Bruecke Note: What follows are some highlights of one-side of an intelligent exchange about 9/11 spread across a couple of forums. [Clicking on the titles expands/collapses the section; clicking on the dates takes you to the original discussion in content.]
Señor El Once is the duped useful idiot on the topics of nuclear-powered DEW [directed energy weapons] and video manipulation [pixels of planes, no real planes]. Mr. HybridRogue1 tries to dissuade Señor El Once of this view and believes that nano-thermite explains all of the destruction and after effects. Unfortunately, mathematics applied to the duration of the under-rubble hot-spots proves that massively enormous quantities of the incendiary material would be required, above and beyond what was consumed in the pulverization of the towers. Doesn't seem quite so Occam Razor, and doesn't account for the radiation measurements (and the dog-and-pony-show to get nuclear means taken off of the table.)
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/documentary-a-noble-lie-exposes-oklahoma-city-bombing-as-government-black-op/
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie
By: Maxwell C. Bridges = Señor El Once
Date: 2012-04-11
Expand All / Hide All
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You have a nasty habit of putting words into my mouth.
I never said "there were no deaths ... in the towers." However, the evidence is compelling that a significant number of the reported deaths of airline passengers, of workers in the towers, and of first responders were simVictims.
Having experienced Mr. Shack first-hand here and lately on his home-court, I now know he is disinfo. But that doesn't mean his efforts into exposing aspects of the 9/11 media hoax can be thrown out whole-sale. What it means is that each nugget needs to be inspected and vetted, and some will be bogus.
And this goes for all 9/11 (dis)information.
A recent dawning in my own understanding of 9/11 is the depressing fact that the public during our lifetimes (and our kids) will never, ever get an objective investigation based on open-access to government, military, & media archives.
At this point in time, everything you or I think we know about 9/11 is disinformation. It all requires pain-staking vetting.
When 9/11 Truthers such as yourself dismiss disinformation sources out-of-hand like you do with your Shack and Wood comments, you become a tool of disinformation in advancing its agenda, which includes taking out of play many nuggets of truth.
One of Mr. Shack's true disinformation agendas is to get all 9/11 imagery distrusted to the point where no argument could be advanced or supported using (only) the imagery; he casts doubt on even images that aren't obviously tainted.
I'm not at the point where I can label Dr. Wood or her textbook disinfo. Thanks to spins on Mr. Shack's carousel, I am starting to see the areas where she might have been duped (e.g., tainted images) which then misled her to wrong conclusions. I don't really care whether space-based or spire-based DEW (with free-energy from Hurricane Erin or Hutchison cold-fusion) survive the vetting process. But what will survive the vetting process are her valid unanswered scientific questions into the energy requirements that the disinfo you march behind ignores, as well as evidence and correlations in the destructive side-effects (e.g., anomalous fire damage to vehicles).
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You have a serious scientific misconception exhibited in your definitions.
Uranium-235, as but one example, is in its natural state radioactive. That is, in emits radiation, albeit small amounts. When that same radioactive element is induced into a nuclear reaction, it tends to emit much more radioactivity.
So, your whole “Nonradioactive radioactivity” drama figuratively and literally has no bearing. And I have to say, WTF? Your spin done spun out, crashed, and burned.
I wrote:
Mr. HybridRogue continues with a misconception:
Radioactivity refers to the alpha, gamma, etc. particles being emitted by the nuclear reaction. Radioactive emission is one of those nuclear design features that can be tweaked. Had it not been for debris covering over the hot spots, maybe nuclear device's (weapon or reactor) designed emissions would have fried [first responders] by the radioactivity. As it were, the fizzling reaction transferred heat through the debris that could be felt by first responders telling them to stay away.
A couple other things to take into consideration. First Responders did not climb over every inch of debris initially. Between the dangers of hot-spots, holes, and falling debris (into and within holes), they were probably more prudent in how they got about.
Simon Shack has made a convincing case the even images of the aftermath are subject to tainting. Control of the media, control of the crime scene, control of the visual imagery permitted from the crime scene, control of the message given to the public...
The force of the misconception runs deep with you, Anakin Skywalker.
The pile is not cooked by radioactiviy. The fizzling but unspent nuclear material would be radiating heat and well as radioactivity. The heat would transfer through debris to cook things. The radiated radioactivity would be contained by the debris and material surrounding and burying the fizzling nuclear reaction.
Because radiation is a designed-in parameter of the nuclear device (weapon or reactor), because the radiating source was buried, and because we do not have a viable public record of how they approached 100% of the task and with what protective equipment they might deploy, the "lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning" is easy to explain.
Mostly correct. Remember, we are talking milli-nukes whose blast effects are also dialed in, with the caveat that weakly-energetic nuclear weapons are harder to get executed as designed than strongly-energetic ones. Small nukes have a higher probability of fizzling than of nuclear reacting with the desired strength blast wave, heat wave, EMP, etc.
The point is, the bathtub would not necessarily have been affected with a milli-nuclear detonation in the basement levels. Of course, a nuke going off at the foundation level would leave a seismic signature, I believe. If we can trust the seismic reports, I don't think they indicate this.
Mostly correct as well. Remember that if things are blocking the line-of-sight EMP emissions, things like steel walls of the exteriour structure, like intact floors, or like falling debris, and if the EMP emission is forced to go through window slits, the EMP won't hit outside targets on the streets and parking lot full strength. The WTC complex was evacuated and the public pushed back a couple blocks, which then positioned EMP blocking buildings in the way. EMP strength is a function of distance.
It should be pointed out that the anomalous vehicle damage particularly along West Broadway and in the parking lot at the North-West corner of Vesey St. and West St., catti-corner from the WTC does suggest damage from large electro-magnetic fields.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Señor El Once is the duped useful idiot on the topics of nuclear-powered DEW [directed energy weapons] and video manipulation [pixels of planes, no real planes]. Mr. HybridRogue1 tries to dissuade Señor El Once of this view and believes that nano-thermite explains all of the destruction and after effects. Unfortunately, mathematics applied to the duration of the under-rubble hot-spots proves that massively enormous quantities of the incendiary material would be required, above and beyond what was consumed in the pulverization of the towers. Doesn't seem quite so Occam Razor, and doesn't account for the radiation measurements (and the dog-and-pony-show to get nuclear means taken off of the table.)
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/documentary-a-noble-lie-exposes-oklahoma-city-bombing-as-government-black-op/
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie
By: Maxwell C. Bridges = Señor El Once
Date: 2012-04-11
Expand All / Hide All
Señor El Once : nasty habit of putting words into my mouth
2012-03-01
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You have a nasty habit of putting words into my mouth.
I have already stated that I think both the Shack and Wood stories are woowoo disinfo. As far as considering that there were no deaths of the workers in the towers…bullshit -flat out, that is my response. That there were likely special digital legends created as well, it is part of Intel’s MO, and I wouldn’t doubt it.
I never said "there were no deaths ... in the towers." However, the evidence is compelling that a significant number of the reported deaths of airline passengers, of workers in the towers, and of first responders were simVictims.
Having experienced Mr. Shack first-hand here and lately on his home-court, I now know he is disinfo. But that doesn't mean his efforts into exposing aspects of the 9/11 media hoax can be thrown out whole-sale. What it means is that each nugget needs to be inspected and vetted, and some will be bogus.
And this goes for all 9/11 (dis)information.
A recent dawning in my own understanding of 9/11 is the depressing fact that the public during our lifetimes (and our kids) will never, ever get an objective investigation based on open-access to government, military, & media archives.
At this point in time, everything you or I think we know about 9/11 is disinformation. It all requires pain-staking vetting.
When 9/11 Truthers such as yourself dismiss disinformation sources out-of-hand like you do with your Shack and Wood comments, you become a tool of disinformation in advancing its agenda, which includes taking out of play many nuggets of truth.
One of Mr. Shack's true disinformation agendas is to get all 9/11 imagery distrusted to the point where no argument could be advanced or supported using (only) the imagery; he casts doubt on even images that aren't obviously tainted.
I'm not at the point where I can label Dr. Wood or her textbook disinfo. Thanks to spins on Mr. Shack's carousel, I am starting to see the areas where she might have been duped (e.g., tainted images) which then misled her to wrong conclusions. I don't really care whether space-based or spire-based DEW (with free-energy from Hurricane Erin or Hutchison cold-fusion) survive the vetting process. But what will survive the vetting process are her valid unanswered scientific questions into the energy requirements that the disinfo you march behind ignores, as well as evidence and correlations in the destructive side-effects (e.g., anomalous fire damage to vehicles).
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.
Don't let me give the wrong impression. Mr. Shack and Dr. Wood both have some junk. I assert with confidence from having gone deeper into the subject matter that important nuggets of truth are also to be found there.
For you to judge everything as utter junk from no more than a glance and from your expressed reluctance to explore deeper? You seem to call yourself a 9/11 Truther. Ironic how you validate your own statement: "[T]he Truth Movement itself ... is the governments disinformation program."
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.
I assert with confidence that it is Wood and her fantasy land “science” that is the disinformation here. And Shack as well. Both of their stories are utter junk. And it doesn’t take more than a glance to see this.
Don't let me give the wrong impression. Mr. Shack and Dr. Wood both have some junk. I assert with confidence from having gone deeper into the subject matter that important nuggets of truth are also to be found there.
For you to judge everything as utter junk from no more than a glance and from your expressed reluctance to explore deeper? You seem to call yourself a 9/11 Truther. Ironic how you validate your own statement: "[T]he Truth Movement itself ... is the governments disinformation program."
Señor El Once : lead the readers in circles
2012-03-04
Mr. HybridRogue1: March 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm
You waited needlessly, because the scientific critique of Dr. Jones was repeated more than a couple of times within this very thread. Here are some of the highlights:
++++++++++
Señor El Once: January 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Señor El Once: January 28, 2012 at 7:53 am
Señor El Once: February 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Señor El Once: February 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Señor El Once: February 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm
…I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.
You waited needlessly, because the scientific critique of Dr. Jones was repeated more than a couple of times within this very thread. Here are some of the highlights:
++++++++++
Señor El Once: January 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Turns out, I have lots of issues with Dr. Jones. I mean, I like the man; he seems pretty nice; even in his “thus far and no further” line drawing, he has done great services to the 9/11 Movement. But he has also steered it away from where it should be looking.
Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: “Radiation measurements didn’t match X, Y, or Z levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated.” Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source, like a nuclear or cold-fusion generator. Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of “trace levels” so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being “below trace levels.”
Great that Dr. Jones found super duper nano-thermite in the dust. The issue for me is that he let the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 extrapolate this into explaining things it cannot (like duration of under-ruble fires, radiation readings.). He should have corrected the record and nipped it in the bud from the beginning. All it would have taken was a little math to calculate not just the quantities of super duper nano-thermite required to dismantle the towers, but also the additional, massively overkill amounts required to account for pulverization AND the duration of under-rubble fires. No such math paper was ever produced by capable Mr. Jones to correct the record, because it would have left a gaping hole in need of an explaining destructive mechanism.
Señor El Once: January 28, 2012 at 7:53 am
Why did nuclear physicists Dr. Jones write his paper that concludes how no nuclear weapons (of known types A, B, and C) were employed on 9/11? Wouldn’t have been necessary had measurements of radiation in reports from the govt not needed explaining. Let us not forget the hot spots in the rubble that burned for many weeks. Let us not forget the 1st responder ailments. Let us not forget the HazMat procedures often exhibited with dump trucks at the site. Let us not forget the security and secrecy they surrounded ground zero with. Let us not forget the destruction of evidence that was decried even by fire investigation authorities charged with investigating 9/11.
Señor El Once: February 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I’ll even let you speculate that (at least) two kinds of thermate were used: on one extreme were extremely fast/flash burning whose explosive energy you want to credit with pulverizing content; on the other extreme were slow burning cutting charges as exhibited by Dr. Jones and Mr. Cole in their experiments. Any way you combine them, if you do the math and run the numbers, for thermates to account for the duration of the heat you would need massive quantities and probably a conveyor system to continually feed it to the hot spot. (Obviously, working conveyor systems for thermate weren’t present under the rubble.)
Señor El Once: February 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Calm-and-ahhh: The EPA was forced into making an “air is clean” proclamation within days without substantiation that held up. In a similar calming trend, some of the image manipulation dealt with the insertion of people and first responders into the Ground Zero wasteland. “See? It isn’t so hot, so radioactive, or so life threatening. These people are alive and walking about.” Dr. Jones wrote his stilted analysis of the radiation measurments, “Because nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C have radiation signatures of X, Y, and Z, no nukes were deployed.” (Nuke-peddler Dr. Ward claims that Dr. Jones’ math redefines “trace levels” to be 55 times greater than before so that the phrase “below trace level” could be deployed.)
Señor El Once: February 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm
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.
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 following hair-split from you is like a blast of artic air blowing through your open trench coat and shrinking your atrophied science nuggets even more.
The scenario in question involved high temperatures, little oxygen, and a l-o-n-g burn duration. The WTC office content would have required oxygen to burn, and could not have reached the p-r-o-l-o-n-g-e-d high temperatures. Thus, we're discussing options on additional demolition materials that could account for observed features. You say incendiaries and nano-thermite, right?
I say, no. I've given your incendiaries and nano-thermite tons of leeway in terms of s-l-o-w burn-rates and stretching the materials out in an imaginary garden hose just like a fuse, so that it would not burn all at once: *POOF!!!* If a linear fuse is out, what other configuration would you have us install your beloved incendiaries that would have it burn even slower?
++++++++
On the other theme: Dr. Ward's writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.
From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:
=> 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]
Thus we have:
=> 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
=> 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
=> 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]
In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60's, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
- http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html
=> 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level
Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:
=> (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63
Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.
Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):
Specifically, right below the quotation on measurements from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers":
Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization "these trace levels" to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.
However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.
I have issues with some of Dr. Ward's other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.
Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward's factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,... as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.
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 following hair-split from you is like a blast of artic air blowing through your open trench coat and shrinking your atrophied science nuggets even more.
A "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario." and a "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate" are in fact two separate things Señor. You base your 'duration factor' on the specific circumstance of a packed hose; essentially describing a fuse. That is certainly not the "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario"
The scenario in question involved high temperatures, little oxygen, and a l-o-n-g burn duration. The WTC office content would have required oxygen to burn, and could not have reached the p-r-o-l-o-n-g-e-d high temperatures. Thus, we're discussing options on additional demolition materials that could account for observed features. You say incendiaries and nano-thermite, right?
I say, no. I've given your incendiaries and nano-thermite tons of leeway in terms of s-l-o-w burn-rates and stretching the materials out in an imaginary garden hose just like a fuse, so that it would not burn all at once: *POOF!!!* If a linear fuse is out, what other configuration would you have us install your beloved incendiaries that would have it burn even slower?
++++++++
On the other theme: Dr. Ward's writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.
From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.
=> 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]
Thus we have:
=> 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
=> 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
=> 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]
In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60's, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
- http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html
=> 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level
Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:
=> (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63
Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.
Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):
Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, "Traces". Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% - after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing - of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf
Specifically, right below the quotation on measurements from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers":
Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter.
Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization "these trace levels" to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.
However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.
I have issues with some of Dr. Ward's other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.
Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward's factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,... as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Señor El Once : serious scientific misconception
2012-03-06
“The heat isn’t due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.”~Señor
Ah Señor…WTF??? Seriously my man…putting the word “fizzling” between the words, “radioactivity,” and “nuclear reaction,” will not amend the oxymoron.
“Nonradioactive radioactivity” is an oxymoron. It is a term that negates itself verbally, textually, and conceptually.
A weapon exhibiting none of the effects of a nuclear weapon, cannot be a nuclear weapon.
The nuke hypothesis does not make a credible forensic argument.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You have a serious scientific misconception exhibited in your definitions.
Uranium-235, as but one example, is in its natural state radioactive. That is, in emits radiation, albeit small amounts. When that same radioactive element is induced into a nuclear reaction, it tends to emit much more radioactivity.
So, your whole “Nonradioactive radioactivity” drama figuratively and literally has no bearing. And I have to say, WTF? Your spin done spun out, crashed, and burned.
I wrote:
“First, we don’t know exactly what was found, and we can’t rule out nuclear fragments.”
Mr. HybridRogue continues with a misconception:
–As a matter of point – anyone there at the time of or within days of such a nuclear event would be fried by the radioactivity – if there is enough radioactive material to smolder the pile at incredible temperatures weeks after the event, the immediate aftermath would have been lethal. Not getting cancers in months or years, but full on high scale radiation poisoning in a matter of minutes.
Radioactivity refers to the alpha, gamma, etc. particles being emitted by the nuclear reaction. Radioactive emission is one of those nuclear design features that can be tweaked. Had it not been for debris covering over the hot spots, maybe nuclear device's (weapon or reactor) designed emissions would have fried [first responders] by the radioactivity. As it were, the fizzling reaction transferred heat through the debris that could be felt by first responders telling them to stay away.
A couple other things to take into consideration. First Responders did not climb over every inch of debris initially. Between the dangers of hot-spots, holes, and falling debris (into and within holes), they were probably more prudent in how they got about.
Simon Shack has made a convincing case the even images of the aftermath are subject to tainting. Control of the media, control of the crime scene, control of the visual imagery permitted from the crime scene, control of the message given to the public...
If such weapons were “tweaked” as you put, it to be less radioactive, then there could not be the amount of radioactivity to cook the pile. It cannot be both ways. Either the aftermath would be radioactive and cooking the pile – and by the same token have dealt death dealing radioactive poisoning to anyone in the area…or their was little radiation and the pile couldn’t cook, thus lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning.
The force of the misconception runs deep with you, Anakin Skywalker.
The pile is not cooked by radioactiviy. The fizzling but unspent nuclear material would be radiating heat and well as radioactivity. The heat would transfer through debris to cook things. The radiated radioactivity would be contained by the debris and material surrounding and burying the fizzling nuclear reaction.
Because radiation is a designed-in parameter of the nuclear device (weapon or reactor), because the radiating source was buried, and because we do not have a viable public record of how they approached 100% of the task and with what protective equipment they might deploy, the "lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning" is easy to explain.
As per the supposed positioning of the blasts to avoid major EMP. If these blasts went off in the basements, the “bathtub” would have had catastrophic damage.
Mostly correct. Remember, we are talking milli-nukes whose blast effects are also dialed in, with the caveat that weakly-energetic nuclear weapons are harder to get executed as designed than strongly-energetic ones. Small nukes have a higher probability of fizzling than of nuclear reacting with the desired strength blast wave, heat wave, EMP, etc.
The point is, the bathtub would not necessarily have been affected with a milli-nuclear detonation in the basement levels. Of course, a nuke going off at the foundation level would leave a seismic signature, I believe. If we can trust the seismic reports, I don't think they indicate this.
If they went off in upper stories, you have your height for EMP “line of sight” trajectory. You are stuck with the EMP problem because the “bathtub” did NOT receive catastrophic damage.
Mostly correct as well. Remember that if things are blocking the line-of-sight EMP emissions, things like steel walls of the exteriour structure, like intact floors, or like falling debris, and if the EMP emission is forced to go through window slits, the EMP won't hit outside targets on the streets and parking lot full strength. The WTC complex was evacuated and the public pushed back a couple blocks, which then positioned EMP blocking buildings in the way. EMP strength is a function of distance.
It should be pointed out that the anomalous vehicle damage particularly along West Broadway and in the parking lot at the North-West corner of Vesey St. and West St., catti-corner from the WTC does suggest damage from large electro-magnetic fields.
Señor El Once : science-challenged understanding
2012-03-06
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You are still partly wrong.
True, EMP and EM fields are not the same as visual wavelengths. They can indeed penetrate concrete floors and some metals.
However, your science-challenged understanding is mixing things up by saying that only a lead barrier can protect from such a pulse.
Lead containers are used to store radioactive material, because lead protects against the naturally emitted alpha and gamma radiation. Lead is used in other protective barriers against radiation, like X-rays at the doctors office.
A Faraday Cage is not made out of lead.
Here is but one example from a 30 second google search that conductive metal needs to surround what you want to protect from EMP:
Why is an EMP destructive? The EM fields passing through metal generate Eddy currents. The larger the magnitude of the EM fields, the larger the Eddy currents. Large currents in the metal mean more heat that has to be dissipated. If the metal is a copper circuit board, such heat will melt the solder which can flow and short other things. Semi-conductors themselves have many layers, some metal. Large EM fields in semiconductors destroys the doping of semiconductor layers, while the induced currents in the metal layers literally burn it up.
Protection for electronic devices is to put them in a conductive metal case. Of course, this isn't guaranteed to save the electronic device, where close proximity to a large EM source might still heat up via Eddy currents the protective case that then "bakes" the internal circuitry.
Lead, aside from being poisonous, isn't very rigid or strong in solid form and has a low melting point. It is far from ideal protection.
You wrote:
In other words, you did not understand it. And proof of that are your comments about lead protection.
You are still partly wrong.
“Line of Sight” for an electromagnetic pulse is not the same as the visual wavelengths, a powerful EMP can penetrate think concrete walls and most metals besides lead. A lead barrier is required to protect from such a pulse. A Faraday Cage is also said to have shielding properties, although there is controversy in that.
True, EMP and EM fields are not the same as visual wavelengths. They can indeed penetrate concrete floors and some metals.
However, your science-challenged understanding is mixing things up by saying that only a lead barrier can protect from such a pulse.
Lead containers are used to store radioactive material, because lead protects against the naturally emitted alpha and gamma radiation. Lead is used in other protective barriers against radiation, like X-rays at the doctors office.
A Faraday Cage is not made out of lead.
Here is but one example from a 30 second google search that conductive metal needs to surround what you want to protect from EMP:
If your shelter is not comprised of a conductive surface (i.e. metal) then it CANNOT be HEMP/EMP protected. ... [A]n EMP shelter has to be specifically designed and fabricated out of metal (preferably steel, for low-frequency performance) with each and every penetration engineered to keep out EMP energy.
http://www.hardenedstructures.com/genesisseries.html
Why is an EMP destructive? The EM fields passing through metal generate Eddy currents. The larger the magnitude of the EM fields, the larger the Eddy currents. Large currents in the metal mean more heat that has to be dissipated. If the metal is a copper circuit board, such heat will melt the solder which can flow and short other things. Semi-conductors themselves have many layers, some metal. Large EM fields in semiconductors destroys the doping of semiconductor layers, while the induced currents in the metal layers literally burn it up.
Protection for electronic devices is to put them in a conductive metal case. Of course, this isn't guaranteed to save the electronic device, where close proximity to a large EM source might still heat up via Eddy currents the protective case that then "bakes" the internal circuitry.
Lead, aside from being poisonous, isn't very rigid or strong in solid form and has a low melting point. It is far from ideal protection.
You wrote:
As far as everything you said about Radioactivity – bullshit twirlybird word games.
In other words, you did not understand it. And proof of that are your comments about lead protection.
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:
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?
Dr. Wood's textbook is not without errors. One of its strengths, however, is in shedding light on the energy requirements of the cause to achieve the effects. This is a nugget of truth worthy of preservation, whether or not you agree with any cause (e.g., space-based DEW, spire-based DEW) you think she might be advocating.
Your dogged unwillingness to go there (into Dr. Wood's textbook) in an open-minded and objective manner despite a sincere offer of a free copy, is one of those disinfo flags for "can't be bothered with the facts" or with assisting vetting the facts in a very laser-focused manner. For all your hatred of Dr. Wood, I fed you red meat on how you could legitimately take down or weaken Dr. Wood's concepts by finding the taint in her pictorial evidence. I appreciate the effort of some of your clues forum in looking into the task.
I know you don't like being called a CIA agent, and with your stated ancestry, you probably aren't. If the 9/11 perps can sub-contract, outsource, and off-shore compartmentalized tasks to Mossad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Al-CIA'duh, etc., you can remain free of CIA agent affiliations, but not necessarily disinfo agent taint, as exhibited by your forum's science-challenged responses and my banishment. Gatekeeping, eh?
[My banishment? Was that really necessary? I was taking my leave. Whatever happened to my requested limited immunity? So little do you value the nuggets of truth of your forum that you would ban me and strip away my ability to subscribe to it! Tsk, tsk.]
Oh, well, Mr. Shack. The bright side is that my Spring Break starts this Thursday (3/8), so not having posting notification from your forum is a good thing, just like getting banned from Let's Roll Forum last year in time for Spring Break also proved a good thing for my vacation.
Without my subscriptions, I do hope that you will take the time to post items of interest here on Truth & Shadows so that I and other non-subscribers don't fall too far behind.
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?
Dr. Wood's textbook is not without errors. One of its strengths, however, is in shedding light on the energy requirements of the cause to achieve the effects. This is a nugget of truth worthy of preservation, whether or not you agree with any cause (e.g., space-based DEW, spire-based DEW) you think she might be advocating.
Your dogged unwillingness to go there (into Dr. Wood's textbook) in an open-minded and objective manner despite a sincere offer of a free copy, is one of those disinfo flags for "can't be bothered with the facts" or with assisting vetting the facts in a very laser-focused manner. For all your hatred of Dr. Wood, I fed you red meat on how you could legitimately take down or weaken Dr. Wood's concepts by finding the taint in her pictorial evidence. I appreciate the effort of some of your clues forum in looking into the task.
I know you don't like being called a CIA agent, and with your stated ancestry, you probably aren't. If the 9/11 perps can sub-contract, outsource, and off-shore compartmentalized tasks to Mossad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Al-CIA'duh, etc., you can remain free of CIA agent affiliations, but not necessarily disinfo agent taint, as exhibited by your forum's science-challenged responses and my banishment. Gatekeeping, eh?
[My banishment? Was that really necessary? I was taking my leave. Whatever happened to my requested limited immunity? So little do you value the nuggets of truth of your forum that you would ban me and strip away my ability to subscribe to it! Tsk, tsk.]
Oh, well, Mr. Shack. The bright side is that my Spring Break starts this Thursday (3/8), so not having posting notification from your forum is a good thing, just like getting banned from Let's Roll Forum last year in time for Spring Break also proved a good thing for my vacation.
Without my subscriptions, I do hope that you will take the time to post items of interest here on Truth & Shadows so that I and other non-subscribers don't fall too far behind.
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:
Mr. OneBornFree, you wrote a FACT that isn't:
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.
You are overplaying your cards. Until image editing experts cast their critical eye on the 9/11 media, nobody had reason to doubt the authenticity of such 9/11 imagery. Moreover, it wasn't always just the imagery that led to various hypothesis.
True. And now we test their measure. If the imagery authenticity is proven invalid and if that imagery was used to substantiate a hypothesis, they have the opportunity to amend their hypothesis.
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
Just like Mr. Shack hasn't proved that all imagery is fake, Mr. HybridRogue1 hasn't proved that all of Mr. Shack's work can be canceled out like an administrator stamping "CANCEL" on a form.
This isn't to say that Mr. Shack's work is flawless and without error. I've discovered errors myself in his analysis of a few specific items, as well as an agenda that casts a depressing light on his work. "Distrust but verify" in this realm we must as well. Truth demands that the "but verify" be carried out: validate the nugget or not.
Have a good Spring Break everyone.
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.
As for the “scientific method” revealed – surely the first rule of honest science is to firmly establish the authenticity of that which is about to be closely examined [i.e. video footage and still photos], FIRST, _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_, before proceeding on to theories about exactly what caused the destruction.
You are overplaying your cards. Until image editing experts cast their critical eye on the 9/11 media, nobody had reason to doubt the authenticity of such 9/11 imagery. Moreover, it wasn't always just the imagery that led to various hypothesis.
This [verification of video authenticity] was never done by _any_ of the “scientists” [e.g. Jones, Wood etc.] now happily pontificating/arguing back and forth as to the “real” method used to destroy the WTC complex.
True. And now we test their measure. If the imagery authenticity is proven invalid and if that imagery was used to substantiate a hypothesis, they have the opportunity to amend their hypothesis.
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
I did not cancel out Shacks work without investigating it myself.
Just like Mr. Shack hasn't proved that all imagery is fake, Mr. HybridRogue1 hasn't proved that all of Mr. Shack's work can be canceled out like an administrator stamping "CANCEL" on a form.
This isn't to say that Mr. Shack's work is flawless and without error. I've discovered errors myself in his analysis of a few specific items, as well as an agenda that casts a depressing light on his work. "Distrust but verify" in this realm we must as well. Truth demands that the "but verify" be carried out: validate the nugget or not.
Have a good Spring Break everyone.
Señor El Once : 9/11 video fakery stuff is psyops
2012-03-13
Mr. HybridRogue1 made the comment that the 9/11 video fakery stuff is psyops. I agree, particularly after seeing how the likes of Mr. OneBornFree and Mr. Shack make their unreasonable arguments -- without substantiation -- that ~EVERYTHING~ caught on a medium about 9/11 is faked. A defensible position would be that "most", "much", or "some" was faked. An argument of "all" is akin to 100%, a benchmark not reached, nor necessary to be reached, making it all the more ludicrous that this is what they claim. The purpose of the psyops is to raise such doubts that none of the imagery can be used to prove anything: take it all off the table. In addition, they create a sucking vacuum in the form of applying science to explain what did happen and its mechanisms.
That being written, the video fakery crowd does have merit, particularly in the realm of pixel planes. Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1 represents the extreme ying to Mr. OneBornFree's extreme yang by not acknowledging this or any of the nuggets of truth with regards to MSM's guilty role in duping the world.
For example, the validity of no-planes does not start-and-end with the errors in the pixel rendering of the alleged planes and their inconsistencies. Errors in the crash physics are involved, as are flying physics: the pixels moved at speeds in excess of what the alleged planes would have been capable of at high altitude, and would never have been possible at 1/2 mile above see level in thick air. The tail of the aircraft entered the steel buildings at the same speed it moved through thin air. The miraculous timing of many of the snippets -- catching the planes on impact after multi-stage zoom-in's, catching the demolition start after again zoom-in's -- are glaring instances of foreknowledge.
My nuclear discussions with Mr. HybridRogue1 have been enlightening, mostly for how poor his understanding of nuclear physics, yet still he is there trying to cast dispersions on any thought in that direction, despite his own theories being inadequate to address energy requirements and duration. Just like Dr. Jones was called in to lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear means -- weapons or reactors --, it appears that this is also Mr. HybridRogue1's aim in this forum.
Mr. HybridRogue1 can't seem to grasp the difference between "radioactive," "radiation," and "nuclear reaction," and he spins both their meaning and the meaning of my words into a confusion and inaccurate summary. In Physics 112, the TA for the lab handled Uranium with tongs from the lead box it was stored in from a secure part of the lab. The small levels of the naturally occurring alpha and beta radiation were not life threatening to him or the students for our short period of exposure and the protective measures taken.
When Uranium is induced into a nuclear reaction, it releases much larger amounts of alpha and gamma radiation as well as energy. The design of the mechanism tends to optimize aspects of its by-products, like energy for a weapon in the form of a blast wave, a heat wave, an EMP. Of course, when it is a nuclear reactor, the reactions is controlled in a manner that would create no blast wave or EMP, would use the alpha and gamma emissions to sustain the reaction, but would have the chief by-product be generated heat that is used, for instance, to turn water into steam that drives turbines (mechanical energy) that turn armatures in a generator to net electrical energy.
More than one way to create nuclear weapons exist. Some are more reliable than others. Reliability goes down, particularly when cranking the energy output down into a tactical form that would take out several floors of a building, as opposed to a city block (or city.) When used in tandem with other nuclear weapons and assuming the blast/heat waves didn't decommission neighboring weapons, the amped up emission of alpha and beta particles of the first weapon could "kill" (fracticide) the other weapons by messing with their radioactive elements, thus causing them to not reach their full design potential in terms of energy release. Their nuclear reaction becomes a "fizzle" rather than a "blast", albeit the fizzle and heat by-products of the fizzling nuclear reaction would last for long periods of time.
Russia, Japan, and Three Mile Island all have experiences with "fizzling" nuclear reactions in a non-weapons application.
The reality of 9/11 is that anomalous radiation readings were measured, albeit their actual levels may have been tainted in the reporting and need to be questioned, something Dr. Jones did not do. Dr. Jones employed some scientific mumbo-jumbo and dishonesty in "trace levels" to take them out of further consideration; he offered no explanation for the source of any radiation at GZ; and the vacuum was filled with nano-thermite. This is the line that Mr. HybridRogue1 defends, despite the glaring fact that the hot-spot duration clearly indicates that neither nano-thermite nor slow-burning incendiaries can account for it, just like they cannot account for whatever level of anomalous radiation was measured.
I've been championing Dr. Wood, but I recognize that even this is not without error. She also doesn't address the anomalous radiation measurements. Worse, she tries to explain away hot-spots by hinting that maybe there weren't hot-spots. (And some of this may be because faked images were inserted into her analysis.) Back when I was in the Anonymous Physicists camp, he charged Dr. Wood with taking all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event (e.g., multiple fusion-triggered fission milli-nukes per tower) and wrapping it under a kooky "free-energy from space" or "Hutchison side-effects of cold-fusion" umbrella. We know today that the military has operational DEW devices both for taking out missiles and OWS crowd-control. Thus, DEW shouldn't be taken completely off of the table, if for no other reason than WTC-5 bore-holes and WTC-6 craters need explanations. DEW mounted on tower infrastructure and aimed appropriately would leave spires. My concern in the search for truth is that Dr. Wood leaped to "free-energy from space" to power DEW devices and didn't consider what could be land-based and provide sufficient power to account for the massive energy requirements of pulverization, like a small nuclear reactor akin to something on Navy vessels. Pack that sucker in nano-thermite to get it to burn up its casing when done.
Yes, Dr. Wood does make a lot of hay with Hurricane Erin. They set up their emergency command center on a damn peer, even though Hurricane Erin and its storm surge could have wiped it out and only makes sense if they knew they controlled it. Mr. Shack notes that hurricanes suck clouds away to make for better video manipulation backdrops. Hurricane Erin might have been stand-by, if not to clean up mistakes then to obscure the evidence further. HAARP's weather controlling nature is one of those mechanisms that the govt would not want exposed. Why else would the MSM lock-stop shut-up about Hurricane Erin on 9/11?
In summary, Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree overly rigid stance about "all 9/11 imagery being faked (planes and demolitions)" is a tell. Whereas I could be convinced of the examples of fakery they have provided, their dispersive statements about that which they haven't proven shoots that which they have proven in the foot. Mr. HybridRogue1's true colors are showing in how he attempts to tackle video fakery (overly rigid in the other direction "none happened") and hot-spots (mal-framing of physics and the evidence.)
Señor
That being written, the video fakery crowd does have merit, particularly in the realm of pixel planes. Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1 represents the extreme ying to Mr. OneBornFree's extreme yang by not acknowledging this or any of the nuggets of truth with regards to MSM's guilty role in duping the world.
For example, the validity of no-planes does not start-and-end with the errors in the pixel rendering of the alleged planes and their inconsistencies. Errors in the crash physics are involved, as are flying physics: the pixels moved at speeds in excess of what the alleged planes would have been capable of at high altitude, and would never have been possible at 1/2 mile above see level in thick air. The tail of the aircraft entered the steel buildings at the same speed it moved through thin air. The miraculous timing of many of the snippets -- catching the planes on impact after multi-stage zoom-in's, catching the demolition start after again zoom-in's -- are glaring instances of foreknowledge.
My nuclear discussions with Mr. HybridRogue1 have been enlightening, mostly for how poor his understanding of nuclear physics, yet still he is there trying to cast dispersions on any thought in that direction, despite his own theories being inadequate to address energy requirements and duration. Just like Dr. Jones was called in to lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear means -- weapons or reactors --, it appears that this is also Mr. HybridRogue1's aim in this forum.
Mr. HybridRogue1 can't seem to grasp the difference between "radioactive," "radiation," and "nuclear reaction," and he spins both their meaning and the meaning of my words into a confusion and inaccurate summary. In Physics 112, the TA for the lab handled Uranium with tongs from the lead box it was stored in from a secure part of the lab. The small levels of the naturally occurring alpha and beta radiation were not life threatening to him or the students for our short period of exposure and the protective measures taken.
When Uranium is induced into a nuclear reaction, it releases much larger amounts of alpha and gamma radiation as well as energy. The design of the mechanism tends to optimize aspects of its by-products, like energy for a weapon in the form of a blast wave, a heat wave, an EMP. Of course, when it is a nuclear reactor, the reactions is controlled in a manner that would create no blast wave or EMP, would use the alpha and gamma emissions to sustain the reaction, but would have the chief by-product be generated heat that is used, for instance, to turn water into steam that drives turbines (mechanical energy) that turn armatures in a generator to net electrical energy.
More than one way to create nuclear weapons exist. Some are more reliable than others. Reliability goes down, particularly when cranking the energy output down into a tactical form that would take out several floors of a building, as opposed to a city block (or city.) When used in tandem with other nuclear weapons and assuming the blast/heat waves didn't decommission neighboring weapons, the amped up emission of alpha and beta particles of the first weapon could "kill" (fracticide) the other weapons by messing with their radioactive elements, thus causing them to not reach their full design potential in terms of energy release. Their nuclear reaction becomes a "fizzle" rather than a "blast", albeit the fizzle and heat by-products of the fizzling nuclear reaction would last for long periods of time.
Russia, Japan, and Three Mile Island all have experiences with "fizzling" nuclear reactions in a non-weapons application.
The reality of 9/11 is that anomalous radiation readings were measured, albeit their actual levels may have been tainted in the reporting and need to be questioned, something Dr. Jones did not do. Dr. Jones employed some scientific mumbo-jumbo and dishonesty in "trace levels" to take them out of further consideration; he offered no explanation for the source of any radiation at GZ; and the vacuum was filled with nano-thermite. This is the line that Mr. HybridRogue1 defends, despite the glaring fact that the hot-spot duration clearly indicates that neither nano-thermite nor slow-burning incendiaries can account for it, just like they cannot account for whatever level of anomalous radiation was measured.
I've been championing Dr. Wood, but I recognize that even this is not without error. She also doesn't address the anomalous radiation measurements. Worse, she tries to explain away hot-spots by hinting that maybe there weren't hot-spots. (And some of this may be because faked images were inserted into her analysis.) Back when I was in the Anonymous Physicists camp, he charged Dr. Wood with taking all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event (e.g., multiple fusion-triggered fission milli-nukes per tower) and wrapping it under a kooky "free-energy from space" or "Hutchison side-effects of cold-fusion" umbrella. We know today that the military has operational DEW devices both for taking out missiles and OWS crowd-control. Thus, DEW shouldn't be taken completely off of the table, if for no other reason than WTC-5 bore-holes and WTC-6 craters need explanations. DEW mounted on tower infrastructure and aimed appropriately would leave spires. My concern in the search for truth is that Dr. Wood leaped to "free-energy from space" to power DEW devices and didn't consider what could be land-based and provide sufficient power to account for the massive energy requirements of pulverization, like a small nuclear reactor akin to something on Navy vessels. Pack that sucker in nano-thermite to get it to burn up its casing when done.
Yes, Dr. Wood does make a lot of hay with Hurricane Erin. They set up their emergency command center on a damn peer, even though Hurricane Erin and its storm surge could have wiped it out and only makes sense if they knew they controlled it. Mr. Shack notes that hurricanes suck clouds away to make for better video manipulation backdrops. Hurricane Erin might have been stand-by, if not to clean up mistakes then to obscure the evidence further. HAARP's weather controlling nature is one of those mechanisms that the govt would not want exposed. Why else would the MSM lock-stop shut-up about Hurricane Erin on 9/11?
In summary, Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree overly rigid stance about "all 9/11 imagery being faked (planes and demolitions)" is a tell. Whereas I could be convinced of the examples of fakery they have provided, their dispersive statements about that which they haven't proven shoots that which they have proven in the foot. Mr. HybridRogue1's true colors are showing in how he attempts to tackle video fakery (overly rigid in the other direction "none happened") and hot-spots (mal-framing of physics and the evidence.)
Señor
Señor El Once : profanity at spin and skew and disingenuous misunderstanding
2012-03-16
"Salting" of incendiary material throughout the destruction caused the hot-spot duration. [sarcasm] Yeah, right. [/sarcasm]
You are making things up.
What you're implying is that after large quantities of incendiaries were consumed doing what they were designed to do (e.g., allegedly pulverize the towers), massive ADDITIONAL overkill amounts of the same were unconsumed and "salted" and dormant throughout the pile until heat or something touched them off. "Salted" incendiaries still have their inherent burn-rates, and would burn relatively fast when ignited from their "salted" location under the pile. The hot-spots wouldn't have been localized, they would have traveled to the "salted" locations; they would have been short duration; they would have been explosive enough to be a danger to first responders crawling throughout the pile; and they wouldn't have had a radiation signature needing explanation.
In other words, your lame explanation for thermates and other incendiaries still does not match observable evidence and testimony.
I've already run some low-ball rough calculations on the amounts of a slow burn-rate (3,000 fps) incendiary required to achieve a continuous 4 week hot-spot: it was the volume of such incendiary that could fit into a 884k mile long garden-hose.
Now you want to use the term "salted" to avoid a continuous 4 week hot-spot. So how was it salted? 1/10 of my estimate? 1/100? 1/1000? Even with the latter, you're still talking about the volume of such incendiary material that could fit into a 800 mile long garden hose. Ignoring the weight of the imaginary garden hose, what would be the weight of the incendiary material packed into the inner volume of that 800 mile long garden hose?
Maybe you can find it in your science-challenged heart to admit that the weight of ADDITIONAL incendiary material to account for a "salted" 4 week hot-spot also represents a massive amount which is way beyond the baseline amount of what would be required to just bring down the towers.
Yes, fizzling nuclear material would be the result of a continuing chain reaction, but obviously less ideal than originally designed for either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear reactor. Your weak understanding given in past postings suggests that you believe alpha and gamma particles would be radiating off of the pile giving the first responders radiation burns just for being there.
First of all, the hot-spots were under the pile, which provides a barrier to contain alpha and beta particle emission. Second, recall that magnitudes of various radiation types are to a certain degree dial-in factors in the nuclear device's design. Third, first responders have suffered a high level of sicknesses that parallel those experienced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.
Radiation was measured at Ground Zero.
For those seeking truth, those published radiation measurements should be studied carefully. For example, they weren't measured at any of the hot spots or with any rhyme-or-reason grid pattern or with any regularity (that the public is aware of). They were measured at relatively far-flung points on just a couple of random days after 9/11. Between this unscientific measurement practice and what can be juked into a published govt report (ala NIST, ala the EPA), I wouldn't trust their voracity. Although complaining bitterly about many other govt reports, Dr. Jones trusted this report. As far I know, Dr. Jones "no-nukes" non-peer-reviewed paper is about the only effort made by the 9/11 Truth Movement to address the fact that anomalous radiation was measured and with little to no speculation into its source.
This should be a red-flag, Mr. HybridRogue1, because nano-thermite and a host of combinations of other incendiaries can't account for it.
It is when an explosive material is "salted" throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not "burn-rate" which is only correct in a continuous "burn scenario" and that is the whole point -- wandering smolder throughout -- not a continuous burn.
You are making things up.
What you're implying is that after large quantities of incendiaries were consumed doing what they were designed to do (e.g., allegedly pulverize the towers), massive ADDITIONAL overkill amounts of the same were unconsumed and "salted" and dormant throughout the pile until heat or something touched them off. "Salted" incendiaries still have their inherent burn-rates, and would burn relatively fast when ignited from their "salted" location under the pile. The hot-spots wouldn't have been localized, they would have traveled to the "salted" locations; they would have been short duration; they would have been explosive enough to be a danger to first responders crawling throughout the pile; and they wouldn't have had a radiation signature needing explanation.
In other words, your lame explanation for thermates and other incendiaries still does not match observable evidence and testimony.
I've already run some low-ball rough calculations on the amounts of a slow burn-rate (3,000 fps) incendiary required to achieve a continuous 4 week hot-spot: it was the volume of such incendiary that could fit into a 884k mile long garden-hose.
Now you want to use the term "salted" to avoid a continuous 4 week hot-spot. So how was it salted? 1/10 of my estimate? 1/100? 1/1000? Even with the latter, you're still talking about the volume of such incendiary material that could fit into a 800 mile long garden hose. Ignoring the weight of the imaginary garden hose, what would be the weight of the incendiary material packed into the inner volume of that 800 mile long garden hose?
Maybe you can find it in your science-challenged heart to admit that the weight of ADDITIONAL incendiary material to account for a "salted" 4 week hot-spot also represents a massive amount which is way beyond the baseline amount of what would be required to just bring down the towers.
Even the "lesson" of discovering the word "fizzling" is an actual word nuclear scientist use comes with a caveat: The definition of "fizzling" then, is a continuing "fissile chain-reaction", which is precisely why you used the term -- as I intimated previously. You don't want to openly admit to the fissile chain-reaction, because that means the heat is fissile, ei, nuclear reactions with radioactive byproduct and all the issues surrounding that I bring up.
Yes, fizzling nuclear material would be the result of a continuing chain reaction, but obviously less ideal than originally designed for either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear reactor. Your weak understanding given in past postings suggests that you believe alpha and gamma particles would be radiating off of the pile giving the first responders radiation burns just for being there.
First of all, the hot-spots were under the pile, which provides a barrier to contain alpha and beta particle emission. Second, recall that magnitudes of various radiation types are to a certain degree dial-in factors in the nuclear device's design. Third, first responders have suffered a high level of sicknesses that parallel those experienced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.
Radiation was measured at Ground Zero.
For those seeking truth, those published radiation measurements should be studied carefully. For example, they weren't measured at any of the hot spots or with any rhyme-or-reason grid pattern or with any regularity (that the public is aware of). They were measured at relatively far-flung points on just a couple of random days after 9/11. Between this unscientific measurement practice and what can be juked into a published govt report (ala NIST, ala the EPA), I wouldn't trust their voracity. Although complaining bitterly about many other govt reports, Dr. Jones trusted this report. As far I know, Dr. Jones "no-nukes" non-peer-reviewed paper is about the only effort made by the 9/11 Truth Movement to address the fact that anomalous radiation was measured and with little to no speculation into its source.
This should be a red-flag, Mr. HybridRogue1, because nano-thermite and a host of combinations of other incendiaries can't account for it.
Señor El Once : Exactly My Point: amount of material must have been surprisingly large
2012-03-22
Good work, Mr. HybridRogue1 (and by extension Mr. Legge).
I have just a few hair-splits. Mr. Legge writes:
Not quite.
As I've written before, radioactivity types and levels are side-effects that can be tweaked and dialed in to a certain degree. From the video provided and the mention of "gross radioactivity", Mr. Legge is framing the discussion to be large nukes. Not the framing I put on it (were I actively championing milli-nukes).
Let us not forget the whole song-and-dance by Dr. Jones' paper that bumps up some 55 times the level that is considered "trace." Who knows what downward juking of the measurement numbers happened in the govt report before Mr. Jones' blind acceptance and analysis.
I have no problems with taking nuclear devices (e.g., weapons) off of the table, maybe even for the reasons Mr. Legge provides, but appropriate explanations for the amped-up "trace" levels of radiation is still wanting.
Mr. Legge writes:
In the realm of mixing and matching incendiaries and explosives, I've given you plenty of latitude.
Nothing excludes "countless small charges" being used in tandem with one or a few milli-nuclear devices (or some other mechanism with a nuclear power source). Stilting the argument to being exclusively nuclear devices (e.g., "thirty nuclear devices were used per tower") is just another mal-framing. Pulverization was also observed and is an enormous energy sink.
For the sake of this discussion and because I'm being lazy, let's assume that the smallest nuclear weapon is still very substantial, and maybe even too substantial for deployment high in the towers. I know that cranking down nuclear yield increases the probability of nuclear fizzle, as well as the probability of fracticide between weapons inducing them to fizzle rather than explode.
Thus, for these reasons, I've been careful in framing my argument as nuclear mechanisms that I have often stated includes nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors to power DEW is my tweak to various hypothesis.
Nuclear reactors do not detonate like a bomb and emit neutrons everywhere, unless breached of course. If deployed on 9/11, say, to power DEW devices, they'd be positioned lower in the tower will all sorts of debris landing on top to absorb and contain its radioactive badness. Nuclear reactors can possibly explain the amped-up "trace" radiation haphazardly measured and reported.
Mr. Legge writes:
Going with this assumption of unreacted thermite and its primary role, we have the glaring exception to this hypothesis that such pockets of thermitic material going off would go off in a manner consistent with -- oh, I don't know, say -- pulverizing explosions like what they were designed to do in bringing down down the towers?
I do not recall any testimony of creeping fire and its extent, but let's grant this assumption. I definitely do not recall testimony of pockets of pulverizing explosions going off. Minor steamy/smokey flare ups when movement of debris allowed oxygen to reach buried hot-spots, yes; but not ignition of unreacted thermite.
Mr. Legge writes:
This is such a cop out. Shoot, we know the duraction wasn't normal. Any calculations into its normalness is a distraction.
And is he talking volume of debris material surrounding the hot-spot to which heat is transferred, or volume of incendiary material causing the hot-spot? Well the latter is really what we're trying to get very rough gross estimates on and get our heads around. The former is a complexity that can be added to the equation later. (When it is incorporated, it just makes the very rough gross estimates on the volume of the incendiary material even larger.) Therefore, it can be ignored in this early very pass.
Mr. Legge writes:
EXACTLY MY POINT!!!
Not just "surprisingly large"; massively "ginormous".
Have Mr. Legge do the math using various burn-rates (from slow incendiaries to faster thermite to super duper nano-thermite) to come up with even very rough gross estimates of required quantities of "salted" "pockets" of unreacted thermite. The numbers are neither pretty nor reasonably believable.
I have just a few hair-splits. Mr. Legge writes:
There is no nuclear device that does not emit neutrons when detonated. Neutrons impacting surrounding material will cause it to become radioactive. This will be no mere trace but gross radioactivity. It was not found.
Not quite.
As I've written before, radioactivity types and levels are side-effects that can be tweaked and dialed in to a certain degree. From the video provided and the mention of "gross radioactivity", Mr. Legge is framing the discussion to be large nukes. Not the framing I put on it (were I actively championing milli-nukes).
Let us not forget the whole song-and-dance by Dr. Jones' paper that bumps up some 55 times the level that is considered "trace." Who knows what downward juking of the measurement numbers happened in the govt report before Mr. Jones' blind acceptance and analysis.
I have no problems with taking nuclear devices (e.g., weapons) off of the table, maybe even for the reasons Mr. Legge provides, but appropriate explanations for the amped-up "trace" levels of radiation is still wanting.
Mr. Legge writes:
What was observed in the destruction of the twin towers was countless small charges going off, layer by layer, approximately every third floor.
In the realm of mixing and matching incendiaries and explosives, I've given you plenty of latitude.
Nothing excludes "countless small charges" being used in tandem with one or a few milli-nuclear devices (or some other mechanism with a nuclear power source). Stilting the argument to being exclusively nuclear devices (e.g., "thirty nuclear devices were used per tower") is just another mal-framing. Pulverization was also observed and is an enormous energy sink.
For the sake of this discussion and because I'm being lazy, let's assume that the smallest nuclear weapon is still very substantial, and maybe even too substantial for deployment high in the towers. I know that cranking down nuclear yield increases the probability of nuclear fizzle, as well as the probability of fracticide between weapons inducing them to fizzle rather than explode.
Thus, for these reasons, I've been careful in framing my argument as nuclear mechanisms that I have often stated includes nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors to power DEW is my tweak to various hypothesis.
Nuclear reactors do not detonate like a bomb and emit neutrons everywhere, unless breached of course. If deployed on 9/11, say, to power DEW devices, they'd be positioned lower in the tower will all sorts of debris landing on top to absorb and contain its radioactive badness. Nuclear reactors can possibly explain the amped-up "trace" radiation haphazardly measured and reported.
Mr. Legge writes:
It is possible however that some pockets of unreacted thermite may have existed in the collapsed debris and were ignited later by the creeping fire. ... Such pockets of thermitic material going off later would lengthen the period in which high temperatures would exist.
Going with this assumption of unreacted thermite and its primary role, we have the glaring exception to this hypothesis that such pockets of thermitic material going off would go off in a manner consistent with -- oh, I don't know, say -- pulverizing explosions like what they were designed to do in bringing down down the towers?
I do not recall any testimony of creeping fire and its extent, but let's grant this assumption. I definitely do not recall testimony of pockets of pulverizing explosions going off. Minor steamy/smokey flare ups when movement of debris allowed oxygen to reach buried hot-spots, yes; but not ignition of unreacted thermite.
Mr. Legge writes:
Regarding the duration of the hot-spots, the cooling rate of hot material depends on the volume of material. We do not know the volume. As we don’t know the volume we can make no calculations as to whether the duration was normal.
This is such a cop out. Shoot, we know the duraction wasn't normal. Any calculations into its normalness is a distraction.
And is he talking volume of debris material surrounding the hot-spot to which heat is transferred, or volume of incendiary material causing the hot-spot? Well the latter is really what we're trying to get very rough gross estimates on and get our heads around. The former is a complexity that can be added to the equation later. (When it is incorporated, it just makes the very rough gross estimates on the volume of the incendiary material even larger.) Therefore, it can be ignored in this early very pass.
Mr. Legge writes:
All we can say, regarding the rather amazingly long duration, is that the amount of material must have been surprisingly large.
EXACTLY MY POINT!!!
Not just "surprisingly large"; massively "ginormous".
Have Mr. Legge do the math using various burn-rates (from slow incendiaries to faster thermite to super duper nano-thermite) to come up with even very rough gross estimates of required quantities of "salted" "pockets" of unreacted thermite. The numbers are neither pretty nor reasonably believable.
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:
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.
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?
Kevin Ryan wote:
I can agree with all the analysis in the above quote, especially the passage: "The presence of energetic materials... has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC."
"Much" is not all. That is the point.
An additional source of energy must be sought that can explain the aspects of the aftermath that energetic materials cannot.
The short-lived, violent fires probably were caused by energetic materials. No problem. The problem is that the other hot-spots at Ground Zero could not be put out, despite:
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?
Kevin Ryan wote:
The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC. Thermite ... is such a pyrotechnic mixture that cannot be easily extinguished and is a common component of energetic nanocomposites. Unusually high detections of sulfur, silicon, aluminum, copper, nickel, iron, barium, and vanadium might all be explained by physical release of materials from such energetic nanocomposites. Additionally, the detection of 1,3-DPP at the WTC supports this hypothesis. Finally, the spikes in VOCs, detected by EPA on specific dates, are more readily explained as a result of short-lived, violent fires caused by energetic materials.
I can agree with all the analysis in the above quote, especially the passage: "The presence of energetic materials... has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC."
"Much" is not all. That is the point.
An additional source of energy must be sought that can explain the aspects of the aftermath that energetic materials cannot.
The short-lived, violent fires probably were caused by energetic materials. No problem. The problem is that the other hot-spots at Ground Zero could not be put out, despite:
* 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).
Señor El Once : grazing on dirt
2012-04-01
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
You are absolutely amazing in how your religious 9/11 views keep you locked in your pasture grazing on dirt and in how you apply the same tricks for which you condemn Mr. Shack: the old ploy "false in one, false in all."
Can you hear the sucking sound? That's the vacuum left by the things you've swepted off of the table so haphazardly.
Your nano-thermite sacred cow has been slaughtered. Not that it doesn't have some juicy meat to be roasted in the form of the four energetic spikes that happened during the many week long hot-spot duration as presented in Kevin Ryan's paper and what dust samples reveal. But the 884k mile long imaginary garden hose packed with (relatively) slow burning incendiaries mixed with nano-thermite to account for the duration of just one hot-spot keeps it coiled at your feet to be tripped over: "Duh, Occam Razor says this is way too ginormously much and thus less and less likely to be the primary destructive mechanism.".
Even turning to Frank Legge (and others?) hasn't permitted nano-thermite to solve Occam Razor that pesky hot-spot duration.
Another energy source and destructive mechanisms must be sought.
And you continue to ridicule Dr. Wood's textbook from that ancient stronghold of not owning it, not borrowing it, and not having read it?
Come to think of it, your blanket condemnation of September Clues 1-9 and A-H is rather weak as well. You've cherry picked some low hanging fruit that "the skunk and his gopher" poorly defended (on purpose?) for you to smash and even get rational me stomping on.
Yet a deeper episode-by-episode good, bad, & ugly review of September Clues is just as glaringly absent as the chapter-by-chapter good, bad, & ugly book report on Dr. Wood's book. From you. From any leader within the truth movement.
The sucking vacuum and your inability to fill the void, even with the help of others (Dr. Jones, Mr. Legge), is made worse by your failure to acknowledge nuggets of Truth and the importance & validity of searching for them in (dis)information.
Looks like you've found a trick to make your two postings of March 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm and March 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm the last postings and final word in this thread. So you have nothing to lose by letting me have the last chronological word with this. You've wanted to put this thread to rest; let's let Mr. McKee lock it down. We can continue this soon enough under some new posting from Truth & Shadows. Enjoy the time off!
I do not buy any of your chump whack, “No-Planes”, “Digital Fakery” or the Judy Wood–Morgan Reynolds woowoo – space beams or nukes. None of it.
You are absolutely amazing in how your religious 9/11 views keep you locked in your pasture grazing on dirt and in how you apply the same tricks for which you condemn Mr. Shack: the old ploy "false in one, false in all."
Can you hear the sucking sound? That's the vacuum left by the things you've swepted off of the table so haphazardly.
Your nano-thermite sacred cow has been slaughtered. Not that it doesn't have some juicy meat to be roasted in the form of the four energetic spikes that happened during the many week long hot-spot duration as presented in Kevin Ryan's paper and what dust samples reveal. But the 884k mile long imaginary garden hose packed with (relatively) slow burning incendiaries mixed with nano-thermite to account for the duration of just one hot-spot keeps it coiled at your feet to be tripped over: "Duh, Occam Razor says this is way too ginormously much and thus less and less likely to be the primary destructive mechanism.".
Even turning to Frank Legge (and others?) hasn't permitted nano-thermite to solve Occam Razor that pesky hot-spot duration.
Another energy source and destructive mechanisms must be sought.
And you continue to ridicule Dr. Wood's textbook from that ancient stronghold of not owning it, not borrowing it, and not having read it?
Come to think of it, your blanket condemnation of September Clues 1-9 and A-H is rather weak as well. You've cherry picked some low hanging fruit that "the skunk and his gopher" poorly defended (on purpose?) for you to smash and even get rational me stomping on.
Yet a deeper episode-by-episode good, bad, & ugly review of September Clues is just as glaringly absent as the chapter-by-chapter good, bad, & ugly book report on Dr. Wood's book. From you. From any leader within the truth movement.
The sucking vacuum and your inability to fill the void, even with the help of others (Dr. Jones, Mr. Legge), is made worse by your failure to acknowledge nuggets of Truth and the importance & validity of searching for them in (dis)information.
Looks like you've found a trick to make your two postings of March 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm and March 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm the last postings and final word in this thread. So you have nothing to lose by letting me have the last chronological word with this. You've wanted to put this thread to rest; let's let Mr. McKee lock it down. We can continue this soon enough under some new posting from Truth & Shadows. Enjoy the time off!
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
1 comment:
AL-QAEDA: Created by the Jewish Agency – Operation under Israeli Mossad
Post a Comment