Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth

2012-03-23

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Thank you for providing the link to the Kevin Ryan document. I have not finished it reading word-for-word, but in the opening pages it provides nuggets of truth.

You write:

I have to admit Señor El Once, that I am still baffled that you cannot seem to imagine this creeping wandering fires scenario [mainly chemical] in this chaotic structure of the pile.

Now that you corner my imagination into the premise of a creeping, wandering fires scenario, let me empty your baffles by stating I can indeed imagine them and suspect that this was the nature of at least part of what was observed.

Admittedly, information gathered in my mind regarding the hot-spots and testimonies has been sketchy. Kevin Ryan does a good job of bringing them together.

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
* Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
* Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
* Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
* A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).
The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. Apart from the extensive but failed efforts to extinguish the fires, there are several other physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ. These include the following.
1. Photographs and witness testimony evidencing molten metal and explosions accompanied by white dust clouds (Jones 2006; Meyerowitz 2006; PBS 2002).
2. Extremely high temperatures in the fires at the WTC (Jones et al. 2008a).
3. Unusual spikes in volatile organic chemical (VOC) emissions, suggesting abrupt, violent fires on specific dates.
4. Unusual species in the environmental monitoring data, also corresponding to specific dates.
Explosions followed by white dust clouds, and molten metal at GZ, are of particular interest in this analysis. A white dust cloud is one of the products of the thermite reaction. The white dust in this case is aluminum oxide, released from the extremely exothermic reaction between aluminum and iron oxide. The other product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the WTC. The environmental data described below give more compelling evidence to support such an inquiry.

In the lengthy quote above, what stands out to me is "such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials." I agree that compared to "a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel" chemical energetic materials provide a better explanation, particularly for the noted spikes.

However, are chemical energetic materials the only explanation or the only cause of the four bullet points and #1 & #2?

Was any other source of energy at work under the rubble that would occassionally touch off remnant chemical energetic materials and cause their spike?

champion September Clues and clues forum research in a reasonable manner

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : champion September Clues and clues forum research in a reasonable manner

2012-03-08

Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

I hope that you will continue to champion September Clues and clues forum research, but please do it in a reasonable manner.

Mr. HybridRogue1 said it quite well:

“Nothing” and “Everything” are quite broad brushes... MOST of what was shown of the scene in NY that day is actual real video footage.

Mr. OneBornFree, you wrote a FACT that isn't:

FACT: All of the tower destruct sequences aired on TV on 9/11 were pre-fabricated on computer, from start to finish [as was other incidental footage.] NOTHING, in any of them [i.e. sky, backgrounds, foregrounds, smoke, fires,trees, bridges, coastlines, people, WTC buildings, surrounding buildings, mini-explosions, shadows, birds, helicopters,sunlight etc. etc. ] in any of them is a reflection of the reality of that day.

The above description of fakery may have been exhibited in some sequences analyzed by the September Clues crew, but that sticky word "all" is just sitting there waiting like a big fat "I dare you" sign for one measely instance of nothing faked (e.g., being authentic) to bring down your argument. Until "all" is proven as pre-fabricated, some imagery will remain as being considered authentic and depicting the "essential reality."

I personally believe that start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images were the exception rather than the norm.

Rather, authentic imagery was passed through a media editing department. Such imagery was only manipulated or tweaked if it revealed destructive methods, like tell-tale flashes or other things that could be incriminating. Even the CGI planes crashing into the towers only inserted the requisite pixels to depict the plane, not model its crash physics.

The argument against start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images (for either the plane impacts or the tower demolitions) is very strong, because if it were such, the video manipulators would have fixed the physics-defying elements. Everything depicted could have been 100% physics-compliant and in agreement from each camera angle.

Take the plane crashes. IMHO the reason they weren't physics-compliant was that they had quasi-real-time footage of an explosion in the upper floors of the towers from various angles. They had to work quickly just to get plane pixels inserted, and these had errors with respect to inconsistent flight paths. They had no time to depict accurate crash physics.

Take the towers' destruction. IMHO the reason their footage weren't compliant with the explanations of pancakes or pile-drivers was that the real-world destructive mechanisms added too much energy and made them physics-defying with respect to explanations involving Newtonian gravitational collapses. They had too many camera angles depicting a real event, and their digital tweaking efforts were spent masking operation methods.

One would think with start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images that at the very least the video manipulators could alter the WTC-7 footage to slow down its 100+ feet of gravitational acceleration. This they didn't do.

formulating convoluted and tiresome theories

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : formulating convoluted and tiresome theories

2012-03-06

Dear Mr. Shack,

I respect the greater part of your work. I'll gladly stand on your shoulders. But your legacy is not without its weaknesses.

I don't mind you casting Ronnie Raygun "distrust but verify" paraphrased dispersions on all 9/11 imagery. But the effort to do a taint-by-association clean sweep off of the table of all 9/11 imagery is disingenous. For the images and videos you've discovered artifacts of digital manipulation, awesome! Until the taint is found in all such media snippets and is also found conflicting with on-the-scene observers understanding of what the "essential reality" was, some imagery will remain on the table to inspire our thinking into the mechanisms of destruction.

A more glaring weakness is found hidden in the following passage from you:

I won’t name any names – so as not to “feed the trolls”, as they say – but the two insidious, hybrid & rogue señors rambling away incessantly on this comment box – formulating convoluted and tiresome theories regarding the WTC towers’ collapse physics – exemplify the sort of dreary, mind-numbing tactics the “9/11 gatekeeping movement” deploys to bore the wits out of everyone.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume that your understanding of the 9/11 media hoax onto the world is valid. If you could impose this understanding on the world, the effect (e.g., WTC destruction suggesting overkill amounts of energy) still needs a credible explanation into the cause. You try mightily to say that media effectively put a black-box around the cause to obscure and hide its true nature; all we know for sure is what went into the black-box and the effect that came out.

When you are pressed to "formulate convoluted and tiresome theories regarding the WTC towers’ collapse physics", the weak argument you and your forum reach towards is a traditional controlled demolition using standard explosives and incendiaries. You discount the physics and the energy levels required to achieve the effect, and how physics, chemistry, and math applied to your suggested cause ends up proving its inapplicability to account for effects (e.g., under-rubble hot-spots without oxygen burning for many weeks) before the implied massive quanties impacts logistics in terms of what could be pulled off in the several days that the bomb-sniffing dogs used for a pre-9/11 holiday. Who's a gatekeeper?

no longer in the milli-nuke camp of the Anonymous Physicist

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : mixing up principles

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

You are correct that I am no longer in the milli-nuke camp of the Anonymous Physicist, but I hang out along its fringes. I'm not in that camp due to:

- Lack of nuke flashes.
- Lack of nuke blast wave going beyond the exterior walls of the tower.
- Lack of heat wave that would scortch not just cars, but paper and humans.
- Likelihood of milli-nuke fracticide.
- Anomalous radiation readings that don't match weapons.

Do you see the dichotomy here? “zero to low radiation nuke” but, “radioactive fragments”

You are mixing up principles here. Nukes have many aspects of their design that can be tweaked or dialed in, albeit with improvements to one aspect forcing trade-offs in other aspects. Designing a nuke for zero to low radiation is defined by the designer, whereby the type of that radiation is but one factor. Nukes can be designed to give off high levels of X radiation and low levels Y radiation, whereby X might be a type that disipates quickly.

Still, all nukes get their punch by nuclear material. Likewise the energy from nuclear reactors comes from nuclear material.

…these [radioactive fragments] are exactly what were not found – No ‘daughter’ elements detected. If the heat is due to ‘radioactivity’ then that is radiation. If there is radiation in quantity to cause large scale heat, that radiation would have a radioactive signature, and it would not be a “trace” signature – this amount of radiation would have killed those amongst it within hours, or days at most.

I disagree for several reasons.

First, we don't know exactly what was found, and we can't rule out nuclear fragments. What we do know is that military security dropped down upon the WTC complex with orders to prevent "unauthorized" pictures and whatnot. We also know that portions of the clean-up procedures resembled that of HazMat techniques: applying copious amounts of water, trucking in fresh dirt and spreading it out, and carting out this same dirt days later.

The heat isn't due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.

Radioactive signatures were present, but as previously proven, they were anomalous and above "trace" levels. Trace levels would have been at or below 20 TU, while one WTC sample measured it at almost 1100 TU.

We have no reason to trust govt reports on radiation measurements. They are sketchy and incomplete. For that matter, it would be an easy task to issue "fake" radiation badges to first responders, so most wouldn't be the wiser.

Lest we forget, Mayor Bloomberg had a little jihad where he was trying to ban the use of Geiger Counters in NYC. What was that all about? Didn't want little independent investigators with Geiger Counters running around and sounding alarms regarding the true radiation measurements.

To your discussion of an EMP, it has errors. A nuke exploding an elevation would have an EMP that affects electronics. One exploding underground or within a building would have far less. EMP is line-of-sight, more or less. Its magnitude is dependent on distance. EMP is another one of those design factors along with radiation, blast wave, and heat wave that can be tweaked. Assuming a much smaller nuclear device and explosion from within the steel towers, the EMP effects could have been reduced dramaticly.

I speculate that the nuclear reactor(s) powering DEW device(s) may have radiated electrical-magnetic fields that the DEW devices snagged and re-purposed, if bad-ass power distribution cables weren't deployed to get energy to the DEW devices. Errant EM fields from the reactor slipping out through window slits may have caused the anomalous fire damage to vehicles.

Traces of tritiated water (HTO)?

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Your agent trenchcoat is exposing more than it should.

Because you are championing super duper nano-thermite as the end-all-cure-all to the anomalous after-effects at WTC, you tell us what its burn-rate is. Take your time and use all of Spring Break if you have to.

You are correct that my presumption of the nano-thermite burn-rate being between 3,000 fps and 29,000 fps may be in error, and deliberately so. Its true burn-rate won't hurt the kernel of my argument in the least, I can assure you. Which way does that error go? Don't be shocked-and-awed by super duper nano-thermite having a burn-rate greater than 29,000 fps.

Do you know what a burn-rate faster than my low-ball 3,000 fps will mean? I didn't think so, so I will explain it for your atrophied science nuggets.

To simplify the math:
- I considered only one hot-spot. There were more.
- I truncated the burn duration to 4 weeks. It was longer in cases.
- I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w 3,000 fps burn-rate listed for common incendiaries. Nano-thermite is faster, and your homework might prove that it is even faster than the 3,000 fps to 29,000 fps range given in my googled source.

These simplifications provide a low estimate for the baseline on the ridiculousness of quantities of such materials needed to explain the duration of an under-rubble hot-spot. Packing such s-l-o-w burn-rate materials into an imaginary garden hose netted one some 884k miles long, which is u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e before translating its volume into material weight.

What happens to the length of the imaginary garden-hose when the material burn-rate is anything greater than the s-l-o-w burn-rate I deliberately chose? The required imaginary garden-hose gets longer. (Kind of like your nose, Mr. HybridRogue1, when you continue to make science-challenged arguments and split inconsequential hairs.)

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' Science

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : science-challenged spin on a disinfo carousel

2012-03-02

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' science has been provided several times. I'll repeat it most briefly both for new readers and scientific-wannabe's-but-aren't like yourself.

Dr. Jones wrote a paper based on blindly-accepted measurements of radiation at ground zero from govt sources and performs with it scientific slight of hand: (unvetted) radiation measurements did not match the radiation signature of three known nuclear weapon types, therefore he leaps to his conclusions that no nuclear weapons were used. Does he speculate about other nuclear sources and unknown nuclear weapons that could account for the (unvetted) radiation measurements? Nope. He lamented frequently about issues with other govt reports (e.g., timeliness, voracity), yet has no issue swallowing the one on radiation measurement?!

So that a vacuum isn't left in taking nukes off the table, Dr. Jones gets credit for discovering nano-thermite in the dust which can indeed burn very hot and without air, drawing its oxygen to burn from the chemical reaction.

The problem here is that neither Dr. Jones, nor Mr. Ryan, nor Mr. Cole, nor you bothered with "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to run numbers on nano-thermite's (or other incendiaries') burn-rate to estimate quantities required to account for the duration of hot-spots... because this suggests massive, totally unrealistic quantities. And when the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth run with it to explain features in the destruction that "boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves it cannot, he doesn't correct the record.

Nuggets of Clues

Hide All / Expand All

---

Herr der Elf : Red-meat for this forum

2012-02-19

by Herr der Elf February 19th, 2012, 3:00 am

To the gracious participants of the clues forum,

I respectfully ask your indulgence. I am "Herr der Elf" here, because it is easier to type than the "Señor El Once" I use over at Craig McKee's "Truth & Shadows blog" http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie.

I am the resident champion there of both September Clues and Dr. Wood, although I do it in an admittedly left- and back-handed manner.

I objectively review all that I can; I think for myself; I stand on the shoulders of others and mine, re-fine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Wood and have no association with her or her textbook; Mr. Shack I only know from cyberspace.

I have been in email contact with Mr. Shack and requested the assistance of him and the Clues Team. I am hoping that you could focus your digital-artifact-seeking-eyes on a select group of images acknowledged by everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement... but particularly by Dr. Judy Wood.

In preparation for that, Mr. Shack sent me some links to review, which includes this very thread (the middle link to CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE). From Mr. Shack:

simonshack wrote:My historical outlook concerning the Judy Wood character: THE KOOKIE CLUB:
viewtopic.php?p=2365280#p2365280

Here is why I believe the Ground Zero imagery cannot be trusted: OLIVER STONE'S RUBBLE FIELD:
viewtopic.php?p=2353367#p2353367

Here is why I believe that the entire pool of WTC collapse imagery is a fraud:
CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

Here is proof that the rubble imagery is also untrustworthy: FAKING THE RUBBLE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489

And here is further proof of the same: THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

I'm sorry to have to ask you to spend time looking out all these links, but I reckon that this is a necessary requirement for anyone asking me to allow my forum to indulge in an umpteenth, circular debate of the technicalities of the WTC collapse - such as those infesting most 9/11 truth forums.

I have reviewed them (mostly). They all have merit. You have sold me on the updated "Ronnie Ray-Gun" paraphrase to distrust but verify when it comes to all 9/11 imagery.


Mr. Shack wrote:

simonshack wrote:I do believe most longtime Cluesforum members share my views about Judy Wood, i. e. - that her gatekeeping role is to uphold at all costs the credibility of the 9/11 imagery - as she specifically struggles to 'make some sense' of the physically impossible/ ridiculous visuals of the ("dustifying") tower collapses proposed by the media.

I disagree with this characterization of Dr. Wood's efforts. It can easily be proven wrong. If Dr. Wood's purpose was "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", then we would see all of the images that she collected re-used elsewhere. We see some, because the borrowing went from established 9/11 sources to Dr. Wood and everyone else. The more curious cases are the images that she borrows and nobody else does, like the anomalous damage to vehicles. These are avoided by the mainstream leaders of 9/11; these don't get an explanation in their versions of what happened.

The above paragraph takes nothing away from any of the discoveries of 9/11 image tainting and the possibility that tainted images made it into Dr. Wood's work (as well as everyone else's). It would be a case of Dr. Wood being duped, just like the world was duped.

In fact, it was the Anonymous Physicist who suggested that Dr. Wood's purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event and wrap it under some zany theme. (I use the term "nuclear event" to include potentially multiple milli-nuclear devices as well as nuclear and/or cold fusion reactors to power DEW devices.) Thus, Dr. Wood's purpose wouldn't be "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", but to garbage-in/garbage-out misinterpret the significance of what was depicted.

Mr. Shack, you write:

simonshack wrote:Is anyone going to tell Judy that she is looking at CGI imagery?
Needless to say, for any scientist to base a thesis on fake imagery... isn't very scientific at all!

To your first sentence: I don't have direct contact with Dr. Wood, but will mention it to those I think might.

To your second sentence: Very poor... no, "lame"... framing on your part. Did she know the images were tainted? The vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement are not suspecting image/video manipulation, so we should be gracious and give her the benefit of the doubt. Basing a scientific thesis on tainted information does indeed call the thesis into question; only after answering the "what did she know and when did she know it" questions can any sort of innocence or guilt be affixed to the scientist. So, please. Let us be courteous and mindful by separating the thesis from the scientist.

Clanging of Symbols and Tinkling of Brass

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass

2012-02-14

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I wrote:

Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11. As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is. And consequently, the means with which they duped us in this hoax will be re-deployed again and again, to our demise.

You ask:

In what is there “prejudgment”?

"Duh? My name is Rogue Agent Hybrid. My circuits get rusted when I as much as entertain the notion of sending my Q-bots into Simon Shack's rabbit holes or into the open crack of Dr. Wood's textbook. Nope. Ain't going there, and will continue to plug along from my strong position of ignorance on both subjects."

You, like me, have obviously been around the 9/11 block several times here in cyberspace. [And we've probably been allies in most things 9/11.] You've been on the disinformation merry-go-round in various cyber-forums, and like me, are dizzy. The truth movement has been spun worse than damp wrinkled clothes in an efficient German washing machine at RPM's higher than a race car.

Those of us still seeking truth in the hopes of applying it to better our present situation [America, the world], well,... "question authority" was the mantra of the generation before me. The mantra of 9/11 truth seekers has become "distrust but verify" and necessitates revisiting lots of data points in what we were told from official sources, told from within the 9/11 truth movement, and told even from its fringes. We're force to triangulate God's honest truth from there.

Let it be admitted ... that long before [Dr. Wood] published her mighty tome ..., central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed.

Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass have admittedly been deployed in such scientific critiques, I discover when I research this objectively, on my own, and going deeper than second-hand regurgitated cud. Cud does have nutritional value, which is why the sacred cow chews it some more in the manufacture of milk. Alas, cud ain't Spring grass either, and I've found many instances of the such scientific critiques running pre-maturely out of steam or simply off the road into the weeds.

** We now interrupt this posting-in-progress to bring you highlights from the latest Mr. HybridRogue1 posting and my commentary. **

My Humble Critique of a Small Fraction of Dr. Jones' Excellent Legacy

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement

2012-02-14

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

It was not my intent to be a joker when I linked you between threads within this blog, so I am sorry if I left that impression. I just didn't want to bore the readers of two different threads with the same material that you claim to not having a hard time grasping, yet with really no indication that you do judging from your consistent malframing and skew.

I gave the summary of ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement, recognizing that the vast majority I have no issues with and applaud him for his legacy. My ire is localized. Dr. Jones, more so than any other individual or group outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, takes speculation about 9/11 being a nuclear event out of the picture and fills its vacuum with nano-thermite.

- He refers to govt reports that say radiation of types X, Y, and Z were measured at certain levels. (Interesting that he condemns the govt for slow-walking and unscientific work in other 9/11 reports, yet he accepted this radiation report without question. Given the govt track record, these reports on radiation levels deserve further scrutiny.)

- He deduces that known nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C were not used, because the measured radiation types X, Y, and Z were at insufficient levels to match those known weapons. (Garbage in / Garbage out.)

- He concludes without more substantiation in a scientific slight-of-hand that no nuclear weapons were used, just because data didn't line up with publicly known nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C. What about potential nuclear weapons of type E, nuclear reactors of type F, or cold fusion type G?

- He stops any further speculation about what could have resulted in the anomalous measured radiation X, Y, and Z.

- He takes the anomalous radiation measurements off of the table through the scientific slight of hand of redefining "background levels" to be 55 times greater than their previous levels. Thus, measured radiation was at or below the new background level. (This comes from Dr. Ed Ward.)

- In the realm of nano-thermite, he lets the science-challenged yeomen like you extrapolate it to explain features in the destruction that it cannot. The support for nano-thermite being explosive enough (in reasonable quantities) to achieve pulverization is weak, but worse is its ability -- even in combination with other slow-burning incendiaries -- to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without unreasonably massive quantities of such.

- Dr. Jones is the one who publicly framed Dr. Wood's work as "beams from space" and "space beams." (From Mr. Andrew Johnson)

- Granted that many of us are reading historical exchanges between Dr. Jones and others for the first time and out of context on various web-sites. The impression I get from the language and tone from Dr. Jones sometimes uncharacteristically takes a negative tilt. He didn't shy from playing the disinfo card against others, and it wouldn't surprise me -- like the "space beam" taunts -- if we discover him pre-emptively doing so.

- Dr. Jones participation on behalf of the US govt in getting cold-fusion research shut down (at least as far as the public was concerned) for a couple of decades is noteworthy as well. (From Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson.)

And I STILL have not come across a serious scientific critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. I even took off my black sunglasses to make sure I wasn’t missing any details.

The only things that DO exist originate with that stooge Greening, over at the JREF forums, where all is hi-fives and “yuk yuk ain’t we cute”.

Truth & Shadows and humble Maxwell's Silver Hammer might just change where such speculation is found on the internet via this very posting.

I have never spent significant time on JREF, and I think this is because they didn't approve my registration, so I couldn't participate. Reading what people link me to proves that JREF's "yuk yuk yuk" is well deserved and a blessing to us all, just like the Three Stoogies of old. Negative examples can have positive influences.

The Boojie Woojie High School Chemistry

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : the boojie woojie high school chemistry

2012-02-13

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I grasp probably better than you that "physical evidence for STILL unreacted thermates [existed] in the dust." That was never the issue. The issue was the starting quantities that can be calculated using "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to account for the observed side-effects (pulverization, hot-spots, and unreacted thermite) and that don't add up as being reasonable.

But first, I feel compelled to call you nasty names for this masterful yet totally erroneous yarn and insertion of words into my mouth:

I say that there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries – then you say, “you can’t have it both ways”…WTF? Yes I can, there is the probability of several types of explosives and incendiaries – it is NOT one or the other…mate.

You are the one who has been arguing as if nano-thermite was the end-all cure-all, "no need to go looking any further." Too bad "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves this wrong.

Now you're saying, "there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries." I agree with this probability being true, but not that these several types of explosives and incendiaries account for the observed side-effects as if they -- in combination -- were the primary mechanism and end-all cure-all. "The boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves you wrong... again.

When I said, "you can’t have it both ways", it referred to fast destructive energy of pulverization (fast burn rate) and excessively long burn periods (slow burn rate).

When you review "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" again, you'll see that I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate (3,300 fps) for common explosives and indendiaries used in such demolitions. It is presumed that nano-thermite itself has a burn-rate somewhere in this range:

3,000 fps < nano-thermite burn-rate < 29,000 fps

By chosing the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate, "the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries" is taken into consideration and we end up with a s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario.

"The boojie woojie high school science" had us pack the combination of explosives into a garden hose with a square cross-section to simplify the math. Ignition was started at one end. The question was: How long is the garden hose in order for the fire to burn 4 weeks? Some 882,000 miles.

This estimate is LOW. (a) It was only one hot-spot, not many. (b) Crank up the burn rate to match the average of nano-thermite and any variety of exposives and incendiaries used in the mix, you increase the length of the garden hose by many orders of magnitude.

Because the garden hose was imaginary, we can ignore its weight. We cannot ignore the weight of the massive quantities of nano-thermite (or combination of other materials) that were packed into this volume. This is left as an exercise for you to calculate.

I'll give you a hint: if 882,000 miles of garden hose seems obscenely large and unrealistic to account for just one hot-spot and not even multiple hot-spots, not even the actual many weeks of burning, not even what remained unreacted, and not even what was consumed already in the pulverization, then you will begin to understand how "boojie woojie high school science" disproves the hypothesis that fast-burning nano-thermite (super duper or otherwise or any combination thereof) can be the primary destructive mechanism for everything observed at the WTC.


Let that sink in.


Another energy source for the hot-spots must be sought.


Don't you get it?

Thus the nano-thermite sacred cow gets slaughtered.


So, we need to come up with a new hypothesis to explain side-effects of pulverization and duration of hot-spots.

Dr. Wood does a great job of nudging people to think outside the box. Alas, to prove that I'm not blindly following Dr. Wood and am thinking for myself, I point out a yet another weak area in her textbook. But let me start with Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones rules out nukes of type X, Y, or Z, because the radiation signature at ground zero didn't match them. Dr. Jones erroneously extrapolated his findings of the destructive mechanism not being "nukes of type X, Y, or Z" to being "no nukes at all." He did not speculate into "nukes of type W" or "nuclear generators" that could account for the anomalous radiation measurements.

Dr. Wood ruled out "deep underground nukes", because of the bathtub not being damaged. Dr. Wood introduces the concept of "separation" of the observable destructive cutting edge from its energy source, which she does with the concepts of free energy and possibly tapping into the energy of Hurricane Erin. She does not go into evidence of radiation measurements that required Dr. Jones' dog-and-pony show on the subject to begin with. Dr. Wood did not entertain the concept of a milli-nuclear generator being the source of energy for whatever was the destructive cutting edge (e.g., DEW). She tries to caste doubt that there were even hot-spots, referring to the images of hydraulic machines picking up glowing pieces of metal, saying "all that glows is not necessarily hot, and the hydraulics would fail if such hot-spots were present."

Enter Mr. Shack, who doesn't want to go into Dr. Wood's work at all, saying that it is based on tainted images. Expanding upon his point, if the image of the hydraulic machine picking up a glowing piece of metal were a faked digital representation (used by both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood), ironically Dr. Wood's statement of "all that glows [in digital imagery] is not necessarily hot" remains truthful, although the efforts to side-line hot-spots is not.

Ignorant about Propellants and Explosives

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives

2011-02-11

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

We probably both fall into the category of being ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives.

Although I disbelieve that super duper nano-thermite has the explosive potential to pulverize the contents of the tower as observed on 9/11, quite possibly you'll find examples and not just hearsay that it is so. Doesn't matter, because the more effort you put into proving the explosive energy of nano-thermite, the more you prove that super duper nano-thermite could not account for the hot-spots that burned for many weeks.

Physics in this matter says that you can't have it both ways. You can't have nano-thermite accounting for pulverization ~AND~ the many week duration of hot-spots.

You wrote:

[T]hese materials found in the surface dust were ‘unreacted’…if there are unreacted incendiaries in the surface materials, it is more than reasonable to presume they are in the pile and buried with the debris – this being the case there is a source for a continued burn, which most certainly would account for the furnace effects reported by witnesses.

To put it nicely, you are talking through your hat and exposing your weak pedigree in the area of science, math, and physics.

From Dr. Ed Ward:

The velocity of instantaneous combustion has been measured for most explosives and is referred to as the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from approximately 3,300 feet per second (fps) to over 29,900 fps. To bring this speed down to our terms - If we took a five-mile length of garden hose and filled it in with a high explosive and then detonated one end of the hose, it would only take one second for the chemical reaction to reach the other end.
http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm

What is the burn-rate or detonation velocity of super duper nano-thermite? I don't know.

What I do know is that hot-spots burned for many weeks (more than 4.) 4 weeks = 28 days = 392 hours = 23,520 minutes = 1,411,200 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let's contemplate one hot-spot, use a slow burn rate of 3,300 feet per second, and just 4 weeks. Thus, for this imaginary explosive we would need a garden hose 4,656,960,000 feet long (or approximately 882,000 miles). You can tweak the numbers to make them specific to nano-thermite with the energy to pulverize content, but to account for the duration of the hot-spot you'll get a garden hose even longer that 882,000 miles.

Ignoring the weight of the hose itself and assuming 1/2 diameter hose, how much explosive material in kilograms would be in such? Massive amounts.

Not just massive amounts. Unreasonable amounts.

Have the nuclear hot-spots in Japan as a result of the 2011-03-11 action (earthquake, tidal wave, etc.) been put out? I don't know. What I do know is that nuclear hot-spots comes closer to answering the observed outcome of 9/11 than super duper nano-thermite.

Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1, other energy sources and destructive mechanisms for 9/11 much be sought.

You parking yourself and the discussion at nano-thermite? Expose either your ignorance or your agenda.

The same might be said about your attacks on video fakery. I don't know what you did at Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention, but given that they earn their profits by making us believe fake things are real on the telly -- just like we're saying much of 9/11 were fake things that looked almost real on the telly --, then...

Kudos, Mr. HybridRogue1. I consider you on the A-team of the NSA Q-Group, which is why, as you say, I'll never persuade you on this topic.