As part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I've been libeled and slandered as "an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist." In reality, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
Señor El Once : "Imagine no plane" thought process
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.)
Señor El Once : adjectives applied will be "massive" and "ginormous".
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".
Señor El Once : call it "electromagnetic energy"
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.
Señor El Once : You're the ying to my yang
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..."
Señor El Once : do not expect any further replies
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!
Señor El Once : don't wave-off the nuclear signatures
Señor Agent Rogue wrote:
There are ZERO nuclear characteristics to the event itself.
Not true. The cascading pulverization of content could be pretty indicative of that. Specially tweaked nukes don't have to give off the tell-tale signatures of conventional nukes in the same manner (flash, bang, EMP, heat wave, blast wave, alpha radiation, beta radiation, gamma radiation, X-ray radiation, etc.) Unconventional nukes whose primary output is electromagnetic energy that is DEW targeted (like the X-Ray laser intended to take out missiles). An amped up microwave. It could turn residual water molecules in content into steam whose expanding volume pressure blew content apart.
The issue with your chemical explosives is that they BURN. Why so little flaming falling debris? In fact, therein lies a major piece of evidence from Dr. Wood's textbook. When you study images and videos of the destruction of the towers, you see pieces falling that seem to have smoke trails. Is it just smoke? Or is it primarily dust and steam? How did your chemical materials get materials turned to smoke without flames or red-hot metal? Why didn't burning particles from your plastmastic flow clouds ignite many office fires in adjacent buildings, yet at the persistence to attack metal in cars to make them pop-off?
Señor El Once : Dr. Wood has not made a sufficient case for missing steel
It is easy to get confused, particularly when different arguments are made to debunk different aspects of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory (OCT) that itself morphed over time. Moreover, this thread is a bunch of 9/11 truthers arguing amongst ourselves using the same evidence to support their claims.
Here's the way I sum it up. The OCT suggests that a 20-30 story pile driver demolished the lower 70-80 stories.
Dr. Wood is one of many who debunks this. She uses seismic evidence to support her debunking. Namely, if such a pile driver existed and were at work, it would have had a more noticable seismic spike, particularly when it hit the ground. In fact, traveling down and impacting floors would have released energy into the still intact lower structure that would transmit to the foundation and then to the seismic measuring station such signature events. Moreover, she takes it a step further, by saying (paraphrased) that if the towers were to have collapsed in a natural fashion, much larger cohesive chunks would have been expected to fall outside of the foot print, would have fallen from great heights, would have acquired large amounts of kinetic energy, and would have had both larger seismic spikes as well as crippling damage to bath tub.
So far, everything I have written undermines the OCT and could support the hypotheses of any form of controlled demolition including DEW.
The dustification of content and the disassembly of steel sections she argues weren't flukes of an overly redundant, exceptionally thorough overkill demolition. No, this was planned so that damage to the bath tub could be minimized.
The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn't happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being "crazy, loony, nutty" and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.
Assuming that the 9/11TM has such Sunstein infiltration, then fitting well into the profile of government-controlled messaging would be the rabid way in which Dr. Judy Wood and her work are denounced as "crazy, loony, nutty" and with crass discouragement from serious study, to the point of banning participants from forums when they bring up Dr. Wood's work in a favorable light, or not allowing such discussions to happen in the first place. Despite many instances where Dr. Wood's research was discussed rationally on Truth & Shadows, relatively new tag-teaming participants disruptively argue for "separation and containment" [e.g., under this very article.]
Dr. Wood published in 2010 her textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?". It is 2012, and where are the detailed good, bad, and ugly book reviews from respected 9/11 scholars? Particularly noteworthy are all of the attempts at book reports without having read it. In their attempts to shut down relevant commentary inspired by her book, they cite articles that pre-date the book and that thus have no accurate knowledge of exactly what would be in the book.
Paraphrased from Hamlet: "Me thinketh thou doth protest too much."
One of Dr. Wood’s central claims has always been that the central core steel in the building “dustified.” She bases this belief on a well known video taken from a particular angle. ... However, this is one angle from a rather low quality video. The angle is key. Have a look at this much higher quality footage of the same phenomenon, from a different angle. ... It is clear from this video that the steel spire is not turning to dust. It is falling, and in its wake, it’s shedding off some of the dust that has just coated it from the surrounding materials that have been “dustified” through the use of explosives.Yes, you are correct. Of the many weaknesses I've found in Dr. Wood's textbook, this was one of them: relying on a particular angle for the demise of the spire to base her analysis on. It leaves the impression that the steel in the spire was turning to dust. Yet, views of the spire from different angles ought to change that assessment.
Señor El Once : salvage and keep in play
Mr. HybridRogue1 on April 12, 2012 at 9:42 am
I have moved over into the pro-CIT camp after reading Onesliceshort’s very compelling piece last night. So this is as close to a total ‘conversion’ as I have had in some time.
Kudos for having the moxie to be able change your mind based on evidence and compelling analysis. In your mind (mine as well), the Pentagon strike takes on more of a tint of a Hollywood production. "Rather than having a real plane hit the Pentagon, let's just have the military-corporate media say that it did. We'll have a real plane buzz the Pentagon and find some other way of inflicting damage on those pesky investigators in the Office of Naval Intelligence to get them to shut up about the missing $2.3 trillion."
Earlier, you had made the following statement HybridRogue1 on April 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm
[M]y view is that there were no hijackings. That re-worked planes, most likely Boeing hull frames and wings, were specially created by the military for this op. Hardened wing edges, perhaps titanium edges reinforced by kavlar – juiced up engines with special fan blades to fly in the thicker ground level atmosphere. All flown by tamper proof remote control. They may have carried ordinance and fired missiles nanoseconds before their impacts. That is my best guess as far as the aircraft used in the operation.
Is there anything from the above statement that you want to salvage and keep in play (and/or maybe apply to WTC)?
Much of the Pentagon damage suggests a missile strike. The issue for me is that flying missiles are both visible and audible, and to my knowledge there are no witnesses to missiles flying parallel courses with a plane. My limited research into missiles depicts them with a tell-tale rocket (or jet) exhaust trail. To allow the missile to generate the appropriate thrust to get up to "ramming speed" with enough manueverability to get to the target that isn't on the plane's flight path, it would have to be launched "seconds" sooner and therefore be visible for several hundred feet (or more) flying a parallel path.
This is why I floated the idea of the missile really being in the construction trailer than allegedly housed a generator.
For that matter, though, the Pentagon is allegedly ringed with all sorts of defense mechanisms. Reason suggests that one could conceivably be reprogrammed and targeted at the Pentagon. Of course, its activation would be noticed, as would the empty silo. The construction trailer seems like a better option. And we have all of those animations of a plane hitting the Pentagon to thank for calling attention to that trailer to explain how it got clipped by the plane and moved from a parallel or perpendicular parking position to one that is askew and in near alignment with the damage path.
As for re-applying those "hardened aircraft" to the towers? Well, this is what debunkers of no-planes (like the very same Frank Legge) try to do in order to explain manueverability (& speed) at low altitude and heavy air exceeding the capabilities of the alleged aircraft. Also, to explain the lack of crash physics and the wing-tip to wing-tip cartoon outline of the plane on the buildings.
Seems like such a waste to harden a plane just so it can be destroyed (although much of the military's arsenal of bombs and missiles suggests a use-it-once-and-be-gone mentality). The real waste is that pixels on the telly and military-corporate media complicity can do a much more effective job of telling the masses what they saw and what they didn't see. And they were going to have to reach into this psyops hypno-bag extensively anyway.
Reminds me of Star Trek and how transporters came into being. I understand that the makers of the show didn't want to waste precious minutes of each and every show with the riggamarole of launching, flying, & landing shuttles, so they dreamed up transporters to get the crew instantly where they needed to be on the planet. Once explained and demonstrated a few times, the audience bought it. Problem solved.
Not that everything on 9/11 had to be the same modus operandus, but two-out-of-four Pennsylvania and the Pentagon scream of "no plane crashes." The remaining two at the towers have similar issues. Of all the bunk we've experienced with Sgt. Shack, no-planes might be the kernel of truth that his circus wants to distract us from.
As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it. My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.
Mr. OneSliceShort's excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.