failings spoke for themselves. They already fit the established trend-line.
For a similar reason, I will not venture to your lame blog to converse with you.
https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html
"Unfaithful in the small, unfaithful in the large." Your formatting looks like crap; you don't know how to quote someone else's words and in many cases their words appear to be yours or vice versa. I tried not to expose your email address in what I re-purposed, yet you do this dishonorable and unkind act to me, so that bot's can vacuum it up and start sending me spam. Your lame efforts give the impression that I might have participated there. Similar to the already established dishonesty trend-line in your character, your efforts expose all of the reasons why no one should bother with your publishing services.
Yes, my work has minor typos and errors, but not blatant ones and consistently crappy formatting that reflects poorly on everyone.
I have not approved your three new comments yet. I'm on the fence about whether or not I should. If I do, it won't be until the weekend or later and it will be in conjunction with my response (that you aren't going to like.)
Funny the two of three comments that you removed from my blog. They were mostly your original words, and it wasn't as if I didn't quote enough from them for readers to know what you said. And idiot that you are, you leave the one comment that wasn't even authored by you (nor was it properly credited) so as to keep in place the dishonesty trend-line that was first established by you on 2013-06-11. [Or maybe, idiot team that your committee is, someone else with the same handle posted the second comment and you didn't have permission to remove it.]
For the record, I do not champion deep underground nukes. You would know that (a) if you had read my work, (b) you weren't dishonestly trying to set up a straw-man to lamely knock over, (c) your AI algorithms were so limited in what it can copy & paste.
And with regards to this quote from you:
Since there is no statute of limitations on Liable and printing fake news like you do Maxwell enjoy the consequences of having the full email exchanges published along with the parts you omitted since they refute your claims and render further discussion with you without any merit.
There is no statute of limitations on murder, but there is on defamation, libel or slander, so if you are going to take me to court, be quick about it. Alas, even if you beat the clock, you have two huge hurdles that you can't overcome. (1) Identifying the defamation. If what offends you is proven to be true or a valid character trait, then it isn't defamation. (2) Identifying damages. If you can't prove monetarily or otherwise how the alleged defamation hurt you, then you'll never make it to court, because ain't no lawyer going to represent you if there's no cut in the winnings for him.
You should have noticed that whenever I might have called you a name -- like "liar" --, I always accompanied it with proof: like the words you plagiarized from others that have happened just in our encounters alone three or four times over the years.
You, on the other hand, haven't proven anything when you called me: "fascist", "a liar", etc. Devoid of explanation or proof, it becomes indeed just ad hominem and defamation.
If you're so good at copying & pasting words, why don't you copy (several small) passages from my work and identify in between each what is wrong, false, or in error? You don't, because you are a weasel and a paid-to-post troll without the educational foundation or debunking prowess to take on my premise head-on.
What is really sad about you. Not only do you attempt a lame straw-man into deep underground nukes, but you plagiarize the words from where you got it.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-nuke-cancer-from-9-11-presstv-gordon-duff.t3515/
Dishonest to the core, you are.
Needless to say, if there be any continuation to your tom foolery on my blog, it will be at my pleasure and your expense.
//
x62 phantasypublishing : you cant answer to the information
2018-04-10
{mcb: Purposely copied over formatting from source to demonstrate how poorly it was done in the arriving email.}
from: phantasypublishing
to: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
date: Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:48 AM
subject: Re: [Maxwell C. Bridges] New comment on Playing Disinfo Games.
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
******
Yes, Maxwell, you cant answer to the information can you because it refutes all of your nuclear fiction.
Also, you cannot publish any of the content of this email as the notice tells you it is protected under federal privacy laws.
EPIC - Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA
Better read up on it
x63 Maxwell Bridges : disclaimer on your emails
2018-04-10
from: Maxwell C. Bridges
to: phantasypublishing
date: Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM
subject: Re: [Maxwell C. Bridges] New comment on Playing Disinfo Games.
Dear Mr. Wilks,
Whereas you now try to put a disclaimer on your emails to prevent me from re-purposing them, it doesn't do you any good if the email itself isn't worthy or has no valuable content. Furthermore, if your words get published by you to a public forum, then fair-use allows me access to them.
Despite "publishing" in your blog name, it seems you don't grasp what that means, what its duties are, and what limitations it has. Here is the definition of fair-use.
"[B]rief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder."
(a) Your blog does not have "brief excerpts" from me. And has precious little criticism from you in comparison.
(b) What you claim is from me isn't completely. You've misquoted me in many places, because you try to insert your "criticism" in what your shoddy formatting tries to imply is my email, my posting, or my words. But owing to an ongoing complaint about your crappy formatting skills (and justifying that your publishing services are bogus), no one can easily tell where my words start/end and your criticism starts/ends. A line of asterix's doesn't cut it alone, because my source text also often contains such as does yours. You need to step up to the plate and clearly mark your words inserted into mine with something about your authorship. Like [PP] or [DW] along with starting/ending lines.
(c) This is the third time I respectfully ask you to remove my email address from your fair-use. It is not easy to get to places on my blog where it is exposed, on purpose. I've already told you why, and it has to do with AI bots scraping your blog for email addresses to spam. Your outing of such (when such isn't required or justified) fits into the very definition of cyberbullying.
Turns out, when you remove the header copied (with formats) from gmail and type in a better formatted heading TO ALL PASSAGES attributed to me, not only will you be able to do me the REQUESTED courtesy of removing my email, BUT your blog will gain some control over the formatting that presently overruns the right margin. (Underlying images and CSS definitions from gmail that don't match your blog's formats are what is causing the issue.)
You want to be a publisher? Then act like one who is also responsible to accuracy, truth, and courtesy.
You were pulling the same shit in 2013, which Part 1 documents pretty clearly and complains about. Plagiarist that you continue to be, you were re-purposing my words POORLY on your blog. You purposely screwed up the formatting and inserted your whacky text with no indication that such were from you.
Finally, you claim that I "cant answer to the information can you because it refutes all of your nuclear fiction." The reason I can't respond to the plagiarized information from other sources is that it ("deep underground nukes") has nothing to do with my 9/11 premise of FGNW, which isn't as fictional as you imply. Despite your bluster, you obviously, still, after all this time, have neither read my premise nor followed links into my sources, such as Dr. Andre Gsponer.
Just like your quinazzaga blog predecessor, your phantasypublishing blog has the same dishonest traits.
You called my posting: "an attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying." It wasn't, I proved why. But your recent blog efforts? They indeed are attack pieces that cross the line to cyberbullying. You expose my email; you misquote me; you plagiarize; you write and format poorly. My government dollars hard at work, eh?
//
x64 Maxwell Bridges : Summary; attack blogs that cross the line to cyberbullying
2018-04-11
Some irony in this Part 3 is that the starting point for Part 1 was MCB discovering his words being plagiarized on the Quinazagga blog after an encounter on Truth & Shadows. The issues were that:
- MCB wasn't initially given proper credit.
- The re-purposing of MCB's words was so poorly formatted in the new venue, it reflected badly on mcb and the poster.
- The re-publishing inserted commentary that was neither flagged nor formatted to distinguish a different author. It attributed to MCB words that didn't belong to MCB.
- Many other articles on the site were plagiarized. They offer neither credit to the original author nor a link to the source. If any commentary was made, it could not be distinguished from the original author.
Part 3, in a turnabout way, begins with phantasypublishing discovering that "their" words from blog exchanges and email exchanges were re-purposed by MCB in Parts 1 & 2 above. (phantasypublishing suggests they are a committee or more than one person, and although commenting with the same alias, sometimes says or does things to indicate more than one might be involved.)
phantasypublishing posted some comments.
- phantasypublishing calls MCB names and tries to discredit the Part 1 & 2 this article.
- phantasypublishing takes offense at the re-use of their words.
- phantasypublishing ries to refute the MCB's (FGNW) premise by plagiarizing someone else's earlier work that isn't applicable to the FGNW premise.
- phantasypublishing tries to make the claim that MCB doesn't have permission for such activities.
- MCB handily rebutes his arguments.
- phantasypublishing removes the content of those comments (but not the placeholder indicating comments were made and by whom).
- phantasypublishing creates two blog "attack article that crosses the line to cyberbullying" on 2018-04-09.
-
9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work. It consists of several emails exchanged from 2016-05-18 and 2016-05-25 between me and Mr. Wilks. Part 2 above already publishes my words and much of Mr. Wilks' words. When the entirety of his message wasn't included in Part 2, sufficient content from his message was quoted to indicate accurately what mcb was responding to.
As can be seen in the newer Phantasy Publishing efforts, the content that mcb purposely omitted: (a) contained in most cases most of mcb words (b) poorly formatted and (c) sometimes with short comments from them inserted in between (d) sometimes, but not always, delineated or formatted to distinguish his words from my orignal.
Because phantasypublishing's browser was in a wide configuration while viewing their Gmail, their copy actions to grab email header & time stamp information snagged HTML formats that they then inadvertently pasted into their article. When rendered, these wide-margin formats over-ride those of their blog and cause free-flowing text to over-run the right margins of their blog's content area. The email information exposes mcb email address to the world, but worse to AI bots who can scrape such data and spam mcb. - more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges. It consists of the MCB four part blog comment from 2018-04-03. However, it misquotes, because (a) they inserted short comments (b) sometimes, but not always, delineated or formatted in a manner to distinguish their words from mcb orignal.
- phantasypublishing sends MCB an email with a disclaimer about the email being confidential. MCB email response.
- phantasypublishing makes three more comments under this article that were parked in the moderation queue.
x65 Maxwell Bridges : The Response Plan
2018-04-11
MCB has a comment in phantasypublishing's moderationg queue asking them to remove all occurences of MCB's email address. This request was repeated in an email. This serves as another notice. {The main issue is that exposing my email address in a public forum allows detection and email spamming by web bots.}
The unpublished comment from MCB on phantasypublishing blog together with the unacted-on request to remove MCB's email address clearly demonstrate how discussions would go: one-sided in their favor and with a high probability (a) of not being published, (b) of being misquoted in their sloppy copies, and (c) of suffering bad formatting that dings the reputations of all participants.
phantasypublishing has a track record of removing their words later if control left in their power. This was exhibited by the three comments whose contents they removed and by the now long-disappeared Quinazagga blog.
In yet another reversal over control and ownership of words, this response plan does not engage on phantasypublishing's home court and keeps discussions here, while remaining fair, true, and faithful to all participant's words and efforts.
Part 3 pulled in all published and unpublished comments (& emails) from ~under~ this article ~into~ this article. The battle field remains here.
x66 Maxwell Bridges : The Response: the battle field remains here.
2018-04-11
This entry in Part 3 was authored after the response plan was conceived regarding how to properly handle phantasypublishing's emails, attack blog articles, and comments to this blog.
This entry becomes the starting point for the now zeroed comment section. It addresses their last comments (now published above), odd's and end's from their last emails, and from their blog.
Expounding upon arguments already made into the legitimacy of re-purposing exchanges from email, let us start with some quotations from ECPA sources that phantasypublishing provided.
ECPA does include important provisions that protect a person's wire and electronic communications from being intercepted by another private individual. In general, the statute bars wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, possession of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping equipment, and the use or disclosure of information unlawfully obtained through wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. The Wiretap Act prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting or attempting to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication by using any electronic, mechanical or other device. To be clear, an electronic device must be used to perform the surveillance; mere eavesdropping with the unaided ear is not illegal under ECPA.
I did not unlawfully intercept phantasypublishing's wire and electronic communications, so ECPA does not apply. phantasypublishing's disclaimer has similarities to an example disclaimer given at the ECPA link.
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Allow me to call attention to the phrase in the disclaimer: "for the sole use of the intended recipient." Because I am the intended recipient of phantasypublishing emails, I alone can choose what "use" I deem appropriate. That "use" is demonstrated in the re-purposing being done. Even were that disclaimer on all previous emails, no foul has been committed.
Further research into email disclaimers not undertaken by phantasypublishing would have revealed: Email Confidentiality Disclaimers: Annoying but Are They Legally Binding?
Confidentiality obligations generally arise via contract, such as by signing a non-disclosure agreement (in my business law practice, I deal with NDAs a lot). Contracts, as you likely know, require both parties to agree - what the law calls a "meeting of the minds." Dropping a standard confidentiality disclaimer at the bottom of every company email doesn't unilaterally impose on a recipient of an email a duty of confidentiality. It does not unilaterally bind the recipient to an agreement regarding the email footer language since you can't unilaterally impose an obligation of confidentiality on someone. If they aren't already obligated to keep the information you share with them confidential (e.g., due to having signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or for some other reason), your email disclaimer isn't going to change that - the recipient is free to do what they want with your email.
Relating this to phantasypublishing's disclaimer, imagine they wrote words to the effect: "the intended recipient is not permitted to publicly re-publish any content from this email, and any review, use, distribution, or disclosure outside of email is strictly prohibited." The disclaimer blatently tries to impose unilaterally an obligation of confidentiality on me, which I was not previously obligated to. I would remain free to do what I want with your email. You wrote:
Also, you cannot publish any of the content of this email as the notice tells you it is protected under federal privacy laws.
Wrong. As the intended recipient who has been granted by you "sole use" of your email, it falls outside the protection of federal privacy laws, and I most certainly can publish its content if my "sole use" can and has so decided.
Your committee, or AI algorithms, are being proven not all that intelligent.
Because this is so fun, let us continue into responding to your comments from 2018-04-09. After copying a header from a 2016-05-24 email, you proudly claim:
This proves you data mined your article and manipulated it into a true fascist appeal to emotion response pattern a common social engineering tactic {mcb: no period.}
The email header doesn't prove squat. Instead, I explain where the content came from and give you credit. "Data mining" isn't a crime, neither is fair-use re-purposing your words for the sake of criticism that I have a lot of fun writing. I wouldn't call it "manipulation", because I am fair and true to your original words, credit you, and provide more appealing formatting.
And then your stupid AI algorithms run completely off the rails with this gem: "a true fascist appeal to emotion response pattern a common social engineering tactic!" Woohoo! If you don't explain how my efforts are "fascist," then you fail. In case you haven't noticed, my re-purposing of your words MOCKS YOU mercilessly, and laughter is indeed the "emotion response pattern" I desire from latter-day readers stumbling upon this tedious works.
I wrote: "I don't need permission for reasons already given." You replied: "(Yes you do)." To which I answer, "No, I don't as has been proven one more time and that in the face of an attempted disclaimer."
Regarding content showing up on my blog on 2016-06-06, you wrote: "(Yep you control the date you place on your article)." You are absolutely correct, I do control the date and time that I put on my blog articles, and plead guilty to pre-dating and post-dating content in a manner that does not agree with the actual date of when publishing activities occurred. However, the date stamps on individual entries are as accurate as I could get them with respect to when they happened, and the publish date of the entire piece is within its date scope. As I scratch the recesses of my recollection, maybe my collecting, collating, formatting, and publishing efforts were drastically procrastinated. Proof, Part 1 from 2013 didn't see the light of day (on the blog at least) until this compilation did: already three years procrastination. Maybe the work wasn't actually completed until the end of 2017 and then pre-dated to the 2016 date.
Doesn't matter. Copious reasons have already been given that permits me to re-use all content. I do so fairly. No defamation comes from me. You can't substantiate (a) financial damage or (b) that my words -- as opposed to yours -- were the source.
Yes and having a record archived of our conversation along with email headers that give the trace information on the senders and receivers.
And your archived Gmail record of our conversation agrees with both my archived Gmail record and the dates published in this re-purposing.
Since there is no statute of limitations on Liable and printing fake news like you do Maxwell.
You meant "libel", which as explained in an email, does have a statute of limitations. Maybe with my publication procrastination you could argue that today is still within that time period to take me to court. I encourage you to do so. The two things you don't have: (1) Defamation by me aimed at you. I substantiate the bad names (e.g., "liar") that I call you, making them valid character traits and not defamation. Turnabout: plenty of defamation by you aimed at me, because you don't substantiate. Plenty of your own words not reflecting well on you. (2) Damages; you don't have any... except what your own words and publishing efforts reflect on you.
As for the charge of me "printing fake news," I assume you mean my FGNW premise. Prove the premise fake -- section by section --, or be proven fake.
... enjoy the consequences of having the full email exchanges published along with the parts you omitted since they refute your claims and render further discussion with you without any merit. As to the claims of government, operatives ect Show me a check stub or just shut yp with the phony fascist social engineering ploy.
Meh. I've already critiqued the failings of your efforts that makes them practically unreadable. The parts I omitted I was under no obligation to keep, let alone in their original form. Relevant passages from omitted emails were accurately quoted and credited. As your blog shows in publishing the "omitted" works, I made the correct editorial decision.
"As to the claims of government operatives," you give me nothing to dissuade me from the belief that you are an agenda-defender, whether paid or for sport. You aren't open-minded, haven't reviewed my work, haven't vetted its sources, and try to debunk it not only by plagiarizing other people's work but also by choosing supposed debunking sources that are not even relevant to my FGNW premise. Further, those debunking sources have been proven to come from other OCT (official conspiracy theory) trolls who alone accept them as true, who ignore their errors and deficiencies, who ignore the debunking of those same debunking sources, and who doggedly keeps promoting them.
Rational, objective, and real people are more prone to admit "I don't know; keep talking so I can weigh your words; let me check into it, and then I'll render my judgment." They can change their minds in the presence of new information and new analysis.
Sorry without any Strontium 290 or zinc-65 or HTO you have no basis for your speculation as there is no signature stops in the steel or building materials.
Sorry, but the USGS documents quite clearly the metals you list and more as fingerprints to nuclear use. You wrote "HTO" and conveniently forget that a whole dog-and-pony-show report was made on tritium, which was measured. You can't prove "no signature stops in the steel or building materials," because they didn't allow anybody with credentials access to such materials to measure for such. At best, neither of us can use it as an argument, and the case will be decided based upon the proponderence of other evidence (that you avoid. Ho-hum.)
so fail in the area of FGNW Just as I stated before on my blog you don't know about the weapon system so time for another fictionalized assumption.
So fail in the area of debunking FGNW. Gotta dive into it section by section if you want to debunk it. The companion comment from three some hours later takes another tact.
Maxwell Bridges can't stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely. Understand he is just another fictional writer he has no facts to back his delusions. Corrected from your omission about Daniel Wilks and his commentary on you degeneration into a delusional rant
I'll just let that error filled comment sit and go right into the next one.
Maxwell, do you see how many grammar errors are in your own text? Man you can apply your fascist grammar cop to your self before trying to hit others for integrity try having a little yourself.
Also here is a big thing for you to explain why did the fishbowl survive a nuclear blast? because there was no such device used.
https://phantasypublishing.blogspot.com/2018/04/911-fgnw-natural-evolutionary-path-and.html
You are refuted so are the use of any nuclear fusion device on 91101
Discussion is here, not on phantasypublishing. And what is on your blog doesn't address FGNW. It addresses a straw-man in the form of "deep underground nukes." Six minutes later, you posted:
Absolutely!
It is astounding that people simply ascribe power and effect they wish for to the technology of their choice or imagination. Nukes at ground zero is no different in that respect than Judy Wood's steel-dustifying-space-a-beams. For that matter its no different than the ridiculous notion that a layer of thermete "paint" could melt the steel members of the towers or those silent high explosives are even possible.
More inapplicable dribble in a straw-man that has precious little straw and doesn't get knocked down by your lame analysis, either. You're putting way too little effort into this and will never succeed, except in demonstrating the bent of a disinfo operative.
For shits and giggles, I went over to
- 9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work
- more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges
With respect to the first blog posting, anything of importance that you wrote has been addressed in detail and in depth in Part 2 already. Ho-hum. Your only value-add is in exposing my email address to bots and spammers. Not very honorable of you at that, and this represents at least the fourth time I've humbly requested that you remove my email addresses from your "scholarly effort." My email address isn't relative to the discussion. [You may however reference my blog's URL: Maxwell C. Bridges.]
With respect to the second blog posting, I've taken the liberty of extracting all obvious insertions by you into the re-purposed text from me.
********
You should look up ionizing radiation and take into the reality While various neutron source devices have been developed, some of them based on fusion reactions, none of them are able to produce an energy yield, either in controlled form for energy production or uncontrolled for a weapon. so no FGNW was used
*******
{mcb: removed mcb passages because more accurate source is here.}
****
Maxwell C. Bridges You are not only a liar but a bad one at that and Fascist such as yourself generally try to use this appeal to emotion to gain attention to a false portrayal of PhantasyPublishing sorry in this case you omitted sources and then lied about it. Just like changing your name to suit your agenda you try to change the opinion of the readership then attempting to make an false summery to a fictional exchange you never fully were truthful about.
*******
{mcb: removed mcb passages because more accurate source is here.}
****** Again information sharing is not plagiarism and your lack of knowledge about Cornell law University's private site called chillingeffects and false claims of copyright where there is no registered copyright number given. this resulted in an investigation from the FBI into why they are falsely acting as a government entity which they are not and therefore their whole censorship ploy is exposed. The article was written in 1988 and has a copyright that is registered to a staff member, not the fraudulent author.
***
{mcb: removed mcb passages because more accurate source is here.}
******
Again you made baseless bullshit statements that have no bearing on PhantasyPublishing Here is something for you since you can't read any of the WTC NIST reports you lack the technical expertise to discuss the impact of the jet airliners on each skyscraper. This is why you bring up some fictional Nuclear device Demolition and have no credibility in regards to any generation of Nuclear devices a matter of fact your response just closed the case on your delusion it is like arguing with a flat-earther from the space station orbiting above them
Also all of your FGN {mcb: sic}
From the middle, sharing is plagiarism when the original author and/or link to the source material are not present, and when such shoddy efforts leave the impression that it is your work.
The above demonstrates a clear and fearful avoidance of tackling any specifics from my FGNW work. Piss pour punctuation, sentence structure, formatting, logic, reasoning, etc. provides insight into the author. All pretty funny particularly when the 2018-03-28 comment is considered: "We are done with you as you have proven yourself to be an incompetent researcher." Not one, but two blog postings that are collections of my work, four comments to this article, and one email document "being done with me."
You're not making a convincing counter-argument (to FGNW). You validate that your collected words -- whether on your blog, my blog, or email -- are more damaging to your public reputation and perceived intelligence than anything I write.
I would tell you to keep up the good work, as long as you do it elsewhere and don't involve me. {The real reason for the Response Plan is that it wraps everything together neatly into one package and could be considered complete. No further Parts are expected or desired.}
//
x67 phantasypublishing : with no registered copyright numbers on file to prove a legal copyright
2018-04-16
April 16, 2018 at 9:45 PM
Another thing that Phantasypublishing did was to expose mcb as a pathological liar and fascist puppet The whole Truth and Shadows is a political propaganda machine whom gets their script from St. Petersburg in the Soviet Federation.
How can MCB even come up with his fraudulent DMCA takedown with no registered copyright numbers on file to prove a legal copyright. So this censorship is how 911truther fascist try to suppress facts so they can manufacture fake news like Truth and shadows.
x68 Maxwell Bridges : When just one author is involved in the creation of a work, s/he can rightfully claim copyright.
2018-04-17
Copyright protection arises automatically once an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed; e.g., written, filmed, recorded. It does not require that a copyright notice be placed on the work, that the work be published, or that the work be deposited or registered with the Copyright Office or any other body.
The author of a copyrighted work may be a person or an institution. Typically, the author of a work owns the copyright in the work. However, under the U.S. Copyright Law, for a work made for hire, that is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of employment or a specially ordered or commissioned work, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author.Copyright therefore protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. ... Under the U.S. Copyright Law, exclusive rights are granted to an author or owner of a copyrightable work... {mcb: e.g., literary work} ... The exclusive rights provided by copyright are completely divisible. Copyright in a work vests initially in the author or authors of the work. However, the author may assign some or all of his or her rights to another, e.g., to a publisher, if the work has appeared in a formal publication, who then becomes the owner of the rights assigned.... When just one author is involved in the creation of a work, s/he can rightfully claim copyright. ... A copyright owner now has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare spin-off works based on the copyrighted work, and to sell, perform and/or display the copyrighted work in public. ... The author of a derivative work is also entitled to copyright protection. Derivative work refers to a work that is based on, or modifies, one or more preexisting works. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to prepare or authorize the preparation of a derivative work based on the copyrighted work. If a derivative work, considered as a whole, represents an original work of authorship, it may be separately copyrightable. However in such cases, the copyright covers only original portions of the derivative work.
Contrary to Phantasypublishing assertions, MCB does not require "registered copyright numbers on file to prove a legal copyright" on this blog.
"A copyright owner now has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare spin-off works based on the copyrighted work." This is what has happened to text authored by MCB in email and in blog comments that now appears in a compilation work.
x69 Maxwell C. Bridges : Plagiarism charges run afoul
2018-04-17
There I was, applying finishing touches to the comments rolled up into the article, when I notice (a) a comment on 2018-04-16 from PhantasyPublishing under more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges and (b) new or possibly overlooked commentary within posting directed at me.
Again you made baseless bullshit statements that have no bearing on PhantasyPublishing
This may have been in reference to my assessment that "quality publishing" is called into question with each comment from PhantasyPublishing that contains blatant defects, which is proven not "baseless."
I went on to spuculate:
Your legacy... on my blog... such as it is... proves the existence of organized government trolls paid to infiltrate discussions on the internet and promote various agendas, but never the truth.
Here's my perspective on the matter. Truth always finds a way of coming out, but can often make the powers that be (PTB) uncomfortable when made too public. The effort, now 15+ years along, to suppress the 9/11 nuclear truth has had many phases that has roped the public and even the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement within "no 9/11 nukes" confines. Yet, a solitary, truth-seeking, fanatical, OCD individual persists. His FGNW premises could become a dangerous seed for what grows in public thought.
The PTB has gotten their minions to delete the FGNW message and ban its proponent in other venues, from certain Facebook forums to Let's Roll forums, to Clues forum, to 9/11 Blogger, to Quinazagga (and beyond). Archiving and publishing my own words was within my control through my website and blogging efforts. From Authorship in Copyright:
Copyright protection arises automatically once an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed; e.g., written, filmed, recorded. It does not require that a copyright notice be placed on the work, that the work be published, or that the work be deposited or registered with the Copyright Office or any other body.
...
When just one author is involved in the creation of a work, s/he can rightfully claim copyright. ... A copyright owner now has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare spin-off works based on the copyrighted work, and to sell, perform and/or display the copyrighted work in public.
The PhantasyPublishing derivative works are simply the next disinformation tactic when they can't otherwise affect the medium of publication. The effort is purposely poorly done (a) from selection of the source to mock (e.g., not FGNW premises), (b) to the shoddy publication efforts, (c) to straw-men arguments, (d) to weak reasoning. The short-term purpose is to distract me. The long-term purpose is to distract Google with lots of references to me so that its disinformation landing page bubbles up in searches done on MCB and my premise.
{mcb: HybridRogue1 wrote two attack blog articles [1] [2]. PhantasyPublishing now has two [1][2]. Facebook has probably several postings in various forums attacking me as disinformation.}
PhantasyPublishing wrote:
Here is something for you since you can't read any of the WTC NIST reports you lack the technical expertise to discuss the impact of the jet airliners on each skyscraper. This is why you bring up some fictional Nuclear device Demolition and have no credibility in regards to any generation of Nuclear devices a matter of fact your response just closed the case on your delusion it is like arguing with a flat-earther from the space station orbiting above them
I've been through the WTC NIST reports on other 9/11 carousel rides (on my blog) and do not desire another spin. Though as a benchmark into PhantasyPublishing's agenda and mind-set, the committee has seemingly never typed into Google "debunking WTC NIST reports" to learn from many sources the many ways the WTC NIST reports have been analyzed point-by-point and found lacking, if not outright deceitful.
The discussion is Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices or Weapons (FGND/FGNW); not faulty WTC NIST reports.
PhantasyPublishing wrote:
Also, all of your use of http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm is obvious and it is refuted http://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm just as your false claims about the alleged encounter on
Truth and Shadows that never occurred just like the inability to produce proof of a valid registered copyright
Today (2018) is the first time I recall seeing http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm. Based on the comments, it appears to have been authored in 2008. It has many nuggets of truth, such as its analysis of Dr. Steven Jones. Portions of the work align with my sources and my alternative analysis. However, the article limits itself to (a) singular and large nuclear device (b) positioned in the lowest levels. My FGNW premise is either (a) multiple and tactical nuclear devices positioned at various levels, or (b) singular pulsing tactical nuclear device dropped down the elevator shaft.
I recall seeing http://www.11syyskuu.net/H-device.htm before, because I've seen "Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11" (2006) but it was a long time ago and my views have since deviated. The article you linked had a subtitle that said: "WTC hydrogen bomb theory refuted," which is true. A conventional hydrogen bomb would have been to energetic for the observed 9/11 evidence. But if you closely follow the discussion (which PhantasyPublishing didn't and is another tell of disinformation agenda), it diverges into "mini-hydrogen bombs" plural and other deviants, just like FGNW does. As with many pages on the internet, it has broken links. Here is the fix to the link that says "Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices".
PhantasyPublishing wrote:
Then again like the true fascist do they take the article and repurpose it for their own agenda propagation. The real facts are that from the start Maxwell C. Bridges aka (El sienior) from Truth and Shadows was a fictional pseudonym
and the works he used was public domain released on Usenet as a work of fiction by Walter Bartoo. There was never any proof of registered copyright given so there was no copyright.
WTF? And you wouldn't know a true fascist even if you were saluting it.
PhantasyPublishing, you make the (poorly written and formatted) claim that I plagiarized from a certain "Walter Bartoo". Unless "Walter Bartoo" is the Finnish Military Expert or those associated with his website, I do not know who this person is.
The burden of proof for this plagiarism claim is on you, PhantasyPublishing. You must identify specific passages (a) from "Walter Bartoo" with URL and (b) from MCB with URL that are identical, and (c) that MCB is the one who copied. Failure to substantiate this claim will have you branded "liar."
PhantasyPublishing AI algorithms continue to dribble incoherently:
Just as his empty claims of plagiarism and Maxwell C. Bridges continues to respond to phantastypublishing in his fictional blog thinking that MCB has not been given credit is complete and utter fiction. Illustratively, as he has gone to such a length to create a work of fiction which he wholeheartedly admits, is his own creation. The glaring fictional statement
No, MCB's claim of PhantasyPublishing's plariarism is not empty, met the burden of proof with URLs, and has rather long teeth. Part 1 of this work shows that it was an issue in 2013. Part 3 and PhantasyPublishing's second comment shows that such remains an issue in 2018.
I wrote in reference to PhantasyPublishing's comment:
"The above demonstrates a clear and fearful avoidance of tackling any specifics from my FGNW work."
PhantasyPublishing responded:
No MCB it the FGNW work is from http://www.11syyskuu.net/military.htm
You never give up your sources for the bogus claims you make.
Influenced from Finnish Military Expert? Most definitely. Not a crime. But neither the Expert nor associated websites were sources for my work beyond any direct quotations and proper attribution, otherwise I would have given them credit. When I started compiling and writing my FGNW premise, I had other reference material at my disposal commanding my attention, not dated speculative work (2006). To the degree you point out similarities, the danger is two independent research & speculation coming to parallel conclusions, as would be expected when chasing truth.
And if you'd read, copious sources were provided in context (like Dr. Andre Gsponer, for Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices). How embarrassing (a) that you didn't see this [because reading and tackling FGNW section-by-section is still verboten in your agenda-defending] and (b) that you would foist the deceit of me not having sources. Everything written about 9/11 is a potential source: NIST, EPA, FEMA, 9/11 Commission Report, USGS, Dr. Steven Jones, RJLee Group, Dr. Wood, A&E9/11Truth, 9/11 Truth Movement. A problem that more clear thinkers need to see is that, regarding 9/11, almost everything published is disinformation (purposeful deceit) and misinformation (earnest belief in the error). The challenge becomes: to mine the valid nuggets of truth from the disinformation vehicles destined to crash and burn eventually, as designed.
PhantasyPublishing goes on the offensive:
First, you are a no planer that falsely claims no planes hit the WTC towers on 91101 this repudiated dishonesty is typical of Fascist that are pushing an agenda and has no real interest in factual intellectual exchanges. The false use of plagiarism and creating a sideshow to cover up the fact that MCB acquired his knowledge from {mcb: sic}
First, I ~was~ a no planer. I am no longer. I have seen the light, and the disinformation that duped me. I am a planer, and have apologized publicly for having led others astray.
Beyond that, when I study your comment for what is worthy of rebuttal, I come up short. Bravo, well done. What you've written -- & how -- reflects of your inner essence.
Make note: instead of going into my FGNW premise (section-by-section) with a real block or quote to then prove as disinfo, PhantasyPublishing makes the false claim regarding my Finnish Military source, quotes from it, and tries to debunk it: classic straw-man.
+++ Begin PhantasyPublishing
If we looked at what MCB and his source http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html
Of course, that still means that dozens of such devices would need to be reliably triggered in a precise sequence in the proximity of small directional thermonuclear events. Is such a feat possible? It is our belief that such a feat was possible but not 100% reliable. If it approached, say, 95% reliability, that would still be sufficient to mostly disintegrate the skyscrapers (and eradicate asbestos molecules) while creating the illusion of a(n overly rapid) gravitational collapse. If 35 such devices were used per tower and perhaps another 20 in WTC7, that would mean that around 90 devices were employed.
It is part of our dot-connecting hypothesis that the sources of energy responsible for the hot spots reported in the media (molten (10) and yellow- (11) and red-hot (9) metal weeks after 9/11, "fires" which could not be extinguished for 99 days despite constant dousing with water 12) were some damaged small fissionless thermonuclear devices (IOW, the 5% that were duds) among the ruins, which released their energy slowly, at (tens of) thousands of degrees, instead of all at once, at (hundreds of) millions of degrees.
The Bombs in the WTC
Note: This drawing is schematic only. The actual towers were much taller and the observed arch of destruction of the energy-directed thermonuclear device was correspondingly more narrow.
The Ground Zero here is in the original sense of word, a nuclear blast site. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm2 sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently. Source: US Department of Defense & US Department of Energy, Glasstone – Dolan: 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons' (1980).
The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well).
+++ End PhantasyPublishing
My response? "'True, dat' for the most part,' which is why I did a faithful re-creation. Readers should note that (a) a FGNW would not have to be a "pure" hydrogen bomb; more importantly, the USGS measurements on the dust samples have the elements and decay elements expected in a fission reaction (as in possibly "fission-triggered fusion"). (b) FGNW need to be framed differently in terms of energy release from "thermonuclear bombs."
PhantasyPublishing writes a statement applicable to "thermonuclear bombs," not FGNW:
OK here is where you look at the number of bombs needed and the radiological signatures of each Fission device, in short, each tower would be viewable from orbit because of the Gamma signatures coming from them making this whole WTC 91101 FGNW scenario a good work of fiction. In short the physical impossible
Most of the energy would have been radiated as neutrons, not gamma rays. You should read the works of Dr. Andre Gsponer, and then claim such remained "a good work of fiction."
here is where you smokescreen distractionary articles fail you have not shown the following isotopes present at WTC after the towers were hit by jet airliners and FGNW used in fission demolition they are found in http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/257141.pdf.
In short, this proves the utter implausibility of the use of FGNW on the WTC towers on 91101. It actually proves the 91101 Terroist attacks happened exactly as it did ref https://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks
The www.dtic.mil link does not work, so it is ~impossible~ to use a gold standard to measure up to. Try Section 8, because it discusses the isotopes that were measured, as well as issues within those reports that make them unreliable as the definitive, last words on isotopes measured after 9/11.
And your link to the History Channel's take on 9/11 as the definitive word? El-oh-el! Isn't that precious?!! A concise OCT statement. Disinformation throughout, most glaringly in what it omits. And more imortantly, you wrote: "It actually proves the 91101 Terroist attacks happened exactly as it did (sic)". How cute? But, yanno, it actually proves nothing except what a gullible, flag-saluting, agenda-defender your persona is.
To the disinfo squad behind "the committee", you learn the important lesson here of "keeping ownership of your words."
I spoke too soon before, but maybe today it will become true: "Good thing they are done with me."
// mcb
x70 phantasypublishing : CyberBullying justification
2018-04-24
phantasypublishing
April 24, 2018 at 12:02 PM
the fact is the Nuclear or alternative fake misrepresented and misguided attempts from MCB to try to pass off CyberBullying because his e mail was exposed. Well his use of his use of Wilks's name s the same low brow journalism to be expected from a fascist. Played back in the face of a fascist they do the normal nose up arrogant literary prance showing their delusions as the flow into text. Yea Wilks government agent and so is phantasypublishing. Yea MCB a delusional clown whom can't produce proof one of his fictional and comical statements. If this guy was taken into court he would be remanded to psychiatric treatment for delusions and paranoia. The FBI would cease his computers ect why because MCB fits this profile " Cyberstalking may be an extension of physical stalking,[11] and may have criminal consequences. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action. Among factors that motivate stalkers are envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life, or the desire to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior. The stalker may be delusional and believe he/she "knows" the target. The stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status, or may believe they can get away with these actions (anonymity)."
So by MCB's blog and fictional portrayal of Wilks and Phantasypublishing it illustrates on how to catch an Cyberstalker in his own web of bullshit
phantasypublishing
April 24, 2018 at 12:03 PM
If any WTC survivor wanted to take you into court and you would loose horribly because your entire blog and demeanor as to being so illogical to come after someone whom proved you wrong and then you proceeded to fictionally say factual information was fictional. Well that is denial of reality of 91101 Terror attacks and most of the judiciary here would have you committed for psychiatric evaluation based on cyberstalking laws of Texas and also the fact that you made a false claim that you could use Emails after you were told they were not for public release. Since you went ahead and used them in a misleading edited and fictional maner MCB destroyed any credibility he may have had also he violated rule one of reporting don't try to put your twisted dementia into any correspondence between Daniel G Wilks or Phantasypublishing staff. We Are not part of the 911truther profit off 91101 terror attacks via Social entrepreneurship which is preditoral toward survivors of the 91101 terrorist attacks
x71 Maxwell Bridges : phantasy phublishing
2018-04-26
The entity calling itself phantasypublishing is in my opinion either:
- a non-native English speaker.
- a ChatBot.
- an uneducated idiot.
- an uneducated, non-native English speaking bot.
The knee-jerk reaction of phantasypublishing might be to label the above as libel and fitting into the category of cyberstalking. But when the assessment is proven true (and it will be), then it is isn't libel and becomes a validated (true) character trait.
Worse for phantasypublishing is that their own words and publishing efforts do the most damage to their reputation, and all I'm doing in my fair-use commentary is point it out. For example, phantasypublishing wrote 2018-04-24:
the fact is the Nuclear or alternative fake misrepresented and misguided attempts from MCB to try to pass off CyberBullying because his e mail was exposed.
The above sentence has multiple incomplete and incoherent thoughts that are poorly written, and for this reason isn't a fact at all. One exhibit of many that phantasypublishing might be a non-native English speaker.
An indication that phantasypublishing might be a bot is that they seemingly have never looked up the definition of cyberstalking and do not relate them to my specific actions.
Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass. ... Cyberstalking is often accompanied by real-time or offline stalking.
I have consistently provided examples that prove my accusations true. The onus is on phantasypublishing to identify what is false, defamation, or libel in my work. We can easily dispute any claims of "monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex" in this work. Nor are can phantasypublishing identify any "real-time or offline stalking." At best, phantasypublishing can legitmately say that I have "gathered information" consisting of primarily my words commenting in a fair-use manner on their words. Threats and harrassment aren't present. Embarrassment is present, but it comes first and foremost from phantasypublishing's blogging efforts that my commentary later makes fun of.
phantasypublishing's association of MCB's blogging efforts with the terms "cyberstalking" and "cyberbullying" -- without substantiation -- fall squarely into the categories of "libel" and "cyberbullying."
phantasypublishing poorly writes:
Well his use of his use of Wilks's name s the same low brow journalism to be expected from a fascist.
- I'm not a journalist; I am a US citizen exercising his right of free speech.
- Use of Wilks' name and associating it with phantasypublishing? Daniel's Phantasy Publishing Store has already done that probably at Daniel Grant Wilks' own hand. "Daniel Grant Wilks, was born on August 19, 1970 at 10:00 pm... He started Phantasypublishing in 1980." At 10 years old, he was a real whipper-snapper publisher.
- phantasypublishing has repeatedly libeled me by calling me a "fascist."
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Burden of proof is on you, phantasypublishing. Identify in my copious writings where I have ever championed fascism. You'll come up short but provide me with a huge opening to legitimately call you a "liar."
phantasypublishing poorly writes:
Played back in the face of a fascist they do the normal nose up arrogant literary prance showing their delusions as the flow into text.
Hoo-kay. Aside from me not being a fascist (and you not substantiating the claim ever), you haven't "played anything back in (my) face."
phantasypublishing poorly writes:
Yea Wilks government agent and so is phantasypublishing. Yea MCB a delusional clown whom can't produce proof one of his fictional and comical statements.
Hoo-kay. phantasypublishing has yet to quote and analyze a single section from 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case, let alone section-by-section. The sections have their own linked substantiation (e.g., proof) that also need to be debunked in order to invalidate my FGNW premise. As such, phantasypublishing has no basis to falsely accuse me of being "a delusional clown" and my work "fictional and comical," but instead gives me basis for calling phantasypublishing efforts as libel.
phantasypublishing poorly writes:
If this guy was taken into court he would be remanded to psychiatric treatment for delusions and paranoia.
Hoo-kay. If I were taken to court (over my FGNW writings), it would validate my paranoia as real.
phantasypublishing poorly writes and quotes without links:
The FBI would cease his computers ect why because MCB fits this profile " Cyberstalking may be an extension of physical stalking,[11] and may have criminal consequences. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action. Among factors that motivate stalkers are envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life, or the desire to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior. The stalker may be delusional and believe he/she "knows" the target. The stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status, or may believe they can get away with these actions (anonymity)."
Looks like phantasypublishing is the true paranoid one. The deceitful inclusion of the uncredited quotation about "physical stalking, and may have criminal consequences" is a data point in the trend line of phantasypublishing being a liar.
- I envy NOTHING about phantasypublishing.
- The pathological obsession (professional or sexual) can be documented as coming from phantasypublishing, who was the first [in Part 1] to create a poorly formatted blog posting about me and badly quoting from me on the now-dead Quinzagga.
- My blog is a collection of my words primarily with secondarily fair-use quotations (accurate, well formatted, and with proper accreditation) from those my words respond to. The trend line for me is consistent.
- phantasypublishing efforts [in Part 3 and more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges] in the poor copy act demonstrates professional envy and pathological obsession.
- Lots of examples of phantasypublishing trying to threaten me (e.g., with court) and to intimidate.
phantasypublishing poorly writes:
So by MCB's blog and fictional portrayal of Wilks and Phantasypublishing it illustrates on how to catch an Cyberstalker in his own web of bullshit
phantasypublishing is welcome to continue to believe the delusions of his own paranoid words and who gets caught "in his own web of bullshit."
phantasypublishing continues in a new comment three minutes later, poorly written and incoherent:
If any WTC survivor wanted to take you into court and you would loose horribly because your entire blog and demeanor as to being so illogical to come after someone whom proved you wrong and then you proceeded to fictionally say factual information was fictional.
What would be the basis for "any WTC survivor" to take me to court? What crime have I committed against them? If you can't articulate an injury or crime, then all we have left is just more "phantasy" from you-know-who.
BTW, I am more than open to be proven wrong, and when such a day arrives, I will immediately issue public apologies on all public venues under my control or where I participate.
The issue has been and is, phantasypublishing has not quoted from a single section of my FGNW work -- let alone proven it wrong. After all this time, precious little evidence exists that phantasypublishing even read it. This is a data point fitting the trend-line that agenda-defenders (of the official conspiracy theory) are not permitted to read, wade into, quote, and legitimately debunk various (more truthful) premises. An agent tactic. Not the hallmark of an objective, open-minded, sincere, and real human.
phantasypublishing does not disappoint with another poorly written and incoherent sentence:
Well that is denial of reality of 91101 Terror attacks and most of the judiciary here would have you committed for psychiatric evaluation based on cyberstalking laws of Texas and also the fact that you made a false claim that you could use Emails after you were told they were not for public release.
Aside from the bad writing, the repeated use of "91101" in phantasypublishing writings is fingerprint of a non-native English speaker (or a poorly educated one.) phantasypublishing could be forgiven being a non-native English speaker (and subsequently for all quirks in his writing), but he claims to having been born "in Plaquemine, Louisiana and grew up playing in the swamps and forest of Louisiana, Alabama, and the beaches of the gulf coast." He's had aspirations of being a writer and publisher of English content. So sad those endeavors continue to be.
Because I'm having fun, I'll address one more time "a false claim that (MCB) could use Emails after (MCB) were told they were not for public release".
- All emails except one from phantasypublishing had no disclaimer that would attempt to prohibit publication.
- phantasypublishing and MCB do not have a written non-disclosure contract. Without such a mutual contract in place, an email disclaimer trying to impose one-sided restrictions on my actions and after-the-fact or retro-actively won't hold up in court.
- The disclaimer (whether on one or all emails) was aimed at those who were ~NOT~ the intended recipient and tried to restrict their actions.
- The disclaimer (whether on one or all emails) explicitly states that the intended recipient has "sole use" of them. Being that intended recipient, all of my actions have been within my "sole use".
- Even if all emails had confidentiality disclaimers under a non-disclosure agreement, the record shows that phantasypublishing was in breach first by copying them to "the committee."
- When phantasypublishing lamely re-purposes those same email exchanges to their blog, it invalidates any auspices of confidentiality and handily shoots down such arguments.
I provided the Email Confidentiality link before. It is testament to either phantasypublishing's intellect or bot-algorithms (or both) that they didn't read it, didn't understand it, didn't incorporate its findings into their opinions, and didn't sway phantasypublishing from cranking a new spin on the same carousel by spouting the same unfounded assertions.
I can't make this shit up; phantasypublishing does not disappoint with another poorly written and incoherent sentence:
Since you went ahead and used them in a misleading edited and fictional maner MCB destroyed any credibility he may have had also he violated rule one of reporting don't try to put your twisted dementia into any correspondence between Daniel G Wilks or Phantasypublishing staff.
So I supposedly "used (the email exchange) in a misleading edited and fictional (manner)"? El-oh-el.
phantasypublishing needs to point out where my edits were misleading. Failure to do so renders such a complaint a lie. (I already have pointed out where phantasypublishing has edits that were misleading.) I would counter that my formatting added clarity to phantasypublishing's screwed up text. As for using the emails in a "fictional manner:"
- phantasypublishing's comments validated that the email exchanges as published by MCB were real.
- phantasypublishing's efforts to re-purpose the email exchanges on his blog from Gmail source only further validates that the email exchanges were real.
- Were this to end up in court, Google's Gmail database archives that both used will further validate the reality of the email exchanges.
- To the extent that it isn't the purpose of this blog to preserve phantasypublishing's words, what words it re-uses were accurately re-produced and are validated with phantasypublishing's blog and Gmail.
- Blogging isn't journalism (most of the time.) If anything, it falls into the category of editorials or opinion pieces. Are Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, and lots of others from Fox journalists? Nope. They are entertainers, or opinion speakers.
Yanno. Emails used in a "fictional manner" unravels to be another data point in the trend line of phantasypublishing being a liar and props the door open for libel actions against them. (An agent-bot with an agenda from which it cannot waiver is also possible.)
phantasypublishing concludes their second comment from 2018-04-24 with the following glitch in their bot-algorithms, which is accurately quoted right on down to the missing punctuation:
We Are not part of the 911truther profit off 91101 terror attacks via Social entrepreneurship which is preditoral toward survivors of the 91101 terrorist attacks
Another tell of a government agent (or agent-bot) is to turn the discussion from the facts -- such as everything that substantiates my FGNW premise -- and make it emotional and about the "survivors of 9/11". phantasypublishing probably meant to write "victims" or "families of the victims", but whatever the phrase, it doesn't apply to anything I've written regarding 9/11 FGNW. And if I did, the onus is on phantasypublishing to find such dastardly quotes from me to substantiate his claims of being preditory on its victims. phantasypublishing doesn't and hasn't. Without such, damn if that isn't another data point in the liar trend line. [I concede that 9/11 was domestic terrorist attack.]
Conclusion:
The effectiveness of the algorithms of a government agent-bot is only as good as the database from which they draw their "knowledge." Garbage-in, garbage out.
A notable trend-line of government agents is where they are willing to do battle from the perspective of both topics and home-court. They are ordered not to review in detail certain premises (e.g., FGNW), because the (disinfo) philosophy goes: if you address something even by countering it, you help validate it. If given a choice, they prefer to have the home-court advantage, so that they can delete or not allow errant comments, or outright ban the offender.
Whether a bot or a live agent, their source database holds clues to their agenda and the limits of their conversation. They are quick to hold up the early work of Greening (e.g., pancake collapse), Popular Mechanics, or NIST reports while ignoring the fact that such works have been countered (if not debunked in a flaming fashion) many times over.
Yes, the 9/11 TM has been seeded (sometimes purposely) with flagrant disinformation that even the best of us (myself included) can and have been duped by. This category includes beams from space, deep underground nukes, no planes at the WTC, holograms, and nano-thermite. The purpose of such endeavors is to collect valid nuggets of truth and ultimately bury or discredit such nuggets by parking public thought in a dead-end alley or by imploding the overarching premise. For example, both deep underground nukes and Dr. Wood's work have collected valid evidence of 9/11's nuclear fingerprints, yet both premises have fatal flaws that invalidate them.
9/11 FGNW -- sometimes referred to as "exotic (energy) weapons" in the early 2000's -- was poo-poo-ed by the 9/11 Movement ultimately by a nuclear physics professor who tried to debunk nuclear involvement in a dubious manner and then inserted nano-thermite into the public 9/11 discourse. His debunking efforts framed nuclear considerations around large nuclear devices and proved in straw-man fashion how this wasn't observed; no mention of tactical nukes or fourth generation nuclear devices that even middling research at an institution of higher education would have exposed as being viable.
The phantasypublishing agent-bot has repeatedly tried to debunk 9/11 FGNW through references to previous attacks/debunking of Dr. Wood's work and deep-underground nukes, or by holding discussion to NIST and Popular Mechanics benign and incorrect areas. The agent-bot's database contains nothing regarding the FGNW premise or the fingerprints of nuclear involvement leaking out all reports, such as the USGS report on the dust. The agent-bot will neither admit this nor go there.
As is the trend line, the agent-bot did not review the Email Confidentiality link previously, or chose not to incorporate their findings into its actions. Agent-bots have no qualms about cranking carousels or cycling through turf already addressed.
P.S. If the public connection was not already made between phantasypublishing and Daniel Grant Wilks at his own volition, I would have endeavored not to expose his (real *cough*) name, affording him as much internet privacy as possible. I did not expose his email address.
On the other side, I have gone to great efforts not to expose my email address in a public fashion. A fan or stalker will have to dig pretty deep on my blog to find it. I stand behind my words, which is why it is buried but still there. Many years ago after being ruthlessly "outed" by a disinfo agent on the losing side of 9/11 discussions, I stopped using it as an exposed identifier in comments made to forums. And nearly all forums using email as a log-in identifier have since modified their technology in a manner that does not expose email addresses in the forums anymore. (Facebook used to expose email addresses and phone numbers, but not anymore.)
Why? Because web-bots scan pages for email addresses and use this data-mined information for spamming emails and other nefarious purposes. This alone is justification enough to expect proper, prompt, and courteous action on my simple request for phantasypublishing to edit his copy-&-paste work and remove my exposed email addresses.
Why has phantasypublishing not acted on it? Many reasons come to mind.
- phantasypublishing is a bot and doesn't understand the request.
- phantasypublishing (bot or human) isn't very skilled as a writer or publisher and doesn't know how to edit his work. Pretty damning in and of itself.
- phantasypublishing is not honorable. They are a liar, proven repeatedly in their last two comments alone. Failure to act on my repeated request fits into their deceitful trend-line.
- Repetition of my name and email address gives it gravitas in Google searches by others. Beyond the repetitive exposure, phantasypublishing may never act nefarioiusly on the information, but they provide the information as a tool for others (not just web-bots) to exploit.
// mcb
11 comments:
phantasypublishing wrote on April 30, 2018 at 12:41 AM:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html
this entire page is a work of fiction by MCB it is nothing less than a disinformation campaign by him to distract from Factual reality that Truth and Shadows is a fake news entertainment site that holds zero reality factors. Also his false claims of plagiarism were exposed years ago as the case with chilling effects he holds no physical copyright or patent registration numbers. But still plagiarized reports turn up on the Truth and Shadows on Facebook as if the changing of authors via syndication that it still is fiction that is public domain.
+++ end quote
// mcb
phantasypublishing
May 7, 2018 at 4:50 PM
Posted by Maxwell C. Bridges at 11:11 AM
Labels: 9-11 Who, Disinfo Example, Herr der Elf
1 comment:
Maxwell C. Bridges said...
phantasypublishing wrote on April 30, 2018 at 12:41 AM:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/06/playing-disinfo-games.html
this entire page is a work of fiction by MCB it is nothing less than a disinformation campaign by him to distract from Factual reality that Truth and Shadows is a fake news entertainment site that holds zero reality factors. Also his false claims of plagiarism were exposed years ago as the case with chilling effects he holds no physical copyright or patent registration numbers. But still plagiarized reports turn up on the Truth and Shadows on Facebook as if the changing of authors via syndication that it still is fiction that is public domain.
MCB
How Noble of you
Thanks for verification by reposting the exact quote for a change. You might even look at James Feltzer's responses about Dr woods and his supporting the development of Alternative Fictional Causes for the 91101 and the Collapses of the towers due to the Terrorist Hijacking jetliners and kamakizing them into targets. From the 911truth agenda was to create social enterpenuership from the event.
in reviewing your site we find the Disinfo is when you edit the emails and bend them to the above agenda then make it seem if the data is plagiarized to discredit it. The whole issue is simple I am not the one building assumptions upon someone whom was
booted out of court because of assumptions and falsified evidence.
The Cars recovered from underground garages do not prove space beam weapons. Your lack of understanding of High energy particles, Beta, Theta, alpha, gamma wave propagation from a nuclear blast is astonishing.
What is even more interesting that you would try to confuse Kinetic damage with a nuclear blast.
It is as preposterous for nonscientists to carry on scientific debates based on facts and fiction they pick up from other non-scientists, scientists rendering opinion outside of their areas of expertise, the Alex Joneses and MCB of this world as it is for small-time amateur chess players to carry on discussions of the grand strategies of chess grand masters based on the input from other small time chess amateurs.
2018-05-11 MCB
Dear Mr. \\][//,
I just discovered (2018-05-11) this latest work from you that is undoubtedly at the height of your precious wisdom and talents. I thank you for this new homage to me that reveal itself in some of the 80 comments that are re-plays of snippets of our past discussions on Truth & Shadows from 2012.
I won't belabor the obvious point that re-attacking my views from 2012 is a straw-man cheat. I have a new position statement that reflects my maturing and evolving thought: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case (2018-02-11).
I don't need to respond to any of your individual re-purposed extracts nor to your comments from recently. Except for one thing. You are being plagiarized. You might want to look into it and have them stop. Pay attention to the date stamps in order to get context.
You (hybridrogue1) wrote in July 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm "Maxwell Bridges can’t stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely."
I suspect your comment was vacuumed up (along with plagiarized words from others) into a disinfo bot's database and was sent at me 2016-06-09 in an email. At the time I didn't make the connection they were plagiarizing from you.
Once your comment got into its databases, it was re-used again (2018-04-09) in a comment to my blog [now re-formatted to be within the blog article Part 3.]
I know that you like to copy your passages from one blog to another. But it was still quite the surprise to see the exact same quote again (2018-04-24) on your blog.
There are trends to be extrapolated.
Your \\][// blogging efforts: [1] "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus", [2] "Maxwell Briges: Agitprop Disinformant", and [3] "ELECTRONIC MEDIA".
PhantasyPublishing blogging efforts (that survive): [3] "9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work" (2018-04-09) and [4] "more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges" (2018-04-09)
// mcb Part 1/2
Part 2/2
The selection of "turf" is fascinating, not so much from the perspective of dueling blogs, but in the subject matter. My most current work on FGNW (2016-03-11 & 2018-02-11) do not get taken apart, section-by-section. They don't get addressed at all.
Whereas you have a link to "The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons" by Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni, you get hung up on future-tense. You don't perform a deep-dive into the work to find out what was present-tense in 2000 (like late-3rd generation) nor if that could be applicable to 9/11. Exhibits both an inability to perform fundamental research and is just another a cheat.
That inability to perform fundamental research is why you hold to the line: "conclusive proof of controlled demolition using chemical explosives." Not true, and you have no proof. Not documented in the USGS Survey of the dust in the tables or explanatory text, nor by the RJLee Group, nor by Paul Lioy et al, nor by Dr. Steven Jones. The latter has never tested his samples for chemical explosives and A&E9/11Truth refused to test when brought to their attention. The true findings from the dust samples were (a) a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres, and (b) the radioactive and decay elements in proportional quantities as signature to fission/fusion devices (appeared in tables but never addressed in text of the USGS Report.)
They say, if you aren't getting any flak, you aren't over the target.
// mcb Part 2/2
Part 1/2
{mcb: Another example of plagiarizing from someone else. Coincidence that it comes from Mr. \\][// ?
+++ begin phantasypublishing
May 22, 2018 at 9:53 PM
Oh and the contradictory statements about Dr woods by MCB is so classic good salseman
Judy Wood’s “Text Book”? What makes it a ‘text book’? The fact that it has text in it? That it has illustrations and photo’s? That would make it a ‘picture book’. Perhaps that it has charts and diagrams?
NO! The fact is that the term ‘text book’ is meant to lend it an air of authority – it is a rhetorical trick of PR, nothing more. The actual situation is, when one reads the assertions of Wood’s supporters, it seems they view her book as a holy book, a ‘Bible’, the divine word of Truth. They exhibit all the characteristics of a cult. And few of them that I have encountered could explain any of it in such a way as to show they had any grasp of what it meant. Just that the buildings “went poof” and “dustified”. Just the fucking woowoo language of ‘true believers’.
SEE: http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-controversial-figure-in-911-research/
+++ end phantasypublishing
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Except for the poorly written and punctuated first sentence, the other paragraphs including the URL in the phantasypublishing quotation were plariarized from: hybridrogue1 aka Mr. \\][//, or Mr. Rogue April 24, 2014 at 11:20 am.
Yes, "plagiarized." The copy-&-paste purposely:
- did not differentiate between Mr. phantasypublishing's (few) original words and those stolen from Mr. \\][// and gives a false impression of authorship.
- omitted the hybridrogue1 name for the creator of the stolen comment.
- omitted the \\][// signature of the creator of the stolen comment.
- omitted the URL to the source location of the stolen text.
- promoted the wrong impression with the URL in the stolen text. The stolen text was after-commentary about the T&S discussion, whose link was provided.
Of course, plagiarizing would ~not~ apply:
- if Mr. phantasypublishing is Mr. \\][//; or
- if Mr. \\][//'s efforts were work-for-hire and its copyright owner was the same for Mr. phantasypublishing's work-for-hire efforts; or
- if Mr. \\][// gives Mr. phantasypublishing permission to use Mr. \\][//'s words as Mr. phantasypublishing's own, and without attributing or acrediting the true author.
I would wager that Mr. \\][// would give his immediate and retro-active permission to have any of his penned attacks on me {MCB} re-purposed, re-loaded, and re-shot at me {MCB} by others in a ghost-writing sense. Woo-hoo!
Mr. phantasypublishing is half-bot, so does not yet register and has no algorithm to correct these flaws that flag a lack of (human) morals, or at least the learned (human) fear in modern society of legal action for plagiarism. The human half of Mr. phantasypublishing could reach out to Mr. \\][// and obtain that permission, if Mr. \\][// didn't personally come out to Mr. phantasypublishing's blog and post a comment of appreciation and permission.
// Part 2/2 mcb
++++
AlienScientist
August 22, 2012
One more thing... all my debunking is based on science NOT Character Assassination!
If you see anyone attempting to "debunk" someone using character assassination methods, you should automatically see this as a direct signal that they have absolutely no valid argument whatsoever. If they had one, they would present it front and center (like I do) and not even need to use character assassination methods to kill the messenger and ignore the message. This is not called debunking, this is called character assassination. Recognize it and learn to call people out on it!
++++
hybridrogue1
September 5, 2013 at 3:38 pm
“I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent”
~Señor El Once – MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM
"If you see anyone attempting to "debunk" someone using character assassination methods, you should automatically see this as a direct signal that they have absolutely no valid argument whatsoever."~Jeremy Rys
\\][//
++++
phantasypublishing
May 23, 2018 at 9:09 PM
MCB continues with his fictional statements about plagiarism because his whole alternative 91101 no terrorist no plane argument is invalid as have been all his speculative fiction about Phantasypublishing and hybridrogue1 tackling any specifics from MCB FGNW work he continues his routine through which is predictably fictional in nature
"If you see anyone attempting to "debunk" someone using character assassination methods, you should automatically see this as a direct signal that they have absolutely no valid argument whatsoever."
++++++++++++++++
MCB
2018-05-18
Google can be quite informative when quotation marks are used.
AlienScientist wrote (in ~2012) a sentence worthy of being quoted, which it was (in 2013). Sad that in doing so, HybridRogue1 seems to publicly out AlienScientist.
phantasypublishing uses the same quote again (in 2018) with enough knowledge about its origins to put quotation marks around it, but not enough to credit the true author. A task too complicated for phantasypublishing's algorithms to find who wrote the quote. Owing to other quotes plagiarized from HybridRogue1 and the fact that the AlienScientist reference isn't easy to get to if you didn't know it existed, then it can be logically deduced that HybridRogue1's blog was phantasypublishing's source for the quote.
Ironic that phantasypublishing's poorly written defense against plagiarism charges contains another plagiarized passage, contradicting the assertion "... {MCB's} fictional statements about plagiarism..." Even in being a contradiction, it is also a validation that a bot monitors my blog.
Curious this fragment: "... invalid as have been all {MCB's} speculative fiction about Phantasypublishing and hybridrogue1 tackling any specifics from MCB FGNW work..." Seems as if Phantasypublishing is trying to muscle in on Mr. hybridrogue1's hypnotic suggestions and snag credit for that mistaken belief.
//
Your entire site lacks any credibility or any shred of factual content. So you misrepresent an entire exchange for your own narcissistic disinformation campaign about fictional nuclear or fission devices being used to destroy the WTC towers On 91101. Like every other no planes hit the WTC Towers fictional portrayal of events your claims are not only stolen from others and rehashed as your own opinions that are far from factual. This is why MCB is referred to as the world globe monitor of the internet
Dear Mr. Phantasypublishing or Mr. Quinazagga,
I make the assumption that you are Anonymous, because you're the only one who gives a rat's ass about this particular page and the conversations that this page faithfully reproduces (as much as they merit).
Bravo in taking valid criticisms of your work -- some of it proven to be plagarized from HybridRogue1 and others -- and trying to aim them at me. I proved with specifics your misdeeds. Without specifics, your claims are just hypnotic suggestion and lies, which is par for your course.
I have certainly read the works of many others who contemplated 9/11 nuclear involvment and mined those works for nuggets of truth that I've re-purposed in my deviant FGNW premise. This is easily proven, because I tend to accurately quote those sources, attribute their authors, and reference a link (valid-at-the-time-of-writing.) These are established footnote/endnote techniques modified for the web for writing research paper that your efforts consistently lack and were a foundation of your dishonesty that I exposed.
Your comment here, almost exactly 2 years since your last one, is more of the same. Comments by you as Quinazagga on your blog are also more of the same.
Maybe if you learned how to copy-and-paste and re-format what you snag from someone else's PDF file or website, it wouldn't be so easy to call you a plagarist. You live up to "Phantasy" Publishing, though, so you get extra credit.
//
If you really think the comment is from Quinazagga
you are mistaken and you exposed zero with Phantasypublishing.
Again, you make false statements but that is to expected from a
Hack. Your lack of understanding he subject you falsely claim to
Know anything about is obvious. You cannot address the facts.
Nor can you debate anything regarding nuclear or fission weapons.
Quinazagga already showed that vey clearly. You don’t know
Anything but will talk out of your ass about anything that
Distracts from that fact. You continue to ignore te fact
No tritium isotopes were found nor do you have the education
In nuclear physics to understand the weapons you claimed
Were used. Nobody but you cares about paper tiger distraction.
Dear Mr. Anonymous, Mr. Quinazagga, and the whole Phantasypublishing "team",
To your poorly written, poorly formated, poorly reasoned, poorly substantiated comment: meh.
The only amazing thing is how your entire "team" completely sucks at writing and publishing, with all teammates and sockpuppets alike exhibiting the same writing deficiencies. In fact, a brief scroll through you "phantasy" blog reveals very little originally authored text but lots of re-posting of content (mostly videos) from others without any comments about why, or what is special about the entry. Dovetails nicely with the "phantasy" theme.
The whole "Phantasypublishing" blog has some resemblance to a disinformation training ground for human agents and AI bots, as does the totality of communication I've ever received from "the team."
You wrote poorly the following sentence: "You continue to ignore te fact No tritium isotopes were found..."
It is easily debunked with "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow et al.
I need not bother addressing any other element from your flame-baiting, bot-ish comment. Meh.
If Mr. Quinazagga exists as an actual entity separate from you, ask him if you can sniff his balls and drink his bong water.
//
Post a Comment