Ticks that Tock

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : ticks that tock into a boom

2012-10-03

Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:

Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.

It isn't that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.

The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980's to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a "two thumbs up!" from them for me to not just put the movie on my "to watch" list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with "nice" people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a negative critic sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.

The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me positive or negative critics [on some subject] were sincere. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and "enjoy" some movie.]

With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.

And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.

Specifically, ticks to them and their agenda might become exposed in an ah-ha moment, sometimes purposely, so that it tocks into a boom to decimates all of their works, the good as well as the purposely bad and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.

Good cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:

Vatic 9/11 Special [2012]

This Vatic 9/11/2012 Special intended for the eleventh anniversary is late, because the Vatic Partners are a bit burned out and bummed out. After eleven years, the 9/11 Truth Movement's biggest success is a Colorado PBS station that broadcast "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out".

I certainly respect the courage and the efforts to air this production, and it has given rise to at least three real-life opportunities for me to engage in 9/11 discussions in person where the topic was broached by others. This is the good that it brought.

The bad? Not only did that 9/11 production not go far enough, but it clamped a Denver-boot on it to park meaningful contemplation in the realm of controlled demolition with incendiaries and explosives. It wasn't. 9/11 was nuclear.

In 2010, the Vatic Project said:

The 9/11 Special does not shirk from saying that 9/11 was a nuclear event, that corporate media fooled the world with computer generated images (CGI), and that US Government/Military Insiders, Mossad/Israel, and zionists within the banks and media are the culprits.

In 2011 after reader Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, the Vatic Project amended the above with:

"9/11 used cold-fusion or nuclear reactors to generate the power for DEW that supplied the accuracy and umpth to pulverize the internals of the towers".

In 2012, the Vatic Project takes two steps backward to go one forward:

9/11 deployed multiple neutron nuclear directed energy (DEW) [or neu nookiedoo or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)] in most of the buildings in the WTC complex. We no longer advocate the No Plane Theory (NPT) with regards to the towers; we advocate the No Commerical Plane Theory (NCPT), which says the speed & precision of the aircraft at low altitude excludes the alledged model but not a special plane-looking-missile. For similar reasons, the Pentagon plane was not the alledged aircraft [thereby adhering to NCPT], and the Vatic Project endorses the CIT flyover theory. The corporate media was involved in fooling the world and did pull some CGI tricks, but we were duped into believing the extent of such media manipulation with computer generated images (CGI) that lead to NPT. The video of the last twelve seconds of UA175 shows with 3D modeling how the videos of the seemingly different flight paths does correspond to a single flight path, thereby destroying our previous NPT and CGI beliefs. We still belief that US Government/Military Insiders, Mossad/Israel, and zionists within the banks and media are the culprits.

We apologize if our wafflings in 9/11 beliefs misled you, or if anything written above proves our duping on the subject sometime in the future. We are only human, and the disinformation has been very crafty to lead us astray. Yes, please do not trust our judgment in this matter, but instead verify for yourselves.

In 2011, the Vatic Project was promoting Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, "Where did the Towers Go?" In 2012, the book remains an excellent addition to any serious 9/11 researcher's library, but with serious caveats. Her collection of 9/11 pictorial evidence, as well as the correlation of after-math photos to map locations is most impressive. However, now we see that her book does have a few errors and omissions, with her tiny brush-off of nuclear suspicions being a glaring one. Her downplaying of hot-spots (and acceptance without challenge of a government report on satellite infrared hot-spots) might even be an example of blatant disinformation. She may bring hurricane Erin to our attention for the wrong reasons and misses the opportunity to expound upon its ramifications: the revealing of active media complicity and of the government's ability to steer the weather. I also have to fault Dr. Wood for a very poor "literature review" in her high-quality scholarly effort. She essentially re-purposed information from her website, much of it stagnant since 2006. She did not take the opportunity in her book to debunk valid criticism of the themes and analysis presented on her web pages (such as Dr. Jenkins). The work of the Anonymous Physicist at the very least would have merited some discussion by the good doctor.

The really important breakthrough in 2012 was Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] as well as his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages: Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. I must borrow an expression from Mr. Chandler of his first impressions of Dr. Wood's textbook: "Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." A tip of our Fedora to Dr. James Fetzer for bringing Mr. Prager's work to our attention. I expect we'll find errors in Mr. Prager's compilation, but not enough to take nuclear 9/11 aspirations off of the table. The proof is in the dust.

Dr. Wood and Mr. Prager have overlapping concepts. One of those is that they both in effect advocate directed energy weapons. The difference is that Dr. Wood makes a wide and rather conspicuous circle around nuclear hijinx. It is somewhat glaring that nuclear methods aren't given more consideration when trying to account for the energy requirements of pulverization and dustification, when surely her research into Star Wars would have brought up Project Excalibur.

This is where Mr. Prager's work can bridge us, while clearing up misconceptions about what a directed energy weapon would look like, would be capable of, and would produce in terms of short-lived and lingering side-effects. Look into neutron bombs.


The Vatic 9/11/2012 Special  is intended to serve as a 9/11 Reference. As before, these rabbit holes of 9/11 neu nookiedoo and "whodunnit" are very deep and twisted.

For those interested, an excellent debate on the subject transpire in the comment section across several articles from Truth & Shadows between Señor El Once and hybridrogue1.

Señor El Once : 2012-09-11 Compelling evidence of a fission pathway [Jeff Prager]

Señor El Once : 2012-09-12 Bashing Dr. Jones

Señor El Once : 2012-10-04 Responding to Dr. Jones [from 9/11 Blogger 2012-09-30]

For your own peace of mind, satisfy for yourself whether or not they have merit. At risk is our entire system of justice.

Why should you care about this eleven year old event today? You should care that the true 9/11 perpetrators are brought to justice, because left unchecked gives them and their successors free reign (again and again) to manipulate us and the world into other wrongful wars and crimes against humanity. Nations fall if justice is not pursued. Only we can save it.

Among the most basic of your take-away action items from this Vatic 9/11 Special, is that you need to be part of the voice to demand an independent investigation of 9/11. After that, you need to be questioning and denouncing all foreign & domestic policy and the right-left political games that are based on the lies of 9/11 ("... because we were attacked on 9/11(?)...") and that seem to scapegoat another [country, ethnicity, religion].

Here are some quick links to help you navigate the 9/11 Special.Do a right-click from your browser and open them in new tabs.

• 9/11 How
• 9/11 Why
• 9/11 Who
• 9/11 What

• 9/11 How
• 9/11 Why
• 9/11 Who
• 9/11 What

Ignorance and Bashing

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Think about the victims and simVictims

2012-09-13

Dear Mr. McKee,

If you felt like poking at their emotional wound, the response to "think about the 3000 victims" becomes:

Yeah, let's! Did 3,000 victims really die? I mean, they can't prove that commercial airplanes even took off. And it has been sure disproven that some special aircraft other than a commercial airliner hit the towers, so the "victims" attributed to them reduces the 3,000 number. The Pentagon aircraft also wasn't a commercial one, and even if it were, that aircraft flew over the building. The Shanksville aircraft crash had no seats, no luggage, and no body parts. Where are the victims from the planes?

Now if we go into the towers to tally their numbers, they were under-occupied with an exodus starting with their 1993 bombing, plus several floors had doors govt front companies with prominent nameplates and employees in name only. Certainly people died, but the numbers only add up to 3,000 in funny ways.

One of the funny ways is seen by the wiped out division of the Office of Naval Intelligence, its agents, and its records that dealt with the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD budget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld spoke of the day before 9/11 to the media. Another funny one are the SEC records that were killed when WTC-7 went down with one of its demolition stages having 100 feet of observable free-fall. Another funny way are the instances of simVictims.

Think about the victims, because the lives that stoked "USA patriotism" took in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan each exceed the proven facticious 3,000 number from 9/11.

Two Steps Backward for 9/11 Nukes Forward

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : the Pavlovian word that got so many 9/11 conspiracy theorists salivating

2012-09-10

{2nd attempt}

Two steps backward to go one step forwards? The Monty Python show was famous for this segue:

"... And now for something completely different."

And this posting would have been different, I assure you, had the "Pavlov" word not been snatched from my mind by Mr. Dwil, who wrote such poetic words:

... Bernay (sic) returns from the grave to chortle at your weak efforts to mimic his propaganda techniques... "Bernay" ---- jeez. You three need to do the Pavlov Knee-Jerk (or a Burning Man circle jerk), go find a Denny's (since that's where television taught you to go) - and eat some bacon and eggs. ...bacon and eggs made by Edward Bernay----s.

So what was the Pavlovian word that got so many 9/11 conspiracy theorists salivating and dropping their best lines yet again recently? I don't know, but here are some gems from a self-promoting professor of "logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning," Dr. James H. Fetzer:

Typical of this fake... as I have explained again and again and again. This guy reminds me of the ditty, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Lying is his area of specialization. Explaining why what he is saying is false can be tedious and time consuming. Think of it. He is probably the biggest liar you will ever encounter in your life.

Repetitiously posting unsound arguments with false premises hardly constitutes disproof.

... you phony shit! You are so hard up for arguments you are doing it in your pants and then displaying your stained underwear here for the world to witness.

Contrived 9/11 Holograms with Radar

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : proofs are weak on reference material links

2012-08-24

Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

Your proofs are still weak on reference material links (as are those from the esteemed academic professor, Dr. Fetzer). A quote from some alleged DARPA paper about future plans to project holograms is but a seed that can only grow through water and sunlight in the form of basic research papers, articles, and commercialized endeavors (e.g., YouTube) to which you can point the world.

I reminded you that your holographic speculation still needs to account for TWO sets of radar that have remarkable congruity with 44 or so videos that 3D animation has proven (to my satisfaction) represent a singular flight path.

Protocols of Zion

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : this didn't stop him from writing from his protocols ignorance

2012-08-02

Mr. Felton wrote on August 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm:

I have not read the Protocols and am not prepared to comment on them since they have no relation to the events of Sept. 11.

Yet this didn't stop Mr. Felton from writing from his ignorance:

More Absurd 9/11 Holograms

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : "Imagine no plane" thought process

2012-07-26

Dear Mr. Tamborine Man,

I know where you are going with the "imagine no plane" thought process, because I was fully there not all that long ago. I radically changed my tune from "no planes" at all (at the towers) to "no commercial planes" (for any of the 9/11 four.)

adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".

2012-07-20

Mr. Rogue wrote:

Niels did a calculation based on a false assumption, that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized — they were not, and this can be proven by they debris samples themselves as Prof Jones points out. Only a portion of the materials were pulverized to nano particulates – that is a FACT.

To pulverize anything into nano-particulates is still a large energy sink.

The assumption that all of the pulverizable materials in the towers were indeed pulverized is worst case. [However, I have doubts that assumption applies in a straw man fashion, but let's go with it anyway.]

So, Mr. Rogue, please do some math and scale back Dr. Harrit's supposition of the "source" materials until you think the nano-particulates and the not-so-nano-particulates output are representative of the actual evidence. The adjectives applied to the resulting initial quantities will still be "massive" and "ginormous".

call it "electromagnetic energy"

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : call it "electromagnetic energy"

2012-07-05

I owe Señor Rogue a debt of gratitude for being my smashing board. By responding to me, he gives me another opportunity to further my argument. His ridicule minus some thinking from July 5, 2012 at 12:14 am:

Eddy scratches, and he scratches well. But that is not currently where the itch is. The question remains: How are all the other metal items impervious to the EMP? Regardless of technical data of the effect of eddy currents. Even the metal walls bearing our famous ‘slits’ would be in direct line.

First, let us not call it an EMP. Let us call it "electromagnetic energy," because this can cover more scenarios. Whether or not it was a single pulse or multiple pulses or a steady stream of such microwaving energy we don't have to determine at this point in time.

Second, the adverb "directed" applied to the word "energy" used as an adjective to modify the noun "weapon" of the acronymn DEW should tell you 50% of what you need to know with regards to your question above. It was aimed away from what they didn't want it hitting, which may include the "spire" [to which I speculate one of the DEW devices was mounted.]

As for the other 50% of what you need to know, the metal items within the targeting beams of electromagnetic energy would also experience Eddy Currents. Very large ones, resulting in lots of heat radiating from the steel. Think of a kitchen stove burner: coat it with something, let it dry, and then turn on the stove: what was on it gets burned off in a stinky haze likely to trigger smoke alarms. The energy absorbed by inner-steel within aim of the DEW would burn off what was coated on it.

You're the ying to my yang

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : You're the ying to my yang

2012-06-29

Mr. Hybrid Rogue makes some valid points. For instance, on June 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm he writes:

It is obvious he cannot make a positive argument to his hypotheticals, without using me as a slamming board.

I have been using you as a slamming board. I have been bouncing ideas off of you. Without you and the errors found in your stilted arguments, my points would not have nearly the traction. You're the ying to my yang. You're the Laurel to my Hardy. You're the Mutt to my Jeff. "You complete me, baby..."

do not expect any further replies

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : do not expect any further replies

2012-06-27

Señor Agent Rogue gets his butt kick on the the nuclear topic in another thread, so tries to do his triage over here.

Aren't I the lucky one, because across two postings (June 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm and June 25, 2012 at 5:44 pm), Agent Rogue prematurely promises me:

That’s it Once, I’ve had it with your shit. Don’t address me again. … I am serious Señor, do not expect any further replies from me.

WooHoo!!! Time to go to town without backtalk on his last three four six posting here!