Posted by: Señor El Once | December 21, 2012

9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)

{This is Part 2 to “9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW” (2012-11-22).}

Truth is a diamond that is surely pure
Truth’s an antidote, the virus curer
Truth is the lock on the door – not the keys
Truth is the confession that brings you ease
Truth is the answer to the main question
Truth is the part you forget to mention
~Franklin Ryk 1998 (@ 12 yrs)

Please forgive me for this minor detour in topic from the recent “slaughter of lambkins” and how it represents a new thesis of the Helgian Dialectic, for which there will be an antithesis and final synthesis to lead the sheep astray. We can already see them going after guns and the internet.

I feel compelled to bring up a 9/11 topic mostly just to hedge my bets in case the world really does end on 2012-12-21 as per the Mayan Calendar. I will want to be able to stand before the Supreme Architect of the Universe and say that I sought to reveal (9/11) truth right up until the end.

When, as I expect, we wake up on 2012-12-22, this article about events from 2001-09-11 won’t be totally out of place in the sense: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana). Participants of this forum already speculate about heinous misdeeds to come, some of it with nuclear aspirations.

The Belief: 9/11 was not a Nuclear Event

Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: “Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”.

A keystone piece of “evidence” leading to Dr. Jones’ “no-nukes” conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.

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…

For the sake of discussion, let’s accept these measurements as being truthful. Being truthful in what is revealed is different than being complete. Indeed, what astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones’ “no-nukes” conclusions are based on incomplete data. “Garbage-in, garbage-out” goes the computer expression.

Bent Scope

This is not to say that Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade. The worms are visible in the study’s “bent scoping” that run very much parallel with the “bent scoping” of the NIST reports on the WTC tower destructions; those NIST reports were restricted to the cause of the “initiation” of the destruction and not any analysis of the pulverization at free-fall speeds in the immediate aftermath that their “(un-)scientific method” had them pre-concluding was airplane impacts, jet fuel fires, and gravity.

The Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center demonstrates similar “bent scoping”.

“We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC.”

In fact, just a few sentences away from the passage that Dr. Jones quotes from this study’s abstract (also given above) relating to measured tritium is this:

“Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights.”

Scientific sleight of hand. When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren’t looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.

No Further Samples Needed?

Allow me to call attention in the follow passage to (a) the time delay in which some measurements were taken, (b) the limited number of samples, and (c) the assumption from those samples that no further samples were needed.

Sample 1, measuring 0.164±0.74 nCi/L, is from the WTC sewer, collected three days after the attack, and is just above the detection limit. Samples 6 and 7 of about 3 nCi/L are split samples from WTC 6, basement B5, collected 10 days after the attack. Thus, tritium was detected in these samples from ground zero, but the concentrations are very low. In fact, 3 nCi/L is about 7 times less than the EPA limit in drinking water of 20 nCi/L (17). No health implications are known or expected at such low concentrations (13). As a consequence, no additional ground-zero samples were judged to be necessary.

The testing decisions were probably valid for the bent scope of attributing the tritium to RL devices, but they cause problems when this study is re-purposed by Dr. Jones to bolster no-nuke conclusions. Timely and systematic measurements for debunking nuclear causes should have included samples from areas closer to hot-spots.

Moreover, tritium is diluted by water. In fact, we know from the document millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.

It makes perfect sense that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water), which is how tritium primarily occurs in the environment. However, readers must make assumptions (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.

Regarding this last assumption, while the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L), the normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Therefore, sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Let’s not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively.

Transported with the Fire Plume

Indeed, the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) had tritium measurements 3.2 times greater than expected.

There was also a possibility that some HTO would have been transported with the fire plume during the first several days after the attack and deposited downwind.

A tritium by-product is not be just HTO but also HT, which is similar to hydrogen gas. Ignoring for a moment the assumption from the passage that the tritium source was consumer products being destroyed by the fire plume at ground zero, neutron nuclear devices could be the source of the fire plume plus HTO as well as HT gas, which would not be measured for a bent scope that assumed only consumer products as a tritium source.

Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces.

Faults in the Conclusion

Here are some interesting aspects from the study’s conclusions highlighted:

34 Ci of tritium were released from the emergency tritium RL signs onboard the two Boeing 767s, on impact with the Twin Towers at the WTC. The measurements and modeling are consistent with a prompt creation of HTO in the jet-fuel explosion and fire, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The modeling implies that the contribution from the aircraft alone would yield the HTO deposition fraction of 2.5%. This value is too high by a comparison with other incidents involving fire and tritium. Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is too small to explain the measured concentrations, and another missing source is needed. … The exact activity of tritium from the weapons was not determined. The data and modeling are consistent with the tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) in the debris, from which tritium was slowly released in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Our modeling suggests that such a scenario would require a minimum of 120 equipped weapons destroyed and a quantitative capturing of tritium, which is too high, since many weapons were found with only minor damage and tritium sights are shielded in a metal. Therefore, such a mechanism alone is not sufficient to account for the measured HTO concentrations. This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source.

I will re-phrase this conclusion, but beforehand, readers should note that the speed and precision of both aircraft as well as the damage inflicted that was caught on video suggest from physics that they were not commercial aircraft. Therefore, when this study concludes with bold statements about the amount of tritium attributed to “emergency tritium RL signs” in 767’s, it is starting from weak assumptions about the nature of the aircraft and what they would contain. (Pilot-less aircraft being used missiles don’t need cockpits, seats, or exit signs, among other things.)

As the conclusion progresses, it buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft situation yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.

To fill the gap, they turn to the supposition that tritium RL sights on weapons could account for this, whereby their modeling suggests a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons destroyed with leaking tritium. Alas, this number is not golden by itself, because many weapons were recovered with only minor damage. The study mentions “evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC,” but does not provide an accurate reporting of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, of what weapons were found, of their state of damage, or of where they were stored before the destruction.

The extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption, just like the assumptions into the nature of the aircraft.

The conclusion is a bit forced but perfectly in line with the bent scope of the study: “This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source.”

The authors succeeded in conveying the message that — whatever the true source — the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health, if indeed reported measurements can be trusted and despite the limited number of samples chosen for the bent scope study.

The radioactive decay product of tritium is a low energy beta that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of human skin. Therefore, the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion. In addition, due to the relatively long half life and short biological half life, an intake of tritium must be in large amounts to pose a significant health risk.


Debunkers try to explain WTC tritium away as miniscule, insignificant, and with negligent health impacts. With respect to where and how it was measured for the goals of their report to speculate about consumer RL devices, this does not have to be false. But with regards to the significance of even a miniscule amount being larger than expected, it does not have to be the complete story on 9/11 tritium, either.

No warranty, liability, or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information…

Before we end a review of the study, let’s highlight its wonderful disclaimer:

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. … This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.

Dr. Jones spinning it further

Now let us return to Dr. Jones’ report, “Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”.

As proven above, Dr. Jones based his “no nukes” paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were “unable” to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.

Dr. Jones uses the incomplete tritium numbers from Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center and then frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb, and writes:

Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.

Assuming we can trust the measurements given in that report [a big assumption], it re-defines “trace” or “background” levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11 in order to downplay any adverse health effects. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates “trace” as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and then introduces a blatant logic error best summarized as follows:

“Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device.

Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.

Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn’t measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.

Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:

Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?

This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed (e.g., upwards), and that large releases of tritium did not happen.

In other words, large releases of tritium probably did happen on 2001-09-11. Any conclusions that imply otherwise were based on measurements that were not taken systematically in a timely fashion and happened after much dilution in water (or dissipation in HT gas).

Brief Detour into Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons differ in how much heat, blast, light, pressure and radiation they produce. By altering the physical structure of the device and the proportion of its explosive components, different effects can be achieved. Let’s take a brief detour into nuclear weapons, because 9/11 misconceptions are purposely created by mixing concepts of one with another to supposedly debunk that 9/11 was nuclear.

Fission Nuclear Weapons

9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear weapons based on the fission process, “in which isotopes of uranium or plutonium are compressed into a “critical mass or fissile core) and then split by heavy, sub-atomic particles called neutrons. The energized neutrons reproduce themselves in an explosive chain reaction. Each fission neutron reaction releases an average of three neutrons, yet these account for only a minimal proportion of the weapon’s total energy output. By far the largest share is transmitted through the thermal heat and blast of recoiling fragments of radioactive uranium and plutonium atoms, which comprise most of the weapon’s fall-out.” [Source for quotations.] It is an uncontrolled chain reaction and thus a fraction of fissile material is fissioned. Fission products that are produced along with enormous amount of energy, disperse in the environment.

Fusion Nuclear Weapons

9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear based on the standard fusion process, in which the isotopes of the lightest element, hydrogen, namely deuterium and tritium, are combined into a slightly heavier atoms of helium through a reaction that is “triggered” by the tremendous temperatures (between 10-100 million degrees) and pressures generated by a fission explosion. At the instant of detonation, fusion weapons release about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects. A standard thermonuclear device will destroy buildings in a vast shockwave of heat and pressure. In addition to fission products we also have neutron-induced radioisotopes that are also dispersed along with enormous amount of energy in the environment.

Battlefield Neutron Weapons

9/11 did not employ a neutron weapon as intended for the battlefield. A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron bomb requires considerable amounts of tritium. It releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation (lethal to living tissue high-energy neutrons and gamma rays) while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes. The fission bomb is kept as small as one can assemble and the amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. Once the fission bomb raises the temperature so as to initiate tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction, the fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.

The battlefield application would ignite the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel. Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours. The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.

Tactical Neutron Weapons

9/11 changed the application of the fusion-based neutron weapons. Fusion nuclear weapons of tactical yield are hard to design and implement, with the probability of “nuclear fizzle” increasing as the explosive yield decreases. As the debunkers readily point out, even the smallest known conventional fusion bombs would be too energetic for the tactical destruction of 9/11.

However, when those same micro-nuke fusion bombs are configured as neutron bombs, the massive neutron radiation energy can be directed upwards, and the remaining blast and heat effects is decreased to a tactical level.

Officially known as enhanced radiation weapons, ERWs are more accurately described as suppressed yield weapons. When the yield of a nuclear weapon is less than one kiloton, its lethal radius from blast, 700 m (2300 ft), is less than that from its neutron radiation. However, the blast is more than potent enough to destroy most structures, which are less resistant to blast effects than even unprotected human beings. Blast pressures of upwards of 20 PSI are survivable, whereas most buildings will collapse with a pressure of only 5 PSI.

High Temperatures during the Destruction

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction by Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.

The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings. The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C).

The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules.

We observe spherules with high iron and aluminum contents, a chemical signature which is not consistent with formation from melted steel.

The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.

A neutron nuclear bomb could do this.

Under-Rubble Hot-Spots

“Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials” by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones:

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).

What the Dust Reveals

From Jeff Prager’s work. The contents of dozens of dust samples acquired by the US Geological Survey:

Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.

Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

Dispelling the Error in the Belief: 9/11 was a Nuclear Event

From Veteran’s Today:

To sum up the WTC1 and 2 operation: a series of shape charged mini-neutron bombs are detonated from the top of the buildings to the bottom to simulate a free fall collapse. Material is ejected upward and outward due to the shaping of the mini-nuke charges. Two giant 110 floor 500,000 ton skyscrapers are destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively. Cement and steel are turned into very small particles while paper blows down the street.

Why didn’t the paper catch on fire? First it’s hard to light a piece of paper on fire in a wind tunnel. Second the paper’s high tensile strength to weight ratio allowed the lightweight paper to blow away in the blast wave while the heavier material was vaporized. Paper has give to it.

Why was there no flash? When small bombs are detonated inside of giant skyscrapers the flash is hidden from view.

When it’s over, nuclear fissile material is leftover and it reacts for months creating 1,500 °F ground temperatures (China Syndrome).

Hundreds of dump trucks of dirt are required to be hauled in and out to clean up the mess.

The USGS collects dust samples that show elevated levels of uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium and chromium which indicates fission has taken place.

The DOE collects water samples that have elevated levels of tritium, which indicates fusion has taken place.

So a fission triggered fusion bomb such as a neutron bomb would explain the USGS and DOE samples quite nicely. So we have a text book case of nukes being used but the manner they were deployed in is so far from what the average person suspects that it takes years for the mini-nuke theory to gain prominence.

My beliefs regarding the causes of 9/11 destruction have morphed “all over the place” over time, as is fitting for how nuggets of truth reveal themselves in the 9/11 dis- and mis- information streams [which this very article is probably one.] This duped useful idiot apologizes in advance for any potential misleading. 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW changes the information and provides a new frame that is not yet fixed.

John Maynard Keynes is credited with saying: “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

// @ ~4,475 Words


  1. Not sure if you are referring to Energy Weapons or not.. but there is extensive evidence of this being the case. Not much else would have steel beams disintegrate in mid air, for one. Regarding the Mayan Calendar. It never indicated an end date. You did a really great job on this article.

  2. Why a Part 2 that is essentially the same lame assumptions as part 1?

    Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it any more sensible.

    Dawn, no beams disintegrated in mid air.

    Señor is referring to directed energy beam weapons powered by a neutron nuclear power source.

    See, for rebuttal:

    . . . . . . .

    Have fun with this one Señor, I will leave you alone to speculate as you will here.


    • there is a picture of said beams disintegrating in air!! I will find it!!

  3. Dear Mr. Rogue,

    I’m glad that you posted a link to your so-called “rebuttal.” Technically, though, mi partidos uno y dos son rebuttals to your beliefs on the causalities of the WTC destruction.

    What you hoist up as your rebuttal? If it don’t address all of the points and all of the evidence, that dawg don’t hunt.

    Moreover, it ought to heed your own words: “Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it any more sensible.”

    Partido 2 is neither the same as Partido 1 nor lame. Nunca partido is an “assumption.” They happen to provide information (or truth) that Dr. Jones failed to mention.

    John Maynard Keynes question is now directed at you:

    “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

    Dear Ms. Dawnatilla,

    You said that you weren’t sure if I was referring to “Energy Weapons or not.” Well, it isn’t an energy weapon that you would plug into a nuclear reactor or into “free energy from space.” The energy comes from nuclear sources (explosive devices) with a twist from how they have been heretofor discussed and framed in their PR tours.

    Imagine going to a large food distributor, opening up every bulk-size can of restaurant (– name of food –) in stock, consuming only a teaspoon total for your purposes, and then dumping the rest of the food from these large, open, bulk cans into the compost pile. (Such a waste, but you needed only a teaspoon.)

    This is essentially what a neutron bomb does when deployed in a tactical situation and how it differs from other fission-triggered-fusion nuclear weapons. Instead of having the highly energetic neutrons bouncing around the nuclear material causing chain reactions leading to highly energetic blast and heat waves, these neutrons are allowed to escape and are directed upwards through the towers and into “the great compost pile of the sky.” The “teaspoon” of nuclear energy that remains (per nuclear device) to fuel the blast and heat wave is sufficient to decimate the towers.

    In the above sense, an ERW (enhanced radiation weapon) is an energy weapon and demonstrates considerably high levels compared to conventional chemical weapons.

    You made the statement:

    “Not much else (other than “energy weapons” would have steel beams disintegrate in mid air, for one.”

    I assume that you make this statement after reviewing some of Dr. Wood’s work. I recall the specific example of the “spire” that she claims was “dustified.” As far as I can tell, she bases this claim on one perspective of the spire’s decimation. When other views are taken into consideration (which I don’t think Dr. Wood did), the steel of the spire is shown (to my humble satisfaction) to be falling, albeit amidst concrete and “gluing” elements of the skeletal structure seeming turning to dust. The seeming dustification of steel in the spire is more of an optical illusion from that one particular viewing point.

    This being said, a certain measure of steel “transformation” did occur near the ignition points of the neutron nuclear devices.

    Recall that Dr. Harrit did some calculations based on the percentage of tiny iron spheres contained in the dust that was collected in neighboring buildings. His calculations were meant to explain how much nano-thermite would be required to react with steel to obtain such iron sphere by-products. The initial amount wasn’t trivial, and helps exclude nano-thermite from being the primary destructive mechanism.

    Spherical nuggets of iron truth remain to be explained.

    The steel wasn’t dustified or vaporized, but significant amounts of it were heated to extremely high temperatures, composite elements of the steel were separated (or burned off), and then these iron spheres were ejected large distances.

    Here’s my description of the neutron nuclear DEW distruction.

    Up close to the ignition point, a blast wave with a limited radius (i.e., < 50m) and heat wave of intense heat and limited radius turn neighboring steel columns into tiny spheres of iron. As you get further away, the heat is still sufficiently hot to heat a steel beam end-to-end right to its core to a point where it can be easily bent and twisted.

    The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) of such a tactical ERW ignited within the steel towers would be largely mitigated with respect to damage to things outside the towers. (Exceptions: Window slits and the chaos of demolition may have opened the path to explaining much of the anomalous vehicle damage.) Within the towers, the EMP effects are present but are overshadowed by other nuclear effects.

    Recall that molecules and atoms are comprised mostly of space, and that neutrons do not carry an electric charge, unlike the protons (+) in the nucleus or the electrons (-) orbiting in clouds about the nucleus. Therefore, when additional numbers of neutral neutrals are aimed at a substance, the neutrons travel mostly through those vast amounts of atomic space, relatively speaking, and don’t hit anything.

    However in a nuclear situation when massive amounts of neutrons are aimed at a material at close range, occasionally those bombarding neutrons will act as overly energetic pool cue balls smacking against a nucleus rack of protons and neutrons, knocking them about, and possibly even launching things right off the pool table (e.g., out of their normal subatomic positions and orbits in the atom.) Chemically speaking, that molecule or atom could be “knocked into being” an electrically charged variant of a completely different element on the periodic table, while the dislodged protons and neutrons fly about and at some point maybe combine in the nucleus of other atoms, turning them as well into an electrically charged variant of completely different elements on the periodic table.

    The amount of “energetic neutron cue ball” effects depends on the distance from the nuclear ignition as well as the atomic composition of the material. To our human visual perceptions, a neutron radiated steel beam might retain the appearances of that, although on molecular levels it displays embrittlement and highly localized micro fractures. In the periodic table of elements, iron is considered a rather stable element. The ingredients in concrete and drywall are other elements entirely whose cohesiveness at a construction material could be significantly and noticably compromised (into dust) when enough neighboring molecules get knocked into being other periodic elements.

    So when Dr. Wood’s writes about “disassociation” and “dustify” and when pictures show chucks of exterior walls falling with streaming trails of smoke and dust, they could be referencing the after-effects of highly energetic neutrons bombardment on those building’s construction materials.

    [By the way, this also explains why neutron radiation directed at living creatures is so deadly but not always immediately. When molecules of living tissue are altered in such a way, they introduce weaknesses or gaps in the body’s natural barriers against disease and infection — or even against bodily fluids from organs and waste products. The body poisons itself, but death isn’t always quick.]


    • Lol


  4. Like Sandy Hook we don’t know what tem did what, when and how. But we know what it wasn’t. The Official Story.

    I’d like to tell Sirhan it wasn’t him but that won’t get him out of jail. Even if EM howitzer was used(and i thingk it was tested during the demolition) and we found both Rogue/Jones and Once/Woods were correct who hangs? Noooooobody.

    Love the effort, hate the division. I had to move on.

    Still like to hear the theory on where the passenger went. Like the ‘hook’ are they in Greenland or North Korea in MK Ultra? Maybe underground in a small world under Disneyworld.

    Does the no passenger theory theory fly? What would be the death count without them? Hmmm. I’ll have to subtract that sometime.

    Congrats on the post Mr. Eleven. Any other subjects as well.

  5. I second what PD said which is brilliant. As for my opinion on how they came down… I think they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the towers….it’s called fail safe. Fact is, how they came down doesn’t matter a bit. What matters is that the cockroaches that did this still scurry around free.

    As I’ve argued with rogue before, the division this has caused in the movement is exactly what the bastards want. So why fall for their tactics?

    But then I know you guys are like pitbulls holding on to a rope and just can’t let it go because you love the fight. eh?😉

    Nice article Senor.

  6. Much wisdom is imparted in the words of the participants above.

    Yep, the WTC destruction is my hobby-horse that will probably get put out to pasture in the coming year. Been eleven years since the event…

    Nobody hung. Nobody will probably ever be hung.

    The two aspects of this that will matter are:

    (1) The nuclear mechanisms will be used again, so keep your eyes open. [Actually, I recall an assassination in some ME country that took out a car and a building in a manner that to me resembled just one of the many neutron devices of 9/11.]

    (2) The media went to great lengths to tell stories that were false, and the public’s collective memories on the incident were never corrected even when errors were pointed out. To this day, their message on 9/11 remains consistently wrong.

    They play us. Seeing how they played us in the past gives clues to how they’ll play us in the future.


    • I am another late arrival to this most interesting conversation – currently reading through all the posts and absorbing the arguments and counter-arguments. I will not – even if I am brave enough to do so! – attempt to contribute any opinions of my own until I’ve read all the material through.

      However, I spotted this comment from Señor El Once:

      “…the WTC destruction is my hobby-horse that will probably get put out to pasture in the coming year. Been eleven years since the event…”

      … and I just wanted to briefly say – on the assumption, of course, that Señor El Once is still watching this topic! – that I feel it would be a very great shame to take the view that 9/11 is, simply due to the passage of time, no longer worthy of interest or debate. In fact, I would say the opposite: new data arises all the time, and new and better theories and arguments are proposed; and, in any case, the sheer enormous significance of the events of 9/11, no matter one’s views as to what really happened, must mean that it is a topic which will never “become old”.

      I myself, just for example, have been researching 9/11 in as much detail as I can for some years, and I thought I’d discovered most of the core facts and theories on the subject, but I chanced across this site today and I’ve found a wealth of brand new information and arguments here which I’d inadvertently missed. I’m sure I’m not the only one in a similar position.

      Anyway. @Señor El Once personally: I find your views to be well-expressed, well-researched and very interesting, and, in my opinion, it would be a great pity if you were to give up on 9/11 as a topic of debate. Of course, it’s not for me to tell you how to spend your time, and it’s entirely your prerogative to ignore me completely, but I, for one, think that you and your logical, valuable arguments would be a significant loss to a vital subject of concern to many people.

      • Dear Ms. NellJSmith,

        I appreciate your kind words of encouragement to continue with my 9/11 research, to counter my words of burn-out:

        [T]he WTC destruction is my hobby-horse that will probably get put out to pasture in the coming year. Been eleven years since the event…

        You wrote:

        I feel it would be a very great shame to take the view that 9/11 is, simply due to the passage of time, no longer worthy of interest or debate.

        If everything else stood still, then I would agree that 9/11 would remain worthy of interest. But everything doesn’t. “They” just keep piling it on, one scandal after another. Karl Rove said it to Ron Suskind best:

        We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you [the reality-based communities] study that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

        Just as I’ve fallen behind in fashion, music, cinema, etc., I’ve fallen behind in the (political) dramas of these actors of history. I hear more recently the outraged voices of others at the scenes being played out before us, yet without the patience to connect the data points in a trendline with other stage-craft designed to fool, like 9/11.

        In fact, I would say the opposite: new data arises all the time, and new and better theories and arguments are proposed; and, in any case, the sheer enormous significance of the events of 9/11, no matter one’s views as to what really happened, must mean that it is a topic which will never “become old.”

        Be very careful in “accepting new data… and new and better theories” on 9/11. I’ve been duped by my share and have had to recant on several things.

        I think the “old” data has been there all along of 9/11 being nuclear. So as we step back from this singularity of truth to view the obscuring actions surrounding it (these past 11 years), I’m left in a disappointed and depressed mental state in contemplating those who obscured it… right from within the heart of the 9/11 Truth Movement. People with more science and engineering than I, foisting up explanations that have large, inequalities in the calculations to defend and that ignore all the evidence.

        Although I took my tours around the 9/11-Mulberry-Bush that included at various points Pods-on-Planes, September Clues, No-Planes, and Dr. Judy Wood DEW, I had always held that 9/11 was nuclear (just from the energy of pulverization alone), but could not prove it at the time. I only had “minor” pieces of evidence that seeped out and weren’t handle well, like tritium, or nuggets of truth mined from disinformation sources (like Dr. Wood).

        Thankfully, the connecting pieces of evidence were brought to light in the form of a proper analysis of the WTC dust (by Jeff Prager) that show correlations for nuclear fission.

        Thankfully, others (some of whom I’ve relied upon in my article above) have taken a more forceful approach than I could muster. I’ll let them lead for awhile.

        Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager

        I find your views to be well-expressed, well-researched and very interesting, and, in my opinion, it would be a great pity if you were to give up on 9/11 as a topic of debate.

        Again, I appreciate the kind words.

        Ah, yes, but the reality of “debate” is a contributing factor to the burn-out. I am all for keeping an open mind and for looking into the crazy. But when the crazy can’t be substantiated and is disingenuous? When their champions are unyielding with no sincerity to the gentleman debate sentiment “convince me or let me convince you”? When their stilted debate is little more than talking points and blatant unobjectivity? When the games of the infiltrator get exposed? I grow weary of another loop.

        In my humble opinion, everyone in the USA by now should know that 9/11 was an inside job and that we were told a pack of lies. When I come across old friends and relatives (on Facebook) who do not have this view, what goes through my mind is: “These people are too ignorant and too stupid to know any better or to question! If the 9/11 trendline aligns with data points about eugenics or population reduction, well, by golly, maybe those with such an agenda have a point, and my old friends and relatives, being so stupid, should get culled from the herd — along with me (because sometimes the lucky ones in a lay-off are those who are let go. Being left-behind will be no picnic.)”

        Another conspiracy-related hobby-horse may present itself for me to ride around in dressed as “El Zorro.” For now, I try to apply myself to my employment and my family as I take my place among the sheeple, half-plugged into the Matrix, .


  7. Read the whole thing Señor,

    Don’t just scan through this, read the whole thing an grok.

    It may knock you off your ‘hobby-horse’…and it would be about time.


  8. I will have no problems with convincing evidence and analysis knocking me off of my neu nookiedoo hobby-horse, but the latest entry into your support documentation — 9/11: The World Trade Center Collapses — doesn’t do it.

    I am surprised at what your expert “grokking” misses. Just because your support documentation has nifty temperature charts relating to thermite and puts them within a few page-scrolls of images of bent pieces of 9/11 steel does ~not~ prove “cause-and-effect.”

    Let us be fair and objective about this. Make your case for how any amount of thermite mixed or not with RDX could sufficiently heat those ~adjacent~ steel beams so quickly and thoroughly to result in horseshoes and arches (and not blow them apart or leave other explosive marks.)

    You see, your mixture is typically deployed in a fashion that is secured right on a steel beam in order to cut it in pieces or blast it to smithereens. I’m good with that. However, the bent beams in question were not wired for demolition; no marks of such are on them. If we stay within the story of thermite, those steel beams were most likely in the vacinity of such. While those colorful charts of temperatures that thermite et al can reach are appropriate for the “burning/cutting edge,” their hot temperature decreases with distance from that edge. The arches themselves needed to be thoroughly heated outside-in, end-to-end to give us what resulted.

    Show me the math and science on how thermite can heat steel beams one or more steel beams over, outside-in, end-to-end to make such smooth arches possible. And while you are at it, include calculations — from Dr. Jones perhaps — regarding how much would be required and how long it would take. Put it into a spreadsheet as a function of distance. Not a wild-goose chase or busy work, I assure you. You champion it? You own it; you defend it appropriately with math and science. That link? It doesn’t. It just provides innuendo.

    On the other hand, if the source of the heat is a nuclear reaction from a neutron bomb and with its ignition temperature levels reaching several orders of magnitude hotter than those colorful charts, its ability to make hefty steel beams pliable and bendable is much easier to believe. That’s where I’m at.


    • I don’t need to do math or sort numbers to address your faulty assumptions Señor.

      To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being “like a foundry” down in that mess.

      But most important you have no proof of inexplicable radiation. You have no basis thereof to argue that case.


      • With lots of vin and vigor comes the PR assertion from Mr. Rogue:

        “I don’t need to do math or sort numbers to address your faulty assumptions Señor.”

        Yes, he does.

        What he calls “assumptions” is evidence that theories of super-duper nano-thermite (and RDX) do not adequately address. Case in point, pay attention to the phrase “like a foundry” in the following:

        “To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being “like a foundry” down in that mess.”

        What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures? Let me guess. I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling, just a few of the many deployed. The alternative theories based on chemical-based explosive and incendiary materials? How long is that imaginary garden hose in which they are packed for their known brissanty burn-rates to account the many-week duration of hot-spots?

        Readers of the forum should note the skillful PR hypnotic suggestion:

        “But most important you have no proof of inexplicable radiation. You have no basis thereof to argue that case.”

        “Inexplicable?!!!” El-Oh-El !!! In other words, if an explanation is provided by the government for the tritium radiation, no matter how lame it is revealed to be from deeper investigation in terms of being able to address comprehensively something other than its “bent scope” of plausible consumer RL devices — that it hasn’t proven and still speculates –, the very fact that it is an explanation means “inexplicable radiation” can be skewered, eh? Most clever and deceitful wordsmithery.

        Pay attention to the radiation signature of a neutron nuclear device, technically a fission-triggered-fusion device that allows its neutrons to escape in a directed fashion (upwards). What sort of lingering radiation does it leave?

        Let’s put it this way. The closer to the time and place of ignition that measurements are taken, the better, because signature alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation will be greatly dissipated within 48-72 hours. And tritiated water gets diluted, particularly through the actions of firemen and heavy rain storms. Tritium, tritium, tritium. Even in miniscule quantities that are proven to be greater than trace levels, it supports nuclear themes.

        “The study on tritium” meets the objectives of its “bent scope” admirably, but when properly understood, it also completely undermines the foundation of Dr. Jones no-nukes article that tries to use it to say “there wasn’t much radiation or tritium. Period.” The “bent scope” didn’t require timely samples taken from relevant locations that included close to hot-spots.

        In addition as a blatant omission, Dr. Jones’ analysis of the dust reveal nano-thermite flakes but not correlations of elements proving that fission occurred; neither he nor AE911Truth tested for other explosive residue (e.g., RDX) in the dust. WTF is up with that?

        Upon what does the 911TM build its no-nukes beliefs?

        Geez, and I call myself the duped useful idiot. … If my belief foundation is proven faulty, I change my beliefs. So,…


  9. > “Tritium, tritium, tritium. Even in miniscule quantities that are proven to be greater than trace levels, it supports nuclear themes.”

    Hysterical bullshit Señor,

    As I have pointed out in the commentary section of my post [1], the minuscule quantities of tritium are hardly inexplicable. All it proves is that industrial pollution is at epidemic levels in criminal industrial dumping at landfills.

    And it is in these ludicrous round’about carousels that always leaves me to the point of simply saying, “Fuck It” when dealing with you.

    [1] See:


    • Dear Mr. Rogue wrote:

      As I have pointed out in the commentary section of my post [1], the minuscule quantities of tritium are hardly inexplicable.

      It don’t mean shit that the tritium was minuscule, Mr. Rogue. In fact, you are letting this dupe you just because the levels measured at far flung places and days later were below EPA levels, so were christened “safe for humans.”

      What matters is that the tritium measured was significantly greater than would be expected. And you would already know this if you had bothered to read my postings on your prologue before having deleted them out of spite, not for their foul language or ad hominem.

      Please provide the sources for this:

      All it proves is that industrial pollution is at epidemic levels in criminal industrial dumping at landfills.

      As far as I can tell, you are pulling this “industrial dumping” out of your ass. Link me to the official 9/11 report that says that industrial dumping at landfills had leakage ~back~ to the WTC to explain their elevated tritium levels on 9/11.

      Fool. The tritium ticket was one-way, draining from the WTC complex into various water ways. The tritium was not leaching back from industrial dumping “far, far, away.” And the perpetrators of 9/11 knew this, which is why they bent the scope on the study of tritium and brainstormed tritium sources at the WTC such as airplane exit signs, weapons gun sights, and timepieces… And still had problems with errors in the mathematical modeling as well as evidence. Speculation at its finest!

      I think you don’t know squat and haven’t reviewed the “study on tritium” (or my review) to fully appreciate its “bent scope”. The surprise is that this report supports neither Dr. Jones in his no-nukes analysis nor you in your claims of industrial pollution being the source of the tritium.

      I appreciate your sentiments of “fuck it” when dealing with me and wish that you would get there sooner.


  10. “I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling, just a few of the many deployed.”~Señor

    Then you would have concurrent and readable radiation to be detected, of which there is none. Thus it is more reasonable to assert a chemical source for the continuing burning in the deep rubble piles. By “fizzling” you mean fission.

    Fission is radioactive by its very definition. We went through this whole thing more than a year ago Maxidroid, but you keep bleeping the same tapeloop.

    Kryst on a kracker…


    • If it wasn’t nuclear fizzle, what was it? How were the temperatures maintained between energetic spikes, spikes that by themselves were attributed by Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan to energetic materials?

      Your clueless understudy must be making your postings now.

      Yes, fission is radioactive. Fission-triggered-fusion in the neutron bomb.

      Fizzle is not fission. What it releases in radioactivity could be easily contained in the PR sense when the official reports on such can so easily be assigned “bent scopes.” (You make up the fifth column in those media efforts, it seems.)


  11. Listen you prick, you know very well that the reason I deleted you on my Prologue thread is because of your hysterical bullshit about me “puppeting” A Wright. Don’t pretend you don’t remember.

    Oh poor poor Señor El Once, didn’t say any “ad hominems – why oh why does that mean Willy delete my 2000 word comments???”

    Fuck you Señor El Once.


    • Mr. Rogue, son of a Mrs. [x]. A. Wright, …

      Nice lie about your motives for deletion, but it don’t fly.

      First, you have demonstrated your skills at editing my postings in your threads. You could have edited out any personally offending sentences, while leaving the other statements in place. Nope. You didn’t, because your case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

      Second, your reactions deviate from the topic so that you can play the victim, instigate a flame war, and stay off-topic: neu nookiedoo.

      Third, you forgot to mention the casting of agency aspirations onto you as supposedly grounds for giving me the “silent treatment.” Alas, this, too, is something you could edit out if you found offensive.

      Fourth, you’re the one getting all hysterical and re-animating the coincidence that I simply pointed out, that I haven’t been milking, and that wouldn’t be damning if you wouldn’t engage Mr. A. Wright in nonsense, no less. Kick that sleeping dog, why don’t you, Mr. Rogue?

      You have a very telling guilty reaction, Mr. Rogue. In your ego-manical stupidity, what are the consequences, if true, of you sticking your hand up the butt of an internet sock-puppet? It wasn’t as if you were tag-teaming them and gang-banging faux concensus on a topic in a thread… (Were you?) It wasn’t as if you were banned and resurrecting yourself. All good stories need both a protagonist and an antagonist, so, if true, you were simply penning both sides to get conflict and attract reader interest, like all great authors do. If true, your biggest crime might be operating both handles of the pincer attack to steer Mr. McKee’s forum.

      Yep, lots of “if true’s” there to underscore that I don’t know anything except that your over-reactions over-play your hand and add more life to the charge.

      Fifth, the COTO Rules of Engagement:

      Personal attacks are not allowed, and will be deleted. … The first offense will result in a warning. The second offense will result in moderation. The third offense will result in removal from the site.

      In other words, Mr. Rogue, I do not have to tolerate your foul language directed at me on my threads or on yours. Don’t get yourself removed from your home COTO court on a technicality… listed, dated, and linked to make the admin’s judgment call a no-brainer.

      Too bad I have real-life plans for 2013 completely different from the funny cyber game of getting you to foul yourself out. Avoid comments like your last one, and you’ll easily outlast me.


      • Yea yea Sashadick…that sounds like just what a cop would do; report the use of Anglo-Saxon to the authorities.


      • 2013-08-20 {This was deleted from that thread.}

        With regards to Triple-W’s 2013-08-20 [and third] re-posting of something from November 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm. It was addressed after his second re-posting on November 30, 2012 at 7:34 am to the same thread. Surprise, surprise! It was deleted rather quickly, “because yeah, Triple-W isn’t afraid of debating anyone.”

        More words from today (2013-08-20) follow.

        ++++ begin {2012-11-30}
        By: Señor El Once on November 30, 2012 at 7:34 am

        For those who were pinged by email of this follow-up COTO posting, note that these words will probably only survive in your email folder. So read it there.

        So, to set the record straight in the precious few minutes that this comment will survive under Mr. Rogue’s PR effort, I was NOT repeatedly posting any of my previous comments. Mr. Dunne saw them get deleted and re-animated them.

        Because Mr. Rogue brings it up twice now — when I would have preferred to let those agency dogs and sockpuppets lie –, let’s talk about his lame reasons for not debating me in reverse order.

        “[3] and most distressing, he attempted with scanty and delusional “evidence” to frame me as puppeting another gravitar on Truth and Shadows.”

        What can we say about coincidences in politics or 9/11? There aren’t any. Sure, we might afford Mr. Rogue some leeway in being innocent of sock-puppeteering A.Wright from the familial name coincidence, but that’s not the only facet to consider.

        (a) Mr. Rogue has experienced the stiltedness of A.Wright many times, to the point where just about any rational debater would be throwing in the towel, because A.Wright’s has clearly never given an inch on anything and was never going to be “convinced” of any other views. Yet did Mr. Rogue ever make such threats to quit A.Wright? Nope. Mr. Rogue has thrown the towel at me many times when I was besting his arguments, but never to A.Wright.

        (b) Mr. Rogue regularly and oft times alone engaged A.Wright, despite the obvious game playing from A.Wright. Yet many of those battles have an aura of incompleteness and insincerity that comes to all of us when we try to play against ourselves at, say, Chess or Poker.

        (c) Mr. Rogue taught us all about Helgian Dialectic and pincer tactics.

        (d) Talent and time. If Mr. Rogue were inclined to create a sock-puppet to argue with himself to establish his “legend”, more so than many others, he could pull it off.

        (e) Mr. Rogue’s non-denial over-reaction to the revelation of the coincidence.

        (f) Sock-puppetry fit in well with many other annotated instances of Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly.

        Mr. Rogue charges:
        “[2] that he has and continues to try to frame me as an agent for the system,”

        Mr. Rogue supplies the materials for the frame. I’ve said all along that it wasn’t something I hold to. And then Mr. Rogue would do something new to get me believing that his beliefs and motives were less than genuine.

        Mr. Rogue charges:
        “[1] that he feels he can chase me around the web, and FORCE a debate on me,”

        Mr. Rogue posted the COTO links on my regular haunts. That’s an invitation to come here. Mr. Rogue mentions me by name and in an unflattering way. That’s an invitation to respond.

        As for FORCING Mr. Rogue into debate, yeah, right. Mr. Rogue exceeded every other participant on T&S (and here). He jumped onto my home court, jumped onto my hobby-horses, and steamrolled his views (most of which I have no issues.)

        Mr. Rogue gave his word. He AGREED to objectively review Dr. Wood’s textbook as one of the conditions to receiving a gift copy, and ever since has been weaseling out of giving it due consideration for the good, the bad, and the ugly.

        It isn’t that I hold up Dr. Wood’s work as the gospel. But it has nuggets of truth that Mr. Rogue refuses to acknowledge. This stellar example of his lack of objectivity is what pegs Mr. Rogue an agent to me.

        Mr. Rogue writes: “FINI” and hardly an hour and half later writes a PR continuation.

        And if we want to talk circular arguments, what energy sources does Mr. Rogue propose? NT mixed with other things to get the brissance required for pulverization that then runs into EXTREME difficulties in accounting for the under-rubble hot-spots due to the massive quantities it suggests.

        It is Mr. Rogue who is being a bit irrational in a very science challenged way.

        In fact, the whole under-rubble hot-spot thing has been another glaring tick in my opinion of agency affiliations. I mean, a rational and honest debater would see how conventional (chemical) explosives CANNOT account for this feature very easiy, if at all. They would be open to exploring other sources to see if the pieces of evidence fit better, or simplified the implementation, or seemed more appropriate for those deemed responsible with regards to methods and means.

        Not our Mr. Rogue.

        He spends all his time trying to ping the fringes of the neu nookiedoo argument by saying how isolated pieces of evidence under certain conditions could be explained by other things, yet is impervious to seeing how those other things come up short on the whole.


        You know the old expression: “Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.”

        If I had agency suspicions against Mr. Rogue on T&S within the first month of his tenure there (approaching 1 year now), why didn’t I strongly recommend that he be given the boot? Refer to the expression. Mr. Rogue writes well, makes many good points, and has helped me immensely in honing my views, despite his lackadaisical and weasel-out efforts in going after the good, the bad, and the ugly in the disinformation sources that I rely upon.

        The only hurdle for me was that if Mr. Rogue was an agent, I could expect — and in fact observed — no tiny sliver of doubt creep into the thinking of Mr. Rogue regarding the applicability of the mechanisms that he champions as opposed to the more fitting applicability of mechanisms nuclear. A line was drawn for him to defend — acknowledge no nuggets of truth from nuclear or DEW sources –, and he has done some extensive yoga manipulations to avoid crossing it.

        Depressing, but very much in line with the Helgian Dielectric that he often preached.

        That is to say, it was depressing because debate with Mr. Rogue was never going to be conclusive as in: “convince me of X or let me convince you of Y or let’s meet some middle XY ground.” Nope.

        Mr. Rogue sometimes takes his Helgian debate position and can give no ground. And once his artistic emotions kick in — like from having been slighted or exposed –, rational thought gets pushed aside and his ego gets pumped with heels dug in to defend his precious X well beyond its sell-by date.

        So, you see where my quest for truth has reached an impasse, particular with my attempts to have a rational discussion on the subject. I will never be able to freely debate neu nookiedoo on COTO, particularly if Mr. Rogue sets the agenda, publishes the articles, and controls its comments.

        What are the possibilities that COTO will approve my posting that languishes in the moderator queue?

        ++++ end {2012-11-30}

        Now back to today, 2013-08-20.

        I haven’t called Triple-Dubya (aka Mr. Rogue) “an agent” in quite some time. (1) I don’t have any substantiation other than his actions. (2) When he isn’t an ass debating me, he makes some interesting points that would be troublesome for “a real agent”. I have issue with less than 5% of what he writes. (3) He’s been very helpful to me in honing my arguments, so I owe him a debt of gratitude.

        Ergo, his [2] charge of me “framing him as an agent for the system” does not apply in this re-tread.

        I haven’t been accusing him of being the puppet master for A. Wright in quite some time.

        Ergo, his [3] charge of me “framing him as puppeting another gravitar on Truth and Shadows” does not apply in this re-tread either.

        I have purposely un-subscribed myself from nearly all COTO articles that I once monitored. I no longer make comments (that could have been used to subscribe me to new discussions.) Maybe a few times a month I might be tempted to see the discussion under various new articles that were posted.

        I’ve stayed on Truth & Shadows and my neu nookie articles. Of course, the one exception is when Triple-W has used his PROLOGUE to (a) throw insults at me or (b) malframe neu nookiedoo, in which case I’ve regularly doubled-posted my response under PROLOGUE and my neu nookie articles.

        Ergo, his [1] charge of me “chasing him around the web, and FORCING a debate on him” does not apply in this re-tread either.

        What I have been calling Triple-W is “liar, cheat, and weasel”, and this assessment was substantiated many, many times. Instances where he lied, instances where he tried to cheat with clever wordsmithery and other games, instances where he weaseled out of his agreement.

        And as just proven by dispensing with his [1], [2], and [3] re-tread charges, Triple-W remains a bit of a cheat and a liar and a weasel.

        I would now add that if one goes to Maxifucker’s 2nd Doodoo thread, they will see a good quarter of it is dedicated to defaming me, while blanching at my “rude” comebacks. Max is not only a son-of-a-bitch, but a hypocritical son-of-a-bitch

        A “good quarter is dedicated to defaming triple-W?” Hardly. But if he considers instances where his weak arguments and games are shot full of holes, then maybe. Out of necessity of my responses being deleted, they were double-posted to neu nookiedoo.

        It isn’t defamation (1) when the assessment is validated and substantiated and (2) when Triple-W’s own words are exhibited in a fair manner and addressed point-by-point.


  12. For the benefit of Mr. Rogue and lurker readers,

    I do not dispute the validity of pointing out the hyperbole of my statement:

    “The ‘unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust’ is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well.”

    My thinking was actually:

    Chemical explosives and incendiaries are being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well.”

    Dr. Jones certainly has been saying that his nano-thermite (NT) does not account for everything in the destruction of the towers or the maintenance of under-rubble hot-spot temperatures; NT had help. To account for pulverization, Dr. Jones has suggested RDX for its brissance. Too bad that at the other end in accounting for the maintenance & duration of under-rubble temperatures, RDX’s burn-rate (or that of slower nano-thermite) mathematically implies massive amounts of such chemical explosives and incendiaries that were ~unspent~ from their original pulverizing purpose.

    Dr. Jones said in September 2012:

    “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

    So what was that something? Dr. Jones is careful not to say it was RDX, because that doesn’t help explain the evidence, it confounds it. What does Mr. Rogue say the something was?

    Mr. Rogue accuses me:

    Yes you cling to this passing phrase as if it is gold, while dismissing everything else the man has said. THAT is bias Señor, that is why I deplore your entire thrust of argumentation.

    Before explaining why I cling to that passing phrase of Dr. Jones, I refer fact-checking readers to my posting from December 26, 2012 – 8:48 pm, where the third noted quotation is coincidently my own words that say:

    “I can embrace the quoted passage from Dr. Jones in its entirety as being valid.”

    Thus, the accusation of me “dismissing ~everything~ else the man [Dr. Jones] has said” is easily shot-down, while at the same time demonstrating a failed hynotic assertion, one of many that fills Mr. Rogue’s work.

    High school writing classes teach students ~not~ to use over-generalizations in their persuasive papers, phrases with “all”, “every”, “always”, “none”, “never”, “NOTHING” etc. An opponent merely has to find a single exception to discredit the assertion.

    So curious readers of this discussion [on Truth & Shadows and COTO] might ask themselves: why did Mr. Rogue fall into this very sophomoric trap of setting his own argumentation up for defeat in the following quote?

    The answer is that his hypnotic writing had another purpose in “dubiously persuading” readers.

    … the witness testimony alone verifies many small and large explosions throughout the entire sequence that simply cannot be accounting for anything nuclear. There is NOTHING in the profile of the event to suggest nukes, there is nothing in the aftermath that indicates nukes, no matter how you rave. You can dispense with nothing phantom jet, as you have no valid replacement.

    [*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

    Mr. Rogue is welcome to twist and spin the 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks to fit into his holy theory stack: chemical explosives and incendiaries supposedly being the primary WTC destructive mechanism. However, mostly Mr. Rogue’s words right back at him:

    There is SOMETHING in the profile of the event to suggest nukes, there is something in the aftermath that indicates nukes, no matter how [Mr. Rogue raves. He] can dispense with nothing phantom jet, as [he has] no valid replacement.

    To be exact, multiple fission-triggered-fusion neutron directed energy weapons. Neu Nookiedoo Eins und Neu Nookiedoo Zwei. We are probably safe in assuming that this 2012-12-28 posting reflects Mr. Rogue’s opinion.

    [Señor El Once] uses a long, complex fraudulent deconstruction of the works of Jones; building a twisted tower of Newspeak rhetoric to befuddle those who cannot follow a technical argument. It is an appeal to a lower common denominator. His arguments may seem plausible at a glance, but if one thinks them through they are nothing but pure air, puffed up with nothing but speculation.

    [*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

    Mr. Rogue also mentioned:

    I advised that you read that article I posted to Mr McKee because if you did read and grok what was therein, you would realize that the witness testimony alone verifies many small and large explosions throughout the entire sequence that simply cannot be accounting for anything nuclear.

    The same witness testimony of small and large explosions throughout can account for something nuclear, because the nookiedoo speculation is (a) that multiple such devices were deployed throughout the WTC, (b) that a neutron bomb’s audio signature from its very design that limits its blast wave could be what witnesses heard, and (c) that nookiedoo is not mutually exclusive with anything due to the thoroughness and redundancies to assure the success of the operation.

    It appears that I grok the article better than Mr. Rogue does. Nobody including myself is disputing super-duper nano-thermite’s involvement, which the article makes a good case for. The controversy is when we assume this Wunderwaffe played a primary role. Moreover, the article does ~not~ define the configuration of said super-duper nano-thermite that can account for horse-shoes and arches, despite their pretty pictures nearby. Something else was involved.

    [*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

    So quickly does the Christmas spirit evaporate from Mr. Rogue’s demeanor and merits being “POLICED” even by moderators of his COTO home court.

    (2012-12-26): Enough, I have had enough of you Señor, your thinking is assbackwards. Your speculation does not jive with the actual data. You are thumping a dead hobby horse. It’s taking you NOWHERE.

    (2012-12-28): I now reject this anonymous stooge known as, Señor El Once… I do not consider him to be a legitimate member of COTO, but an intruder. He is a stranger in our house.

    And that is not all. Here’s the running tally since then of Mr. Rogue’s personal attacks against me.

    (2012-12-26): “You prick… Fuck you.”

    (2012-12-27): “Yea yea Sashadick…”

    (2012-12-27): “Fuck you. Fuck you twice to make up for it.”

    (2012-12-27): “Maxifartimus”

    (2012-12-27): “You think like a cop… You are a skunkwalker Maxifartius.”

    (2012-12-28): “Señor el Prick… is the liar… traitor… He is also a pig {a cop} and a PR man for the same cabal of 9/11 movement infiltrators that brought us Judy Woowoo… this disingenuous, lying piece of fecal matter. … an “industrial strength” stooge for the system.”

    Rules, such as those of forum regarding personal attacks against its members, aren’t exclusively meant as a constraint on our actions. Those same rules offer protection, the same measure to all, both when adhered to and when fairly applied.

    Here’s a great quote from Mr. Rogue 2012-12-28:

    [Señor El Once] has attempted to frame me by projecting his MO onto me from the very first moment that I began posting on the blog, Truth and Shadows more than a year and a half ago now. … [Señor El Once] has been bashing Jones with false allegations for this entire year and a half that I have had the misfortune of dealing with this disingenuous, lying piece of fecal matter.

    Ooops, Mr. Rogue, son of Mrs. [x.] A. Wright! Technically a year-and-a-half ago (July 2011), Mr. McGee and I were having stilted discussions with a T&S participant A.Wright. The alias hybridrogue1 did not enter the T&S forums until late Janaury 2012. So, I do not dispute Mr. Rogue’s memory on this or his claim of battling me back in the A.Wright-only days, but do dispute who is projecting whose MO onto whom.

    (2012-12-28): I wouldn’t be surprised [Señor El Once] if YOU’RE the one doing the A Wright postings on T+S el Ouncy Bouncy…you think like a cop. You project your trip on others. You are a skunkwalker Maxifartius. The stench is unmistakable.

    (2012-12-28): [Señor El Once] is also a pig {a cop} and a PR man for the same cabal of 9/11 movement infiltrators that brought us Judy Woowoo; The Morgan Reynolds-Jim Fetzer Gang, which includes Jeff Prager and numerous other shills. … The entire thrust of this shill campaign is to defame Professor Steven Jones.

    El-Oh-El !!! *Clap* *clap* *clap* !!! Bravo! You almost had me believing it, too.

    Yes, I ACCUSE; the PR person known as [Señor El Once], of being an “industrial strength” stooge for the system, who is purposely spreading disinformation to confuse and disrupt the actual findings of truth in the forensic studies of the 9/11 event.

    El-Oh-El !!! *Clap* *clap* *clap* !!! Bravo!

    [*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

    You are thumping a dead hobby horse.
    It’s taking you NOWHERE.

    [*Snap of the fingers*] The hypnotic PR spell is now broken.

    Kicking the alledged dead hobby horse, “neu nookiedoo”, into a trott.

    There is no spoon.

    // El-Oh-El

  13. You’re the cops Max, as sure as if you had flashed a badge.
    That is no hobby horse, it is a piebald cruiser with lights on top.


  14. “High school writing classes teach students ~not~ to use over-generalizations in their persuasive papers, phrases with “all”, “every”, “always”, “none”, “never”, “NOTHING” etc. An opponent merely has to find a single exception to discredit the assertion.”~Señor El Once

    “When I look back on all the CRAP I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can even think at all.”~Simon and Garfunkel – ‘Kodachrome’

    This is epistemic bullshit. These “over-generalizations” are well recognized in common speech to be amended as “practically speaking”, that in a “practical” sense, the use of such terms can only be attacked by rhetorical disingenuous arguments that will claim that a singe item can pull down an entire argument for the casual use of everyday language.

    We do not speak here in a formal debating club. And reaching to such hyperbole bullshit as being spewed by Señor El Once is just another fucked up game that this guy plays. This runs along side of his pretense of frailty in the face of the use of Anglo-Saxon. Just more disingenuous crap from a PR stooge.


  15. I should have posted this last year, but I have a life.

    I suppose that it is now time for me to put in my last word on a thread I own.

    What goes around, comes around.

    In the case of our beloved Mr. Rogue, we are seeing choices he made in his teenage years (JFK era) come back to haunt him in the form of high school math, science, ~and~ English classes that he either did ~not~ take or learn anything from, because (a) he was a Genius Artist with other focuses and (b) he was, is, and forever will be an “Autodictat”, which translated into “common speech” means either “self-taught” or “nobody can teach this stubborn fool squat.”

    Contrary to Mr. Rogue’s attempts at re-framing the discussion into “common speech,” this very forum is written communication and not “common speech.” Moreover, the discussion topics center around scientific papers such as “The Study of Tritium” and Dr. Jones “Hard Evidence Repudiates Nukes.” Over generalizations have no place in those technical papers, nor in reviews and discussions of those papers.

    It is one class of offense to not know this, which we can attribute to Mr. Rogue’s ancient educational path. However, it is quite another offense for Mr. Rogue to bluster into “epistemic bullshit” in order to PR con us into believing that his faulty over-generalized arguments on scientific matters are correct, “practically speaking.” The fact of the matter is, honest participants should endeavor to be accurate in their writing, and not all hand-wavey as if wielding a Warhol paint brush or a Pollack paint can.

    On another subject, Mr. Rogue accuses me of being the cops.

    I wrote to Mr. Rogue in a 7:11 pm posting on “The Sandy Hook Massacre”:

    “… if you persist with your copper game, (a) you’ll have to provide lots of specifics and (b) you’ll have to avoid the cop-traits listed for me coming back around and being a better reflection of you.”

    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 9:10 pm
    ++ hybridrogue1 on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    Of course, after dropping his load of sequential sharts with no specifics, he flicks his Bic not at his stone pipe but at his behind and explodes with:

    “Let’s drop it [Señor El Once], let it lay. I don’t want any more of this carousel ride.”

    Wise decision, although the air is still aglow with his inner essence, not just here but in his faux debates with OneBornFree and A.Wright on Truth & Shadows [1] and [2]. Neither of those opponents provides much substance, so Mr. Rogue feels obligated to engage them with a flaming tizzy carousel ride of his own anyway again & again…

    “… just another fucked up game that this guy plays.”

    My new year’s resolutions aren’t finalized yet. If employment doesn’t necessitate sitting on the bench of the games despite my being a religous fanatic, then other factors probably will, burn-out topping the list. A lesson learned from living overseas: the machinery of bureaucracies have more patience than individuals ever will.



    1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns).

    2. Superheated steels ablating?vaporizing continuously as they fall?as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below).

    3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust. 6. Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs taking over three months, suggesting EM pulses.

    7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water and huge rainstorms.

    8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest something odd occurred. Air had pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact according to Rick Siegel, indicating complicity in the cover-up.

    9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area, according to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York.

    10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds must have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds multiples times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

    11. Some rescue workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins.

    12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site. Constant scrubbing of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off of. Officials plainly did not want any outsider to find something.

  17. The skew of Mr. Rogue — the proven liar and cheat — goes like this:

    Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact ‘Best Evidence’ such as Thermite in the dust from the WTC towers?

    The problem isn’t that thermite *might* have been involved. The problem is that what the cheat calls “best evidence” is really a ploy to have it been deemed the “only evidence” and for honest researchers to stop looking.

    The fact of the matter is that this “thermitic best evidence” does not account for all of the observed side-effects of the destruction, from the pulverization to the maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots for many weeks. It comes up very short.

    Plus, there’s tritium, tritium, tritium and what proper analysis of the WTC dust reveals: correlated elements signifying involvement in the destruction and representing a recipe for nuclear hijinx.

    Why would anyone want to obfuscate such solid, in fact ‘Best Evidence’ such as [Uranium and other questionable elements] in the dust [representing nuclear sources] from the WTC towers?

    It is because “9/11 nuclear anything” (a) would have caused a panic in the public despite the pains the culprits took in designing neutron nuclear devices without copious amounts of lingering radiation and (b) would have immediately soiled the hands of the US Government and Military, the largest holder of nuclear toys of any kind.

    Moreover, tactical nuclear devices without lingering radiation represents a national secret into methods-&-means that the government would want to hide for as long as possible, even 11 years later in an obscure COTO forum.


  18. What follows are one-side of some re-purposed postings on the themes of Dr. Judy Wood and neutron nuclear DEW. They are being posted out of context here but with links back to where they first appeared.

    They are being re-posted here so that they can serve as counter-weight to Mr. Rogue’s “PROLOGUE New Wave 9/11”.


    When someone demonstrates the skills of a blacksmith, a welder, a carpenter, a plumber, a farmer, etc., it then follows that it should be a compliment to acknowledge their talents and call them by their profession. Unless the talents have their own connotations.

    Below Mr. Rogue will be called “a weasel,” “a liar”, and “a cheat” with substantiation, thus making them valid character assessments. Reference is also made to agency affiliations, but that is without substantiation, in passing, and not a theme that I earnestly pursue.

  19. 2013-03-08

    Dear Mr. Ruff,

    You want to bestow the MVP title onto Mr. Rogue. That will only be true if MVP equals Most Vocal Participant. Mr. Rogue is proven to have no integrity and gets by through cheating and even lies when he has too. Just yesterday, he lied twice about what words were attributable to me versus him.

    A more deserving recepient of the MVP award is Mr. OneSliceShort.

    You wrote:

    I decline your bait SEO and as I said before I will not be wasting the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Wood page by page.

    I love your backhanded “declination of my bait” as the lead-in to nibbling on it.

    You misjudge the assignment. You don’t have to waste a single second debunking Dr. Wood page-by-page.

    What is required of you is to have the cajones to acknowledge nuggets of truth, however few and far between they may be spaced, in Dr. Wood’s work. Working towards this goal will get the 9/11 Truth Movement much farther along than any thrash-and-burn debunking effort.

    In a moment you’ll have you’re first assignment, but first, here’s a lovely quote from you:

    I will not waste my time responding to your goading for me to do so again either. Her foundation is cracked and broken and so there is no need to adress the rest of her disinformation. If you want to search for “nuggets of truth” in Judy Woods garbage pile go for it man, knock yourself out. Meanwhile I will be searching for truth from people who have not been exposed as total charletans such as Dr. Jones.

    I defy you to find a single high-profile PR wonk in the 9/11 Truth Movement whose “foundation ~isn’t~ cracked and broken.” Just because someone hasn’t been exposed to you (or your satisfaction) as a “charletans” doesn’t mean that they aren’t. Dr. Jones is no exception.

    Your brain-dead defense of Dr. Jones proves you haven’t read what I wrote about him. Give it another try:

    9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW

    9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)

    Tell me where I error.

    Meanwhile, you write from your ignorance:

    By the way your whole meme that CD cannot account for the destruction we observed is as bogus as Woods “where did the towers go” meme. CD can and does account for what we saw including the dust clouds. Other CD’s have shown the same pattern and there is nothing in the WTC destruction that cannot be accounted for by CD. You, like Wood, have just pulled that meme out of your ass in a vain attempt to tarnish the smoking gun nano-thermite evidence uncovered by Dr. Jones. Funny how disinformation seems to be focused on Dr. Jones and the CD evidence and on CIT and their pentagon evidence. Just a coincidence I guess huh? NOT!

    Whereas controlled demolition using essentially chemical explosives could account for the dust clouds, it cannot account for:

    – the damage to 1400 vehicles, some at a considerable distance.
    – the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
    – Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe

    – Multiple pieces bent

    – Horseshoe Beam

    Kindly have Dr. Jones explain the configuration of super-duper nano-thermite (e.g., where it was attached, how close was it to the depicted beams, etc.) that would result in the above images, compliments of Dr. Judy Wood’s image collection. Don’t get me wrong; Dr. Wood’s analysis of these beams is whacked out. (I say that one of several neutron nuclear DEW devices achieved this.) The point is that the evidence is there, can’t be ignored just because it sits inside of a “disinformation vehicle”, and all theories-du-jour must address all pieces of evidence in order to be considered complete and valid.

    Like I said SEO you sir are full of shit. You admit it when you say Judy Wood is off base on various points she makes but you are still going to spend time digging out “nuggets of truth” from her garbage. pile.

    And which garbage pile are you going to go digging in to get “nuggets of truth?” You’re starting to sound “pretty ignorance and closed-minded” there, Mr. Ruff, you are.

    Please enlighten me as to the perfect source or repository of 9/11 Wisdom & Understanding that, as but one example, addressed the lucky horseshoe beams linked above? [Busy work warning: that is a fool’s errand, because control of the 9/11 message is so complete, there isn’t a single, reliable source.] But because you believe, cough it up. Prove me wrong, hombre.

    Myself, I stop looking at or respecting someones work once I see that it is disinformation, I am funny that way. Once a person lies to me I stop trusting them, strange concept I know, but hey that is just the way I am.

    Shit, then I guess the proven instances in this very thread of cheating and lying ought to have you snatching back the MVP crown that you want to nail to Mr. Rogue’s head.

    It is easy for you to dismiss sources of (dis)information for x-number of instances of proven bull-shit. But that’s not really how it should work (unless you want to admit to being duped and playing right into the hand of disinformation.) Nope, when the (dis)information source is proven tainted, the appropriate response is to flag the instances of such and to then have initial, healthy distrust of all further (dis)information from that source, but all the while given each nugget its due consideration and not throwing those babies out with the bathwater.

    Try again.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue wrote:

    I find it most curious, that it is suggested that I have some sort of “obligations” as per this piece of junk book by Judy Wood. No such obligation exists.

    This is Mr. Rogue demonstrating what a cheat he is, not living up to his part of the bargain and deceitfully trying to change the terms of the agreement in a one-sided fashion midstream. No dice.

    Pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were two options given but with the caveat that they happen after an objective “good, bad, and ugly” review.

    At this point, Mr. Ruff, you lay your cards squarely down in the “ignoramous camp” that says “we don’t need to read no stinkin’ books and we don’t need to crack no stinkin’ covers in order to pass our holy judgment of the (de)merits of the entire work.”

    *Clap* *clap* *clap*

    I didn’t think it was possible for a worthy participant to expose himself as an ignorant red-neck hill-billy for your close-minded attitude, but evidently Mr. Rogue is your hero, too, and your role-model for action in this forum.

    I was contemplating the option of relieving Mr. Rogue of his obligation were he to pay-it-forward or pass-it-along to you, but you out yourself as far less than open-minded or objective. Doesn’t really matter; important nuggets of truth were cherry-picked from Dr. Wood’s work and are a published in this very comment in the form of the links to the horseshoe images. Explain.

    Oh, and take your time, Mr. Ruff. Late next week I’m leaving on vacation and may have limited access to the internet for over a week.


  20. 2013-03-08

    Mr. Rogue writes the following lie:

    That this anonymous troll calling itself “senor el once” calls anyone who disagrees with it “a liar”.

    No, I call anyone liar who is proven to have done just that.

    Don’t want to be called a “cheat?” Then don’t cheat in your debate techniques.

    Don’t want to be called a “liar?” Then don’t be offering up what quickly unravels to be not true.

    Now if Mr. Rogue wants to redeem himself in some way from having been exposed repeatedly telling “lies,” a good place to start is his new promise:

    I am trying to keep my posting count to a minimum here so as not to enrage the animal{s}.

    Try harder, please.

  21. 2013-03-08

    Yada, yada, yada.

    Bottom-line, Mr. Rogue is Mr. Weasel, re-writing history to cover over his own lack of integrity. [Only banks are allowed the luxury of changing the terms of an agreement midstream, and even that always reeks of being illegal to me.] The original plain-and-simple deal agreed to by both parties said “objective good, bad, ugly review ~and~ pay-it-forward.” Sending the book back was never an option, because it would add nothing valuable to the debate.

    The weasel writes:

    I considered giving THE BOOK to the local library here. As I consider the item a dangerous virus of disinformation, I decided not to add to the public nuisance.

    By the weasel’s own admission, he never finished reading the book. Ooo, weee, “a dangerous virus of disinformation”? Had the weasel backed that up with specifics, he could have avoided 9 months of having his integrity run through the mud, because that could have been the foundation of his report. If the book had only 25 chapters, Mr. Weasel could have easily fulfilled his promise with a mere 25 sentences:

    In Chapter 1, I consider A to be good; I consider B to be bad; I consider C to be ugly. In chapter 2, I consider D to be good; I consider E to be bad; I consider F to be ugly. … In chapter 25, I consider DDD to be good; I consider EEE to be bad; I consider FFF to be ugly.

    To the skeleton above, the weasel could have easily added to each of the 24 sentences “… and here’s why.” He was under no obligation to find bad or ugly, but was charged with finding good, because the fact of the matter is that without a high degree of good, the disinformation would have had no traction and would not be considered dangerous. He could easily have saved himself some effort by writing “Chapters A through D were valid essays on physics, so concentration of the bad and ugly disinformation begins with Chapter E with these specific examples.”

    Mr. Weasel could easily have convinced me — a duped useful idiot — of the validity of some of his arguments, so there would be two of us supporting each other in the assessment of what actual was good, what was bad, and what was ugly. And WTF? If I countered “J is all you found to be good in chapter N? What about L or M?” It would have led to a fine, fact-based discussion and been enlightening to the whole world.

    This was the intended worthy goal of the gift and the exercise that the weasel completely welched on.

    It leads me to two conclusions that might or might not be mutually-exclusive.

    The weasel is a totally underhanded schmuck who couldn’t rise up the simplest of book-report challenges that was put to him, thereby demonstrating he is far below the genius attributes that he ascribes to himself.

    Or, dastardly and dangerous good is lurking between the covers that is so damning particularly to the PR tours of super-duper nano-thermite, it takes on a Harry Potter-style mystique: oooo, the good-that-must-not-be-named-or-acknowledged, lest it blow up the paradigms used to mislead the 9/11 TM and the world.

    Mr. Weasel brings up “word voodoo” and his own excellent example of such, like “there is NOTHING in this expensive piece of wasted tree mulch that isn’t already available on the web site of the lunatic that wrote it.”

    A lie, and the weasel knows it. Some glaring examples are the maps and tables that correlate the high quality images of destruction to physical locations. These are not on the website to the extent they are in the book. They could easily have been classified by the weasel as “good things” and been marked off his good-checklist.

    Over generalizations are par for the weasel’s “word voodoo”, preferring to couch his opinions in the frame “~all~ is bad; ~nothing~ is good.” This is how we spot him being unobjective. Turns out, he does the same thing here: … “Video Fakery” “DEW” “Nuke” issues are in the dustbin of history. We can and should no longer trust his opinion or hynotic PR on the matter, necessitating them be re-visited for nuggets of truth that the weasel is trying to hide.

    Such an unwillingness and dogged-determination ~not~ to acknowledge even the slightest anomaly in the above genres as something not understood, something not fitting the 9/11 TM paradigm, and therefore worthy of further study. Nope, using his PR hypnotic speak, he claims “Nothing to see here, folk! Move along now!”

    And for the overly abundant flooding of the T&S forum with his hypnotic assertions, Mr. Weasel deserves every ounce of being called out on his cheats and lies. Easy to fix; easy to apologize for; easy to get assessed differently: unless a paid agenda is behind his ways and means, which is what it stinkin’ looks like to me.


  22. 2013-03-09

    Mr. Rogue-Weasel, who was caught cheating with his debate techniques several times as well as outright lying [within this very thread], calls me “a vicious character assassin.” Not really. The truth just hurts, Rogue-Weasel. Whereas I will never know whether the Rogue-Weasel is an Agent, he for sure is a weasel, a valid character assessment that is on display thread-to-thread wherever he tries to engage me.

    The Rogue-Weasel writes:

    It is preposterous for this anonymous entity to pretend to speak to; “what constitutes intelligent & rational debate”. It is equally absurd to assert that Mr Ruff would be missing anything of substance by ignoring the blathering of “Señor” and this TM character.

    In the immortal words of SNL’s John Belushi, “Well, EXCU-UUUUUSE ME!!!”

    How was I to know the new standard in objective and fair debate in today’s 9/11 discussions requires brushing off (dis)information sources without reading, without due consideration, and without due-diligence is determining validity of the work down to the chapter, page, image, point levels. How “preposterous” for me to think that “intelligent & rational debate” could involve thinking for oneself in evaluating material.

    Here’s the funny part. It isn’t as if Dr. Wood’s work is being held up in its entirety as the gospel. Most of the participants here agree that it is a disinformation vehicle. The sticky problem is that my “ranting lunatic ravings” won’t let go is that her wonderful disinformation vehicle has nuggets of truth — like the horseshoe beams — that are not addressed by other theories.

    I have no desire to make the discussion about Dr. Wood’s work but about the nuggets of truth that are obvious and can be wrapped into neutron nuclear DEW very neatly, and not so much super-duper nano-thermite. Still, I find it amazing how the Rogue-Weasel and now Mr. Ruff firmly figuratively repeatedly smash their noses with Dr. Wood’s textbook, and in the Rogue-Weasel’s case, now gets bird shit on his face.

    Here’s another example of the Rogue-Weasel living up to his new name-sake and the cheating, lying labels that get affixed to his forehead like Dole-Banana stickers:

    It speaks as if all of the evidence Wood presents is her exclusive discovery. All of the data and information is in the 9/11 record itself. It is the spin of her presentation of such evidence that is her own production. There is nothing original there but her wanked out slant.

    The images of the horseshoe and arched beams were linked in my earlier posts, and they are displayed in my neu nookiedoo articles (that the Rogue-Weasel avoids discussing in detail like the plague, preferring instead to just call it belittling names.)

    If the Rogue-Weasel is speaking the truth about ~all~ of the data and information being in the 9/11 record itself, then it should be no problem for him to cough up the URLs where these images are housed as well as the discussion from leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement — Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jon Cole, Richard Gage, (anyone?) — who logically, intelligently, and rationally explains how they came about from super-duper nano-thermite. What does it take to produce such wonders of steel pretzels?

    Talk about a litmus test of a person’s integrity, and one of the best (gift) investments from my 9/11 endeavors! We learn quickly who is an honest seeker of truth, because they aren’t swayed by the PR hypnotic suggestions that labels something “looney” yet is too feeble to provide specifics, let alone acknowledge what might remain that is valid and needing explanations.

    Obviously, the cheating weasel who likes to lie isn’t an honest truth seeker, and never has been despite the opportunity having been sat in his lap at no cost to his wallet (but at high cost to his reputation.)

    The difference between the descriptive names that I now openly call the cheating Rogue-Weasel and the various crafty insults that he his “pressure sales-pitch” has served up against me this past year (in lieu of objectively rescuing nuggets of truth) is that I substantiate my assessment with the Rogue-Weasel’s own exhibit.

    The Rogue-Weasel is welcome to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Ruff in ignoring and (hopefully) not responding to my postings. I think we would all be happy with that outcome. But such has never been within the Rogue-Weasel’s capabilities.

    P.S. Here’s another cheat from the Rogue-Weasel, who tries to make hay with his “anonymous entity” comments. I’m known on the Internet by those who need to know me. [Had the Rogue-Weasel been paying attention when he got his nose-bloodying copy of Dr. Wood’s book last June, he’d know, too.] And for someone who repeating stated that he doesn’t care who I am, the Rogue-Weasel does an awful lot of cheating by constantly tossing out his PR hypnotism about my anonymity. [From the minimal efforts I put into cyber-stalking the Rogue-Weasel to locate his body of words, I can’t with confidence say that his other names aren’t a legend-establishing, back-stopping ruse to his own “anonymity”.]

    // a bullshit artist with a pressure sales-pitch and ranting lunatic ravings.

  23. 2013-04-09

    Dear Mr. Ditchner,

    I stand by my “Red Herring” assessment of your question that tries to make hay out of a top-down demolition. I repeat, “a building can be decimated bottom-up, top-down, middle-up-and-down, or any which way, depending on goals.”

    The fact that scant few (approaching zero) examples of “a giant skyscraper being destroyed from the top down before or after 911” exist [except WTC-1 and WTC-2] doesn’t speak to any technical inability but it does speak to the “depending on goals” portion. What are the goals of most demolitions? An incomplete list would include reduction of collaterial damage to neighboring structures, facilitation of post-demolition clean-up efforts, and efficient ($) use of the energy sources deployed in the demolition. [Las Vegas and Hollywood demolitions might add the goal of “spectacular” to make a good show.]

    The two main reasons why top-down demolitions are not favored are that (1) debris is scattered more which, if it doesn’t damage neighboring structures, may spread out clean-up over a larger area, and (2) it inefficiently uses the energy sources. Traditional demolitions always use the mass of a certain amount of upper floors combined with gravity as a demolition energy source to destroy a certain amount of lower floors, thus requiring fewer explosives to get the structure into small pieces for final removal from the site. In an untraditional top-down demolition, extra energy is expended to decimate upper floors that in fractured form can not take full advantage of mass and gravity to decimate lower floors.

    One of the plus points of Dr. Wood’s book is it sheds light on the pulverization energy deployed in the upper floors and that such pulverized material (much of it spilling over the sides of the towers) was no longer available to serve as a gravity-driven pile-driver to destroy lower portions. Further, she speculates on why this might have been a demolition goal (beyond “shock-and-awe, baby!”): to preserve the bathtub which kept Hudson water from flooding the basement levels of the WTC as well as many neighboring buildings and via the subway tunnels. Pulverized content falling from great heights would not damage infrastructure as much as more large chunks of cohesive content would.

    Moreover, because the overall demolition time was between 11 and 15 seconds (depending on who is observing yet still way to close to free-fall time), energy was continually added to take resistive infrastructure out of the way by pulverizing it. The significance of this is that it represents a level of “overkill” that defrauds the desired premise of “gravity driven pile driver” while at the same time unmasking that their energy sources were great and maybe could not be scaled any smaller.

    You wrote:

    Your failure to address the issue posed and to change the discussion…

    I had no failure in my address; the failure was with issue posed: top-down destruction supposedly being evidence of DEW.

    You wrote:

    By the way, it was a reply and if the site webmaster had not wanted readers to reply to others’ comments then they should have deactivated the option. I view your objection to my reply as a bully tactic.

    I didn’t object to your reply. I objected to when and where you made your reply. You made your reply ~before~ having read the entire thread. You made your reply near the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. And in my opinion, your reply had little to do with the direction of the discussion that you tried to “bully” your way into so late to the party with your skew. Aside from being highly discourteous to those who participated (and are still interested in participating), I view that as a tactic to derail the discussion after the fact for latter-day lurker readers.

    You wrote:

    And, if you use the term ‘nuggets’ one more time, I think I go crazy.

    Great! Have a crazy field day compliments of my “nuggets.”

    You take the position “there is no lack of rubble”.

    Correctly stated, my position is that the rubble (e.g., non-steel) was pulverized, and therefore fit into a smaller volume as observed. An optical illusion in the relatively shallow rubble pile is the amount of rubble that filled basement levels under the towers. My position is also that even though pulverization is a massive energy sink, it is still many orders of magnitude less energy than vaporization of steel.

    Whereas it does not hurt us to contemplate that some level of vaporization occurred, what hurts Dr. Wood is not correctly speculating what the energy source of such would be. All she has is lingering innuendo that Hurricane Erin or Tesla energy from space could accomplish it.

    You taunted:

    You claim that all the steel is accounted for. Could you please place a link to your source?

    I leave wiggle room that the basis for my claim may have been infected with disinformation. As one source, here are pictures and page numbers from Dr. Wood’s book.

    Figure 113 pg 117
    Figure 158 pg 172
    Figure 190 pg 197
    Figure 196 pg 201
    … There are more, but you get the picture.

    Dr. Wood is the one planting the lingering innuendo of the vaporization of steel, but when you look at those pictures, you’ll see massive amounts of steel attributed to the towers are present. They weren’t vaporized.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to determine how many truckloads of steel were taken to barges and shipped to China. While researching that, you’ll find the sources you request regarding on-site workers testimony about accounting for steel. Nobody accounted for 100% of the structural steel, so we can leave the door open for some level of vaporization… just not the levels that Dr. Wood tries to hint at.

    Let me remind you that the title of Dr. Wood’s book is “Where Did the Towers Go?” Dr. Wood spends a great deal of time in the book, on her website(s), and in her presentations presenting evidence to the contrary.

    Your “reminder” only turns the spot-light upon her book as being a “disinformation vehicle” that I still recommend.

    Dr. Wood did not make a convincing case for the remains being vaporized and going into space. In fact, thanks to the sister disinformation vehicle of September Clues, the very satellite image that Dr. Wood uses to say “content went into the atmosphere” is suspected of being tainted. (Figure 101 from page 108.) Thanks to the images in Dr. Wood’s book, we learn that copious amounts of steel are very much present in the pile and weren’t vaporized.

    Worse, when we follow her presentations (videos, website, or book) of the “spire” supposedly getting vaporized, our study into other sources reveals a glaring omission that exists to this day: namely that of two other view points on video that clearly show the “spire” telescoping and falling over. Dr. Wood has never acknowledged this evidence.

    Thanks to Dr. Jenkins we learn of the energy requirements to vaporize steel, particularly to the ludicrous extreme hinted at by Dr. Wood’s lingering innuendo.

    Allow me to put it into layman’s terms: The wick of a candle gets “vaporized” by the candle flame. The wax in a circular radius around the candle flame (melts and then gets sucked into the wick where it) vaporizes, too. When you scale the combustible properties of the candle’s wick to that of a piece of steel to achieve its vaporization, you’ll discover that (a) it requires a massive amount of energy and (b) the required heat level exceeds the radius of the candle (e.g., towers)… to the tune of probably several city blocks. This was not observed on 9/11, and the very images sited from Dr. Wood’s book also dispute this.

    Please explain how all that steel came crashing down around those 14 firemen in the stairwell yet not a single one got hit by as much as a paperclip. They heard a loud noise, they experienced choking dust, then they saw the sky above them. No mention of tons and tons of steel crashing down around them. I find that odd and supportive of Dr. Wood’s opinion that the steel was, in fact, dustified.

    The stairwell’s proximity to where the DEW devices were (a) placed and (b) aimed help explain it. My premise is that multiple nuclear neutron devices were deployed that aimed not just the escaping neutrons upwards but also most of their blast and heat waves. Yes, content above the stairwell was pulverized. Given that I say they were tactical neutron nuclear devices, they had close to the needed energy to really do a number on the steel in the direct vacinity and direct line of fire. But as you yourself write, the “steel came crashing down around … the stairwell.”

    Please specifically address the issues I have raised in this reply without using the term “nuggets” or by changing the subject and discussing DEW or Proton Nukes.

    DEW (directed energy weapon) is in the title of Dr. Wood’s book, so it is not changing the subject.

    Also, your quip “Proton Nukes” proves you didn’t understand or were too lazy to quote me accurately. “Neutron nuclear DEW” is the proper phrase. The technology is based on neutron bombs, but does a twist on the application goals. “Neutron nuclear DEW” makes no pretense about using the energy efficiently or effectively in a battlefield sense, because it does neither. It essentially vents the escaping highly energetic neutrons upwards such that they aren’t even available to kill life-forms (an original stated goal of neutron bombs). The neutron configuration of a fusion bomb reduces the blast and heat waves, however, down to a tactical level that can also be directed to a certain measure. And the radiation signature is both small and quickly dissipated, just as was observed.

    This proves another glaring omission by Dr. Wood (and Dr. Jones) in their sweeping dismissals of 9/11 nuclear sources.

    As I said earlier it would have been a much better strategy had she never postulated a mechanism because it allowed people (like you) to ignore the evidence and attack the hypothesis. “Before you determine how it happened you have to determine what happened” -J Wood

    I am most certainly ~not~ ignoring the evidence. I am re-purposing it.

    Lest there be no misunderstanding, you and I are in agreement that Dr. Wood presents lots of evidence that need an adequate explanation.

    Dr. Wood should have followed her own advice when she went to court, presented lame theories she could not prove, got the case thrown out for lack of standing, and double-jeopardy prevented others from making other cases.

    As for attacking Dr. Wood’s hypothesis? Ha! Does she even have one in her book? (Have you even read her book cover-to-cover? I have.)

    Nothing connects together her snippets of evidence and lingering innuendo. The nuclear omissions and side-stepping are pretty glaring, though, particularly when she was getting her engineering degrees during Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. Did she even review what they were talking about doing in the ’80’s to do a reasonable extrapolation to 20 years later? X-ray lasers (really nuclear bombs that could target those wavelengths) should have come up in her literature review, as well as the characteristics of neutron bombs.

    The real question is: why aren’t you attacking her hypothesis?

    I mean, Dr. Wood talks about the energy requirements whether or not we include steel dustification or vaporization. But she gives neither ballpark estimates nor ~valid~ speculation into the energy source. What’s up with that?

    And where is her effort in her 2010 textbook to fix the errors that I’m sure she learned were associated with the analysis on her website. Where is her literature review? Case in point is Dr. Jenkin’s whose work was from 2007. Although Dr. Jenkins took his calculations to an unreasonable extreme considering energy required to vaporize ~all~ the steel in the towers, to astute readers he did make valid points regarding how much energy is required to vaporize just one steel beam.

    Dr. Wood’s textbook as well as the work of Dr. Steven Jones (and many others) are disinformation vehicles. There ain’t no two-ways about it. But before abandoning all hope, they need to be sent to the recycling center for them damn-naggit nuggets of truth to be reclaimed.


    Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote:

    I have read this paper from Dr Jenkins and (1) understood it, and (2) it demolishes Dr Wood’s thesis totally. (3) Wood is presenting junk science.

    Wrong on at least three counts.

    Crafty Dr. Wood’s has few theses to be demolished: just lots of lingering innuendo that she fails to connect together into a cohesive whole. However, if you want to say that vaporization of steel is one such thesis, the first hurdle is agreeing on how much steel we’re talking about. I mean, Dr. Wood has pictures that clearly show tons and tons of steel that were from the towers and obviously were ~not~ vaporized. [I don’t want to get into the argument of who — Dr. Wood or her detractors — is first or most guilty of misframing it.]

    But Dr. Jenkins is no angel either, otherwise he wouldn’t have framed his calculations as if ~all~ (or ~most~) of the steel were vaporized, thereby coming up with an obscenely large number for the required energy (the sun). Maybe he should have studied Dr. Wood’s collection of pictures, too. As far as my memory recalls, he offered no down-to-earth calculations on the energy required (a) to vaporize even one steel beam [of such-and-such dimensions] or (b) to heat such end-to-end that would permit bending into an arch or horseshoe. Dr. Jenkins was running with his strawman argument, because his agenda — like that of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood — was to take serious contemplating into the true sources for WTC destruction off of the table.

    Mr. Rogue writes:

    Another point, I had the book. I did not read the entire thing. The reason I did not is that I discovered it is false advertising to claim that there is any substantial difference between what is presented on Wood’s Internet site and what is in the book. I had already studied that site. My conclusion is that both the book and the site are simply bullshit.

    Nice bit of malframing and strawman building, there. Prove where the claims (from me) ever said there was “any substantial difference between what is presented on Wood’s Internet site and what is in the book.” Other than my glowing reviews of her tables that correlate pictures to map positions that her website doesn’t have, you won’t find it, because it ain’t there. Just the opposite.

    But what you will find is statements to the effect that her 2010 book is more recent that her mostly stagnant website (2006), so should be given deference with regards to what is her final word.

    Whether or not I agree with your statement about bullshit, what is true is that you come to such a conclusion admitting to ~not~ having read her book cover-to-cover. More importantly, nor have you ever — in almost 16 months — coughed up the “good, bad, and ugly” specifics chapter-by-chapter to justify your opinions. [The best you’ve done is repeat links to Dr. Jenkins, but his work from 2007 pre-dates the 2010 book.]

    Mr. McKee in the article wrote:

    – For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
    – For Wood’s supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?

    You don’t think her science is sound? Tell me why. You think she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread? Why do you think so?

    Mr. Rogue, your lack of acknowledgement to any “good” [however supposedly few and far between] in her book is glaring, and pegs you as both unobjective and agenda-toting. Aside from you being a proven weasel, cheat, and liar in your discussions with me, Mr. Rogue, a very revealing aspect to your “character” is that precious little of your “bullshit” conclusion has evidence of you thinking for yourself, analyzing things on your own, writing things in your own words. I mean, you quote from others on the subject in a bottish and repetitive way, but rarely have you ever written your own words from your own understanding. You’ve been following a script; that script doesn’t allow you thinking out of the box; that script doesn’t permit review of the evidence that doesn’t conveniently fit into the super-duper nano-thermite genre; that script doesn’t allow you to question Dr. Jones.

    I thank you for your past participation here, Mr. Rogue. You’ve made my arguments more solid. But now that you have the proven integrity of a weasel, my tolerance of you particularly on my hobby-horse topic is wearing thin.

    Because I know how buddy-buddy to and Dr. Fetzer are, here’s a couple good reading.

    Dr. Fetzer:
    Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

    Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly


    [Trying to emulate Mr. Rogue’s caboose \\][// in my own Zorro-ish way]

  24. 2013-04-12

    One of these days, I might be tempted to compile “The Complete Set (so far) of Mr. Rogue Throwing-the-Towel-at-Me”, which would then for sure include this new diddy:

    I am off of this lunatic’s endless carousel ride.

    Owing to proven integrity flaws in Mr. Rogue, I’m confident that this will unravel to be yet another broken promise.

    Were there any truth to that statement, or to this other statement from Mr. Rogue:

    I do hope that it is realized that I haven’t the slightest interest in what this character has to say.

    … then there would have been ~no~ need for a concluding posting that calls me out specifically. Silence would have been golden.

    Proving why he’s earned the title of weasel, he doesn’t even given specifics on what makes my posting “milquetostada nannycanker bullshit,” making it just another hypnotic PR assertion.

    [*SNAP* of the fingers. The spell is broken.]

    Numbers have always been the weasel’s failing, like in not being able appreciate how an explosive material’s burn-rate determines quantities and configuration and factors into a long-lasting hot-spot in a major way. The faster the burn-rate, the more material required. And no matter how you lay it out, a hot-spot several weeks in duration is going to require obscenely, incredibly, unreasonably massive amounts of said material.

    But another area where numbers trip up the weasel can be viewed in his posting frequency. Take this article with ~522 total postings so far. By my rough count, the weasel is ~9 postings shy of an even 200 (e.g., 35% of the total). Lunatic that I am, my milquetoast presence on this, my hobby-horse topic, is still ~30 postings shy of the lowest of triple digits (e.g., a pitying 13% of the total.)

    Doggedly, the weasel continues to champion super-duper nano-thermite by any means possible, when other more reasonable energy sources should have been considered, certainly by his doctored scholars.

    But also just as doggedly, the weasel avoids even as little as a high school sophomore’s “D-“ book report on Dr. Wood’s textbook: the good, the bad, and the ugly, chapter-by-chapter. Talk about your carousels, the weasel in this very thread tries to give his book report without having the book. Then after a copy is provided with conditions for an objective review, the weasel runs down the clock for months supposedly “reading it.” And then when finally cornered over 3/4 of a year later, the weasel says he did ~not~ read it, and in fact with much strength and violence, alledgedly tore up the 500+ page book of heavy, quality paper and abundant use of color to line his bird’s cage rather than fulfilling part two of those conditions either to pay-the-book-forward or to pass-the-book-along to someone who would appreciate it.

    On at least two occasions of late, the weasel has written:

    There is NOTHING remaining between us Señor, fuck off.

    True. I’ve gotten my money’s worth out of this 9/11 investment that still pays me dividends in the bloody-noses his bird-cage lining now gives him. I still have lingering curiousity as to what this “autodictat genius artist” would write in an “objective review,” but no longer expect such and certainly don’t expect honesty, just like I don’t expect a weasel to change his spots.

    Yes, the test of Mr. Rogue’s integrity was administered, and it is neither insult nor ad hominem but a simple statement of fact that he has proven himself a weasel. For what is a real man on the internet but the truth in his summed up words? And when that truth is found lacking, so goeth that man’s reputation.

    Mr. Rogue is relieved of his book report obligation to me, but at the high cost to his integrity and reputation in these forum.

    If any obligation remains for the weasel, it is one owed to his God (Truth), his neighbor (COTO and T&S), and himself (to rebuild his word, his integrity, his reputation into something of value again.)

    Meanwhile and until such date, the weasel will have to suffer with being called the label he justified himself on so many levels. Time to give him a much-needed nudge ~not~ just off of “the lunatic’s endless carousel ride”.

    // El-Oh-El… a lunatic’s bad business for the weasel

  25. 2013-04-15
    2013-03-19 {This is not expected to survive.}

    This is in reference to a “book-length” posting on 2013-04-13 from Triple-W, a.k.a. “Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][///”, who recently called me Carnival Maxifuckanus. How clever. The difference is that “the weasel” title has been earned and is a factual character trait of Triple-W. And each time when he was called “a liar and a cheat”, substantiation was given in the form of explaining the lie or exposing the cheat.

    Projection it is said, is the best shield of a spook. … This anonymous entity is the cops, out to spot bloggers who are well informed and capable of lucid argumentation.

    Yeah, let’s keep an eye out for that “projection” stuff.

    Triple-W and I are in agreement that this forum was infiltrated. We disagree regarding who “is well informed and capable of lucid argumentation.” Triple-W has proven many times that he knows how to copy-and-paste from others, but is he capable of independent thought and analysis?

    Assume for a moment that I’m the infiltrator as I try to raise awareness and viability of “neu nookiedoo”. To what end? If I am successful in my “disinfo”, what gains are to be had by the powers-that-be (PTB) and the govt when more people take seriously the message that “the USA nuked itself on 9/11?” And geez, I’ve said all along that with properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence, I could easily be duped into believing something else and will henceforth issue a heartfelt & public apology for having led others astray.

    Now let’s assume that Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][/// (Triple-W) is the infiltrator. He comes to us with an impressive resume:

    – an “Autodidact Polymath”

    – “worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention.” (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm)

    – “>35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology.” (2009-03-23)

    Please re-read that last bullet again, the weasel’s own words.

    And if readers think about the nuking of America in terms of PR, what PR should be deployed to shut down even rational discussion thereof? … Doh! *Palm smacking forehead*

    Let’s see how Triple-W’s “doctorates equivalent… in the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology” play out here, starting with his cherry-picked quote from me of MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM as:

    I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent

    Punctuation is important, like where my elipses were lopped off. So are URLs. Here’s more context but with my bolding.

    I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent… each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is. Here’s his latest lie. […]

    Triple-W quotes me from MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM as:

    This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe too.

    Too bad for Triple-W that the context for this quote substantiates those conclusions about Triple-W’s character flaws.

    I must applaud Triple-W for this masterful PR spin:

    This [DEW and Nukes] has been the topic of our dispute. Although the entity formerly championed the No-Planes theory for a time, and gave credence to the Video Fakery camp for some time as well. These ‘giving ins’ are, as I see it, a ‘schmooze campaign’, a technique of the ‘confidence racket’. It lends the sheen of being “open minded,” …

    According to Triple-W, “changing your mind particularly in the face of newly acquired evidence and analysis: BAD! Very bad! Don’t do it!” Lest there be any doubt, with the above words Triple-W is giving thumbs up for his own “closed-minded” and “ignorant” self. [Mocking quote] “I, Willy Whitten the Weasel, do not change my mind or my (paid) agenda for any reason, not even when high school boojie-woojie science proves that the numbers behind my agenda can’t possibly add up.” [/Mocking quote]

    I charged that Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][/// failed to provide adequate substantiation for his own theories. Triple-W disagrees, claiming:

    I have indeed addressed every one of these dozen points in detail and many times over.

    I’ll give Triple-W points for “attempting to address” each of the dozen bullets, but that doesn’t mean that his re-hashed PR spin-and-skew achieves the goal of getting those the 9/11-Tetris evidence blocks to line up under his lame theories. In fact, Triple-W loses points because his out-of-context re-hash does not provide links to where it transpired (2012-09-23) so that his version of the discussion can be vetted. Someone with “doctorates equivalent” would not make such “mistakes” and thus reeks of being a purposeful obscufation “technique of propaganda and perception manipulation”.

    [1]- the correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission.

    Here’s the first weasel spin:

    There is no “correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission” – no actual correlation has been put forth other than assertions that those elements being present together must mean something, regardless of the fact that they are all ubiquitous in the environment generally.

    Because Jeff Prager’s presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] has been brought to the weasel’s attention several times, this quip about “no actual correlation has been put forth” unravels to be a lie. Of course, reading and grokking “Jeff Jeff Jeff” runs parallel to the weasel’s handling of “Judy Judy Judy:” avoided like the pest.

    Because I’ve explained it several times to the weasel, he cannot offer the excuse (in words or actions) that he does not understand what “correlation” means. Example: “N-parts element A for every 1-part element B” signifies a correlation. Doesn’t matter what amount of element B was measured in a given dust sample, because element A was always found in proportional quantities.

    True to his PR credentials, Triple-W spins about the trace elements being “ubiquitous in the environment generally,” but fails to explain how the WTC environment could get these ubiquitous elements in consistently correlated amounts, sample-to-sample.

    From Mr. Prager:

    We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible.

    The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission.

    When we find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships – the implications are of the utmost seriousness.

    The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to other radionucleide daughter products.

    [2]- the massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization.
    [3]- the pulverized remains.

    “The massive energy requirements of sudden pulverization,” “the pulverized remains,” both are exaggerated by dismissing the fact of the actual character of the “pulverization,” which simply was not as complete to ‘dust’ as is posited by the parties who promote these exotic weapons.

    And then Triple-W quotes from Dr. Jones (who quotes from Lioy):

    “the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm diameter) or coarse (2.5–10-μm diameter)… Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers).

    Notice how they build a strawman by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these μm particles and by framing it as “near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)”.

    First, they do NOT state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-μm diameter) or coarse (2.5–10-μm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-μm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.

    Second, they make no effort to describe “mini-nuke” correctly for the observed outcomes, such a mini-neutron nuclear devices aimed skywards.

    It speaks volumes that the Lioy document would offer disinfo skew, that Dr. Jones would rely on this to further the spin, and that “Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][///” adds no independent thought or analysis to this even to the miminal extent of pointing out the word-smithery.

    [4]- the duration of under]-rubble hot]-spots.

    I wrote before that numbers are failings of “Willy Whitten the Weasel \\\][///”, and that is on display in this ignorant quote:

    Can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots? Yes. Since these products are capable of melting both concrete and steal, and supply their own oxygen source, I think nano-thermites can explain the hot spots.

    What the weasel failed to note is that thermite under-the-rubble would obtain its oxygen from the reaction with steel and leaves iron as a by-product.

    Calculate the amount of steel that would be converted to iron by a single WTC hot-spot that burned for four weeks. (There were more than one hot-spot, and some burned longer than four weeks. Even with these blatant simplifications, the ridiculousness of the implied quantities should be evident.)

    Calculate the amount of thermite (and other chemical explosives) required to account for the duration of that single hot-spot that burned for four weeks. (Tripping over that several HUNDRED THOUSAND mile imaginary garden hose, I see.)

    Contact Dr. Jones and obtain his calculations for the above. [Let it be a bad sign when he doesn’t cough it up…]

    The purpose of this exercise is to show how ridiculous the belief that “nano-thermites could explain the hot spots.”

    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.

    I have no problems with the salted mixed salad scenario. In fact, Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan’ paper, “Environmental anomaloies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials,” they make a good case that such explosive material could account for six or so spikes in the release of dangerous gases. However, they do ~NOT~ make the case that such explosive material maintained the hot-spots. In fact, Dr. Jones admitted on September 30, 2012:

    “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

    Be that as it may. Because the weasel brought up salting, he should defend it.

    Calculate the amount of salting and its configuration required to account for the duration of that single hot-spot that burned for four weeks.

    Before we go on from here, I should point people to the paper:“Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction” by Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.

    The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. … The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.

    Then Triple-W tries to obfuscate the issue further by mixing in his own misunderstanding:

    Understand that a ‘burn-rate’ of a material is not the same as a ‘burn case scenario’: A “scenario’ implies a variety of circumstances, and in the case of the rubble pile a exponentially chaotic and complex theater. A ‘rating’ defines one single controlled circumstance.

    Ah yes, but what fuel (and oxygen) sources exist in Triple-W’s “burn case scenario” under-the-rubble that can yield high temperatures over a long period of time primarily ~without~ oxygen from air? If the weasel is going to be stating that office furnishings were the fuel source, can they reach the required temperatures? can they burn without oxygen? what is their effective burn-rate, so we can calculate rough numbers on the quantities of such required to maintain a single hot-spot for several weeks?

    This is the point where the weasel should be capitulating and re-thinking that which he has been championing. But owing to his agenda and his “closed-minded” position, ain’t gonna happen.

    Unspent but fizzling remains of neutron nukes can explain it.

    [5]- the damage to distant vehicles along Broadway and in the park lot.

    The weasel gets caught in a cheat and a lie at the same time:

    These vehicles were not damaged at these distant points but were towed there to make way for the clean-up crews and dumptrucks.

    The weasel is just plain lying to say or imply that the torched vehicles were towed to their positions along Broadway or the caticorner parking lot.

    The article from Dr. Jenkins references cars at the bridge, which I agree were towed there and point out as a blatant disinformation stunt by Dr. Wood in her book. But my reference was specifically to a string of vehicles along Broadway as well as clusters of cars in a parking lot.

    The weasel is just plain cheating in his argumentation to conflate the cars at the bridge with the cars along Broadway and in front of WTC-5 and WTC-6. Moreover, we have testimony and video evidence that the vehicles in question were torched before WTC-7 was demolished.

    EMP from neutron nukes slipping out of window-slits or other gaps in the falling debris can explain this, as well as the sparing of leaves, trees, flags, etc. Can a pyroclastic cloud of hot-spice from the chemical explosives explain the selectivity, much less the distance… a cooling one at that?

    [6]- the damage to Banker’s Trust eventually leading to its demolition despite having been “fixed”.

    Is the weasel trying to cheat again by saying:

    This is pure supposition and nothing but hypothetical hyperbole.

    It is none-of-the-above but a fact that the damage to Banker’s Trust was repaired, and then the building was destroyed anyway. Why? What sort of defect remained in its infrastructure that necessitated this?

    Neutron nukes explains it easily: Embrittlement.

    [7]- the first]-responder ailments.

    The weasel huffs on Asbestos and pulverized gypsum dust:

    This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.

    True. But the sudden onset of ailments and their kind is paralleled only by incidences of nuclear mishap.

    From Prager Page 52: Part One Conclusions

    1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
    2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
    [See: Robert W. Miller, M.D., and William J. Blot, Ph.D., and others, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Japanese National Institute Of Health Of The Ministry Of Health And Welfare, Atomic Radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also see Ionizing Radiation 911, parts 1, 2 and 3 linked on a previous page. Also see: CDC study of K25 workers linked previously]
    3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the ‘start date,’ specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
    4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
    5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
    7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were ‘salted’ such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn’t alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we’re seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
    8. The following chapters will prove a lot more. The reasoning by Dr. Jones and others used to explain the high levels of tritium are scientific frauds and we prove that here.

    [8]- the security around the WTC.
    [9]- the rapid destruction of evidence.

    This point has no bearing to a “nuclear event” to exclusivity, these policies were to hide the evidence of chemical explosives.

    Agreed. The 9/11 Tetris evidence blocks can be twisted and stacked in different ways, but the theory stack with the smallest and fewest gaps has a higher probability of being reality.

    [10]- the lack of testing on the evidence.

    More cheating and lying from Triple-W:

    I presume the entity called ‘senor’ means the lack of tests for other residues while Jones and his team were testing for Thermite. Jones and his team had already good reason to seek out the thermite as their previous tests indicated that this was what the material was they had detected. Plus it should be noted that Jones did personally check the dust, and also a steel beam he had access to for residual radiation, and found none.

    Jones and his teams may have detected thermite, but that same “crack” team should have been more thorough in their testing for other things that they also said were part of the mix (like RDX). They didn’t do it when at the beginning, nor did they do it when this lack of testing was pointed out under the ruse “oooh, maybe the shelf-life for detecting these elements has run out, so it’ll be used against us if our testing-at-a-late-date comes up with nothing.”

    Jones and his “crack” team should have performed the very analysis of the dust that Jeff Prager tabulated. Worse, they should have peformed and published the calculations that prove the amazing feats of hot-spot duration.

    [11]- the elevated tritium levels.

    Tritium has been addressed ad nauseum.

    Too bad that neither thermite, RDX, nor building content can adequately explain the results from even the shoddy tritium measurements that were undertaken.

    Check out this skew:

    There was simply none beyond an astronomically minuscule amount of radiation.

    “Minuscule” does not mean “none.” In fact, even the EPA levels determining what could be a health risk are in fact also “astronomically minuscule”. So what that the measured levels of tritium were below that benchmark? The fact remains that they were significantly above what was expected, and their suppositional dog-and-pony-show to explain them away was vastly incomplete and should not have been practically Dr. Jones’ single-source to brush-off the levels that were measured.

    Because I lack an appropriate analogy, I will use one that is inappropriate:

    [Girlfriend] Your penis is “astronomically minuscule,” Willy Whitten.
    [HybridRogue1] You might not get an orgasm from it, baby, but knocking-you-up ain’t out of the question.

    Ergo, “minuscule” is relative to purpose.

    [12]- the relatively low decibel measurements during the destruction (e.g., can’t be brissant explosives).

    Again, Triple-W gets tripped up with numbers and science, when he states:

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from sound recordings.

    Not true. When base-line conditions associated with the recording are known, like the dB levels from a controlled sample (e.g., reporter talking into the microphone) and the distance and environmental features to an anomalous sound (e.g., explosion), some valid ball-park estimates can be made.

    It isn’t a question of what “ear witness” testimony heard: “explosions” “bombs going off” “three loud booms” “bang bang bang” “like when they set off charges around a building for demolition.”

    The question is whether or not what was heard correlates to chemical explosives, multiple neutron nuclear devices, or both. However, when supposition into the destructive mechanism is limited exclusively to chemical explosives and when the amount of such is calculated to achieve the degree of observed pulverization,…

    Let’s just say that the “simply hundreds of such testimonials from those near the area, and many from those actually in the towers” comes up vastly short for those victims experiencing severe hearing loss as a result of this event.

    This is another one of those examples where chemical explosives can’t have it both ways. Cranking up the brissance to achieve pulverization (together with massive amounts) results in debilitating sound levels and deafness in victims. The first example was that cranking up the brissance to achieve pulverization doesn’t make rational sense in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.

    Gee, neutron nuclear devices don’t have either problem.

    This is why I refer to the tactic this entity uses as a ‘carousel’ – it goes ’round and ’round and never acknowledges that I have in fact addressed the points.

    Who goes round and round and never acknowledges where his theory has problems? Manufactured controversy?

    It doesn’t matter what Triple-W thinks he addressed, if his premise or facts are wrong or are proven to be malframed, he’ll still be wrong.

    Worse, it exposes him either as being a totally ignorant, stubborn, dumb-fuk or as belonging to “group or groups of moles that were injected into the 9/11 Truth Movement.”

    From Triple-W’s January 2012 entrance into T&S until this day, his actions have done little to dissuade me from my impressions of the weasel. I could rather quickly change my mind on the matter of his agenthood that will result in a heartfelt & public apology, providing of course that the basis for my suspicions undergoes a shift. Hasn’t been happening and didn’t happen with his last re-hash.

    Triple-W was even nice enough to spell out his agenda:

    “I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.” (2012-10-19)

    Can’t address errors or misconceptions when errors or misconceptions are his basis.

    I’ve been duped in the past by premises I’ve had to recant: the extent of video fakery, no-planes at the WTC, milli-nukes, space-based DEW, spire-based DEW, super-duper nano-thermite, etc. Whereas I would love to recant neu nookiedoo, not only has the no-nookie argumentation been exceptionally weak, but the alternative chemical/exotic explosives/incendiaries with which Triple-W wants to fill the explanation void also has to fill an imaginary garden hose that is hundreds (of thousands) miles long and ain’t very Occam Razor from a logistics perspective.


  26. 2013-04-19

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, you don’t have to worry about the answers. ~Thomas Pynchon

    Mr. Rogue’s statements of what is “IMPOSSIBLE” with regards to decibels and recordings is a bit of circus ring & strawman to distract from the salient point: “The WTC destruction would have been significantly louder if the primary mechanisms were chemical explosives (e.g., super-duper nano-thermite mixed with RDX.)”

    Now if Mr. Rogue had studied science or engineering instead of “doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in … the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology”, maybe he would have learned to use more precise language instead of his hypnotic assertions:

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure dB from sound recordings.

    Jumping into his tiny circus ring for brief moment, Mr. Rogue’s language is too expansive, too over-generalized, and too extreme. All it takes is one exception to this “IMPOSSIBLE” for his authority on the subject matter to be undermined. In this regard, he was provided with the narrow range of conditions (e.g., equipment, environment, known factors) where the “IMPOSSIBLE” is possible. IN GENERAL, though, one has to agree that from MOST sound recordings, it is very difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to calculate decibels.

    Alas, sound recording is the fatal assumption on which Mr. Rogue builds his strawman. He assumes that if sound recording from numerous cameras cannot be reliably used to determine how loud (or relatively soft) the 9/11 WTC explosives were, then the argument about the destruction “not being loud enough to match the known characteristics of chemical explosives” can be brushed aside.

    Not so fast with the broom.

    Are sound recordings the only evidence that would lead to this conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia)?

    The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.

    Before I answer my rhetorical question, let’s put some perspective on the meaning of 130-140 decibels. One can refer to this link and this one, and the following quote:

    The pain threshold for humans is 120-130 Decibels. Any sound above 85 dB can cause hearing loss, and the loss is related both to the power of the sound as well as the length of exposure.

    Because Dr. Jones found energetic flakes in his dust samples, the assumption was that the towers were brought down by thermite. After it is pointed out that thermite doesn’t have the brissance to achieve pulverization of even the super-course dust particles, the Dr. Jones party-line becomes “something like RDX was added to the mix.” When the pesky duration of under-rubble fires can’t be brushed off by the analysis of six spikes being attributed to a thermite mixture, Dr. Jones says (September 2012): “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

    But I’m jumping ahead of myself.

    Where are the published calculations on the quantities of this chemical mixture with the brissance to achieve the observed pulverization? Dr. Jones has never provided them — on purpose –, and Mr. Rogue is incapable of calculating them on his own. Ignoring those pesky hot-spots and considering only pulverization into super-course dust particles, the amount of chemical explosives is still massive. Owing to their brissance nature, their detonation would have been very loud, but owing to the massive quantities required (if we limited our thinking to this mechanism), their detonation would have been deafening.

    Now to answer my rhetorical question. Two additional sensitive instruments are at our disposal to help NIST analyze the 9/11 decibel issue: (1) barometric pressure measurements and (2) the human ear.

    How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero.

    Consider the firemen in the WTC stairwell.
    Consider Willy Rodriquez holed up under a firetruck in the street near the towers.
    Consider EMT Patricia Ondrovic running down Vesey Street…
    [There are more.]

    They were all easily within 1/2 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.

    Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for RDX enhanced nano-thermite.

    As a further real-world example from this last week, consider the fertilizer plant explosion near Waco, Texas.

    Towards the end of the short 55 second clip immediately after the explosion, the daughter from the back of the vehicle that is ~1/4 mile away is saying words to the effect, “I can’t hear anything, Daddy.”

    Apples-to-apples this is not. We know that the mechanisms of destruction are different between the fertilizer plant and the towers. The point is that the brissance of chemical explosives needed for pulverization on 9/11 would have made the WTC destruction a painfully loud and deafening experience for many survivors and witnesses, just like the recent Waco explosion.

    Therefore, this is another clue that the primary destructive mechanisms on the WTC was ~NOT~ massive quantities of chemical explosives with the brissance to pulverize.

    On top of this, Dr. Jones (or anyone else leading 9/11 research) never published on purpose the calculations into any combination of “~salted~” thermite with RDX (or other things) that can account for, say, a single hot-spot with a duration of four weeks? The reason is that even rough ball-park estimates suggest obscenely massive quantities that are above-and-beyond and unspent from their original purpose of pulverizing the WTC into super-course dust particles.

    On purpose, Dr. Jones did not perform analysis of the USGS data on the dust samples regarding the various elements and their percentages contained therein. Why not? Seems like a rather fundamental for a nuclear physicist, and one easily assigned to a grad student.

    As for defaming Mr. Rogue’s character and integrity, I’m just the messenger pointing out what Mr. Rogue did to himself.

    Mr. Rogue is too stubborn to admit when he is wrong, and he continues to defend the indefensible.

    I do not expect this posting to survive on Mr. Rogue’s poorly written and defended hobby-horse topic, owing to Mr. Rogue’s hatred of me blinding him. [Another integrity test.] The purpose of this posting will be in its re-purposing elsewhere.


  27. Mr. Rogue is reminded that he wrote (2013-04-12):

    I am off of this lunatic’s endless carousel ride.

    And under “PROLOGUE New Wave 9/11” (2013-04-19)

    The entity calling itself ‘Señor’, can go around and ’round on it’s creaking carousel for as long as it wishes. Alas, I am through with this. \\][//

    If there be any more spins beyond these final words, we’ll know someone grabbed the handles and was manually pushing the carousel into his revolution.


  28. 2012-04-24

    Dear Mr. Juan Ditchner,

    Regrettably, we seem to have a small misunderstanding, and I apologize for my hand in the mix-up. The misunderstanding centers around different definitions for the word “rubble” and thus also quantities exhibited thereof. You wrote on April 23, 2013 – 11:24 pm

    I have read here repeatedly that there was no lack of rubble. Dr. Wood clearly demonstrated in her book, on her websites, and in the slides of her presentations the amazing lack of rubble. Yet the disinformation specialists that hover around this thread claim “no lack of rubble”.

    My definition of the word “rubble” is very expansive, going from the ultra-fine dust to large wall-assemblies consisting of three steel beams connected by three steel spandrels, both of which are presented in pictures of the WTC as evidence in Dr. Wood’s textbook. Generally, I think of rubble as not being useful except for melting or grinding down for re-use. I have no difficulty believing either of these two descriptions of what was found:

    [1] “… [T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μm diam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm -diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μm diam) particles that are typically measured.” ~ Lioy et al

    [2] “As we examined the WTC-debris sample*, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder…” ~Jones – Jan 2007. [*MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower.]

    I accept these descriptions and point out that they still represent a massive energy sink to achieve. Dr. Wood’s DEW hypothesis isn’t powered in a manner that can be substantiated as real-world operational, plus she has deftly side-stepped any rational analysis of her peers in the fringe 9/11 TM, like the Anonymous Physicist, to see what nuggets of truth could be extracted and re-purposed, like from the wide variety of nuclear options that don’t have an energy problem.

    You should be asking why neither Dr. Wood, nor Dr. Jones, nor even the Anonymous Physicist — all disinfo agents in a fashion, one and all — speculated specifically about Neutron Nuclear DEW, when clearly in fell within the realm of nuclear options and considerations.

    Our misunderstanding seems to be that maybe your definition of the word “rubble” is not quite as expansive, and wants to split hairs in the relative percentages by mass of debris as dust particles versus fist-sized chunks versus almost-complete steel wall assemblies versus everything inbetween.

    Thus, I will deftly side-step your pointless, strawman challenge:

    Well, where is your evidence? Where are the pictures and videos showing rubble (not dust, not paper, and not related to building 7) in the streets surrounding ground zero? It’s time to put up or shut up for those of you who make claims without having any evidence to back it up. I will not hold my breath…


    What [Dr.] Jenkins is speaking to is “Molecular Disassociation” – no matter what term you wish to use to call it, that is what we see in the fine dust – …

    Dr. Jenkins:

    It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the
    steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers … (formula omitted) … The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, …

    Juan Ditchner on April 23, 2013 – 11:46 pm:

    [Dr.] Jenkins was clearly trying to calculate the energy required to turn all the solid steel in one of the towers to gas, not fine dust, or CAN YOU NOT READ?

    Indeed, this is what trips up Dr. Jenkins ~AND~ Dr. Wood. The pictorial evidence in Dr. Wood’s textbook clearly shows copious amounts of steel in whatever definition of “rubble pile” you want to use, so both Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Wood are guilty of building different strawman (or Red Herrings) from this.

    In re-using satellite images supposedly of the dust cloud from space [certain images I suspect of being digitally tainted], Dr. Wood allows herself to be clobbered by some of Dr. Jenkins calculations into the energy requirement to turn solid steel into a gas.

    Dr. Jenkins’ strawman, however, is guilty (a) of not scaling down the energy requirement to turn solid steel into tiny iron spheres in the dust [instead of gas] and (b) of not scaling down the rational estimates of what steel in the infrastructure [might be agreed upon] is unaccounted for [instead of the whole 110 floors.]

    Allow a short detour through Dr. Harrit. A private study was made of the dust in a nearby building for other insurance reasons and amazingly detected significant percentages of tiny iron spheres. Dr. Harrit (quasi-on-behalf of Dr. Jones and the nano-thermite crowd) assumed the premise that these were created by nano-thermite chemically reacting with steel that leaves precisely such iron spheres as part of the by-product. Estimating the tonnage of such iron spheres using steel of various Oxygen contents and calculating backwards, one arrives at an unbelievable, massive quantity of nano-thermite to support such a nano-thermitic chemical reaction and assumption.

    Now I remove the assumption and re-consider the evidence of significant percentages of tiny iron spheres in the dust in order to speculate on its source. Dr. Wood says it was DEW, but can’t power it. I stand on her shoulders and say it was neutron nuclear DEW [or as Mr. Rogue helped me coin, “neu nookiedoo”], and by its very nature, can power it… in a tactical manner.

    Mr. Ditchner, I hope we can agree that “the dust is composed of many things, including iron spheres and a host of elements as analyzed by the USGS.” While we are on the subject of dust, please review Mr. Jeff Prager’s presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] that examines the USGS report and discovers through the presence and correlation of elements a nuclear signature (fission). I stand on those shoulders and say (again): “fission-triggered fusion in the form of neutron bombs that directed escaping highly-energetic neutrons upwards, scaled back the blast/heat waves to tactical levels, and resulted in only short-lived lingering radiation.”

    Mr. Ditchner continued:

    [Dr. Jenkins] gave no formulas for turning steel into dust because it was done by a unknown process.

    I disagree first that the process was unknown [nope, it was neu nookiedoo]. Second I disagree with your speculation into the motives for why Dr. Jenkins “gave no formulas for turning steel into dust.”

    For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that we can agree on a quantity of steel (mass M) that is unaccounted for in the rubble pile. The energy requirements to turn mass M of steel into iron spheres in the dust is still massive, and any explanation involving chemical means calculates backwards into being an obscenely huge tonnage of explosive material that Occam Razor ain’t logistically gonna get in place quickly as compared to half-dozen or so per tower neu nookiedoo devices from the nookie-and-cranies of the Military Industrial Complex’s arsenals.

    Thus, I speculate that Dr. Jenkins didn’t give forumulas for turning rational amounts of steel into dust, because some calculations easily lead to other (high school) calculations that prove ridiculous the assumption that chemical explosives (including any mixture with nano-thermite) could be the PRIMARY destructive mechanisms. Many people influential in the 9/11 TM would be exposed as perpetrating a fraud, which tried to stop 9/11 speculations short of nuclear aspirations (e.g., neu nookiedoo). And it exposes the depth of infiltration into protest organizations, even the beloved and needed 9/11 Truth Movement. “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it,” as per Lenin or Marx or Stalin, I forget.

    Mr. Ditchner, by all means continue to reference what you know to be valid nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood, but be careful of where her disinformation vehicle might steer you.

    P.S. It is a pity that the comments are so out of sequence. Although bugs in software (like what happens on WordPress to “Reply”-links when top-level comments get deleted) can explain some of the foul-up, there is a part of me that views the messing-with-comment-sequencing — particularly on popular but “deviant” threads — as another form of infiltration designed to steer away from the Truth destinations that logic must take rational thinkers to.

    My apologies to lurker-readers for having to wade through them.

    • 2013-04-30

      Dear Mr. Ditchner,

      But now on to your commentary.

      Good troll holds to a ridiculous notion that a succession of mini neutron devices could turn the towers and their contents to anything other than hot flaming ash and cause fires and burn victims among the gaping masses below.

      Your description, which obviously was ~not~ observed on 9/11, would be valid for mini-nukes of the standard variety, such as a fission-triggered-fusion device. Evidently you are missing the all important distinction regarding how neutron nuclear devices differ. They are technically also fission-triggered-fusion devices, but their encasement allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape — better yet, to be aimed and directed.

      Why is this important? Because when the highly energetic neutrons are ~not~ allowed to escape, they bounce around within the encasement, cause more and more chain-reactions, and result in the ~large~ nuclear blast and heat waves that our PR conditioning regarding “nukes” expects.

      By allowing the neutrons to escape the nuclear reaction in a neutron device, the blast and heat waves are significantly reduced. And when the neutrons are aimed upwards, they won’t be detrimental to life forms, which is what our PR conditioning regarding “neutron bombs” expects.

      Further, ERW (enhanced radiation weapons, or neutron bombs) produce only short-lived amounts of radiation (as observed after 9/11). Neutron devices produce tritium, which we know was measured in abnormal quantities after 9/11. Finally, evidence of fission reaction and other signatures & correlations of nuclear devices were present in the dust.

      You wrote:

      If the glove don’t fit…

      Certainly. The neutron glove fits. You just don’t see it.

      Now with regards to Dr. Wood, she was correct about the massive energy requirements and that a directed energy weapon was used, for this is indeed what an ERW is. She did an awesome job of collecting evidence.

      Beyond that, Dr. Wood gets it wrong. She can’t even power-up the devices that her lingering innuendo suggests. She doesn’t address tritium; doesn’t address the anonymous physicist; doesn’t address valid criticism of her work (e.g., Dr. Jenkins); doesn’t fix blatant errors in her work (e.g., supposedly a wilted firetruck engine, police car getting “zapped” at the bridge as opposed to being towed there, spire falling instead of turning to dust, etc.) Her lame attempt to brush off hot-spots is a good indication of the disinfo blinders that she wears.

      I’ve followed a zig-zag course to my understanding of 9/11 truth. This has been dictated not just by incremental releases of evidence & analysis, but also by the steering of the 9/11 Truth Movement that did not allow a straight line approach to openly and objectively considering certain topics: media manipulation, nuclear involvement, and Dr. Wood. This thread is a great example of the latter two, for those with the fortitude to wade through the comments.

      Mark my words. Where acknowledging-9/11-being-an-inside-job should be a litmus test for our leaders, Dr. Wood’s textbook is proving to be an excellent litmus test for objective thinkers and honest seekers for truth. While Mr. Rogue continues to get bloody noses from Dr. Wood’s book by being too obtuse to acknowledge ~any~ good nuggets, Mr. Ditchner, you too will get bloody noses from the same by being too obtuse to acknowledge ~any~ bad disinfo nuggets. Both exist in that publication.

      Want to know how to spot the true trolls? They’re the ones with no middle ground, no self-doubt or waffling, no zig-zag course to their beliefs, no room for compromise, no leeway in “convince me or let me convince you.” When two are set against each other [artificially], they form a pincer attack on truth as they probably run the discussion through the mud as a distraction.

      The trolls are both: (1) those who try to dismiss Dr. Wood’s work without analysis, details, or identified specific “good, bad, and ugly”, mostly just lots of hearsay from someone with a Pee-Ayech-Dee; and (2) those who try to champion Dr. Wood’s work with blinders to its weaknesses, errors, and omissions; mostly just brain-dead fawning.

      Mr. Ditchner, have you read Dr. Wood’s textbook cover-to-cover? How well informed are you? Give us your “good, bad, and ugly” chapter-by-chapter assessment.


  29. 2013-05-01

    Dear Mr. Rogue, you wrote here and here:

    Thus, “dustification” is a meaningless term to describe a mysterious process that has no basis in physics. It implies vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter. It is a foundational law of physics, that energy/matter can neither be destroyed nor created, but merely changes in form. It can transform from solid to liquid, from liquid to gas, and recombine into another solid depending on the energies applied to it – but it cannot be made to disappear.

    You pulled that definition of “dustification” out of your ass, didn’t you?

    Nowhere have I heard that dustification means or implies “vanishing molecules, ie, the destruction of matter.” You muddle high school chemistry and probably even introduce an error based on your own misunderstanding of science.

    Dustification means to me three things that relate. (1) Energy has been injected into molecules such that chemical bonds that usually connect them are broken. As such, the molecule represents no longer what it was, as the base elements from the molecule are free to escape (e.g., into the atmosphere) and maybe form bonds with other elements. (2) Energy has been injected into atoms such that fundamental nuclear entities (protons, neutrons, electrons) no longer appear in the same numbers, thereby changing either its position in the periodic table or its isotope. (3) Not every molecule nor every atom are impacted by this energy, but sufficient numbers are such that the material when viewed from a human-scale — as opposed to the atomic scale — falls apart before our eyes. Dustification.

    One could argue that if a molecule is separated into its fundamental elements (atoms), the molecule no longer exists and has vanished, ~but~ this does not mean that the atoms themselves from the molecule no longer exist or have been destroyed. Thus, it adheres to the laws of physics by matter/atoms not being destroyed. [Ergo the error in Mr. Rogue’s statement.]

    As the analysis of the 9/11 dust proves, it was composed of lots of different fundamental elements, many of which were measured in correlated quantities. Ignoring the nuclear recipe spelled out by a few of those correlated elements, the presense of these fundamental elements means that they did not disappear. They just changed their association with other elements, and are no longer associated in a solid, cohesive mass that we would recognize formerly as concrete, steel beams, office furnishings, bathroom fixtures, door knobs, etc.

    The key phrase from above is “energy has been injected.” This is what trips up Dr. Wood and her followers, because they cannot account in a proven operational sense for how a DEW device would get its energy. She stopped short, and gave the abundance of energy so quickly and readily available from nuclear sources the brush-off.

    You wrote:

    If it is proposed that the metal was turned to dust then it should be identifiable in the dust of the aftermath. But the Fe level in that dust is minuscule compared to the amount that would account for the millions of tons of steel that made up the structure of the towers. As this is the case, the only position available for the “dustification” proposition is that that steel simply disappeared.

    I agree that to assume “millions of tons of steel” is an erroneous scale. It is unsubstantiated that such was missing. [SIDEBAR into a rabbit hole: Some of the 9/11 theories into “hollow towers” and the potential of them never having been finished may have merit. However, the cause of the missing content and steel would be by design of the structure and not by design of the destructive mechanism.]

    However, by building the frame that “the Fe level in that dust is minuscule compared to…”, a couple of points might be overlooked. The Fe level in the dust was significant, even as measured across the street ~inside~ the interior of a neighboring building (the Banker’s Trust). The energy of neutron bombs is one explanation for this. The alternative is chemical means, e.g., nano-thermite and explosives. The issue with that alternative (if true) is that Fe would be the byproduct of the chemical reaction of nano-thermite with steel. Taking into consideration boundary conditions for oxygen content of the steel, one can calculate backwards from that Fe byprocut as Dr. Nils Harrit did to determine boundary cases for the original amount of nano-thermite. Neither the lower nor the upper bound cases represent quantities of nano-thermite that are logistically pretty for Occam’s Razor.

    As you said:

    The locus is hocus pocus in the locomotion of the necro-train to ouch witch.

    P.S. I love how you adhered to your previous statement “FINI!” Demonstrates your integrity.

    // neu nookiedoo

  30. Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager

  31. If these posts weren’t questionable enough, there is the October 29, 2012 Veterans Today article by Don Fox, along with Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager and four others. Veterans Today is the publication that editor Gordon Duff says is about 30% “patently false.”

    “About 30% of what’s on Veterans Today is patently false. About 40% of what I write is at least purposely partially false, because if I didn’t write false information, I wouldn’t be alive.“ Duff – Video Link:


  32. {Edited 2013-06-25 to remove comments directed at Dawnatilla. Also removed several comments from JersyG and Dawnatilla, the latter who gave fawning adulation of Mr. Rogue.}

    I tolerate Mr. Rogue’s recent comment on my thread, because it is relevant and valued. I disagree with less than 5% of Mr. Rogue’s words posted on Truth & Shadows. I don’t follow him here on COTO anymore.

    Meanwhile, let the record show that ~I~ did not remove these words of Ms. JerseyG. As a blog administrator, she {admitted to having WordPress problems and deleted them} herself — twice, based on what came in through email. Her valued words (saved from emails) were:

    LISTEN TO ALL..FOLLOW NONE. Good Advice. I have no heroes in “journalism” nor am I a sycophant to anyone. Take the info from each one and decipher it for yourself. THere are jewels of info coming form most sources we all listen/read here. Once again, separate the non gmo wheat from the gmo crap😉

    Second version:

    LISTEN TO ALL ….FOLLOW NONE.. Excellent advice. Too many sycophants fawning over the various “truther gods.” We really need to stop that. None of them are saviors or heroes. THere are real jewels to be garnered from the many sources we all listen/read here on the net and also a lot of disnfo type crap. Every last one of them have been found wanting in one category or another by myself and I’m sure the rest of you as well. We need to be smart enough to recognize the difference between a cubic zirconia and a diamond. It’s not that easy since they perfected the cz to have the same kind of sparkle.


  33. {2013-06-28 Edited by SEO to remove statements by Ms. Atilla saying she may have accidentally deleted comments by Ms. JerseyG. No, SEO deleted those comments and a few others on that theme as well, they having served their purposes and weren’t in the long-term interests of this article. Apologies given and accepted.}

    Jersey Girl



  34. {2013-06-28 SEO removed admission to deleting comments.}

    Dear Ms. Atilla,


    You asked:


    Actually, yes it does. To use your analogy: Was it a kitchen knife accidentally at hand from dinner salad preparation? Or was it premeditated by grabbing an ornamental sword out of a locked display cabinet and honing its edge to sharpness beforehand?

    Relating to 9/11, three weapons were used, and knowledge thereof is important to righting what is wrong. Those three weapons? The obvious one has been the theme of these discussions: nuclear means. Like taking a hunting knife and slitting a throat ear-to-ear, nuclear mechanisms display an extra degree of callousness.

    The second weapon? Mass media.

    We nuked ourselves, and then created a media spectacle to tell us AUTHORITATIVELY (but not factually) what the cause was, and it tweren’t supposedly nukes or controlled means, but “a pile driver under the force of gravity.”

    9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying
    9-11 WTC Biggest Gold Heist in History: $300 Billion in Bars

    The third weapon? Money or debt.

    The bank heist wasn’t limited to the gold taken from below WTC-4. It included the laundering of massive wealth in the immediate days after the stock market opened. [Read about the Black Eagle Fund and the Marcos Fund, which financed black operations and brought the Russian economy to its knees under Bush I.] The laundering of that money back into the system actually led to the mortgage crisis, because once back in the system, it was available to lend many times over and purposely set up the 99% of the world into enslaving themselves with greed and debt that could not be afforded. Recently I’ve read from Bill Moyer, I think, that if you took what we spent on the Iraq war, we could have paid for the higher education of our nation’s students.

    The means matters, because Truth matters.


  35. Molecular Dissociation:
    “The collapse of the WTC buildings produced the highest mass per volume of very fine particles (nanoparticles) ever measured in an air sample in the United States. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to dissociate or break the molecular bonds of steel, concrete and other building materials that were “powdered” into very fine particles during the collapse of the buildings. The largest mass per volume of metals ever measured in an air sample in the US were reported by Dr. Thomas Cahill who did air monitoring for 5 months. Metal is used in buildings because it is very strong – and would require large amounts of energy to reduce it to nanoparticles. Chemical explosives do not release enough energy to produce that volume of very fine particles. A much more energetic process was involved such as laser or beam energy which releases focused and concentrated energy as complex waveforms necessary to cause molecular dissociation.”

    Physical Evidence of Buildings Collapsing:
    “In videos of the collapses on 9/11 the WTC buildings erupted into emulsion like a drinking fountain, and the rubble did not hit the ground. Even on tape huge pieces of aluminum building siding vaporized as they were freefalling, and never hit the ground.”

    1400 Toasted Cars
    “Located blocks from the WTC buildings, with door handles missing, engine blocks missing, blistering on some parts of the car finish, strange rust patterns on the bodies of the cars.”

    Paper Around Cars Not Burned
    “Whatever ‘vaporized’ the engine blocks and the door handles on 1400 cars did not ignite fragile and flammable paper lying all over the ground around the cars. If engine blocks and door handles selectively vaporized, why didn’t body of car vaporize?”

    Pile of Cars Spontaneously Combusted
    “In a news video, the entire pile of cars started burning spontaneously at the same time with no visible cause, it was not a fire that started in one car and spread to others.”

    Rust Occurred Immediately
    “On cars and trucks, and in FEMA photos there was heavy rust on steel beams – steel does not rust, and it is a slow oxidation process that results in rusting of iron. This rusting happened immediately.”

    Basements Of WTC Buildings Undamaged
    “Stuffed mannequins in the basement of WTC with clothing on were carried out of the basement undamaged. If a 100+-story WTC building collapsed into its basement and left a 35-story rubble pile, there would be nothing left in the basement. Even streetcars underground at the WTC were pulled out after the collapse and had no damage.”

    Prof. Cahill Air Monitoring Samples
    “The hardest and most durable materials vaporized (steel, concrete etc), and the most fragile materials (paper) cascading out of WTC windows and all over the ground for blocks were undamaged.”

    Truckloads of Potting Soil
    “Right after the WTC disaster, the ground was “fuming”, and sequential FEMA aerial photos show 130 dump trucks full of soil (filled almost to the top of the dump truck space) covered with tarps so that the dirt in the trucks was not visible to onlookers on the street, coming into the WTC area, dumping the soil and going out for more.

    This happened even before the rescues or cleanup started and it continued for some time. The piles of soil were left for a week and got higher each day in sequential photos. The soil ‘fuming’ lasted until March 2002 (8 months).”

    Boots Disintegrated
    “Boots on emergency responders disintegrated after 2 hours. They had to get new boots every 2 hours – an effect of molecular dissociation. It was not from burning, their skin would have been damaged.”

    No Ground Fuming During Rain
    “For 99 days the “burning” (fuming) continued at the WTC site, but when it rained there was no fuming. If it had been fires burning, the rain would have caused steam from heating rainwater.”

    USGS: Iron versus Steel
    “The USGS analyzed the mineral form of the rust on steel beams and iron objects at the WTC. They did not address the ‘steel does not rust’ issue, but dodged it by referring to the rusted steel beams in the rubble pile as ‘iron beams’ and gave mineral analyses of iron minerals produced by oxidation.”

    The environmental warfare events created by the HAARP and chemtrails (space-based and atmosphere-based) weapons system includes at least, by the evidence the following:
    9/11 (the molecular dissociation and collapse of the World Center twin towers)
    the Katrina Hurricane of 2005
    the 2008 Myanmar cyclone (150,000 dead)
    the 2008 China earthquake (80,000 dead)
    the 2010 Haiti earthquake (200, 000 dead)
    the March 11, 2011 Fukushima false flag tectonic and global radiation attack

    In the HR-2977 bill of October 2, 2001, the U.S. Congress banned the following space-based weapons:
    “Exotic weapons systems such as,
    “(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
    “(ii) chemtrails;
    “(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
    “(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
    “(v) laser weapons systems;
    “(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
    “(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.”

    “In Rep. Kucinich’s revised new (some would say ’emasculated’) Bill, HR 3616, there is no longer any mention whatever of:
    particle beams
    electromagnetic radiation
    extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation
    mind-control technologies as ‘weapons systems covered in the measure’”

    New computer analysis by UK researcher Richard D. Hall has revealed that an anti-gravity remote controlled UFO drone may have been used to hit World Trade Center tower 2 on September 11, 2001.

    Mr. Hall made this analysis public in two videos set out in the Examiner article below.

    Mr. Hall’s analysis of a possible an anti-gravity remote controlled UFO drone used to hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 is the subject of an exclusive ExopoliticsTV interview by Alfred L. Webre with UFO, reverse speech and video analysis expert Jon Kelly (Vancouver UFO Examiner).

    According to Mr. Hall’s analysis, a remote-controlled anti-gravity UFO, clearly visible in video footage, was intentionally guided into World Trade Center tower 2 on 9/11. News and other video footage showing images of a jetliner hitting WTC tower 2 is due, according to Mr. Hall’s analysis, to after the fact editing.

    Another remote-controlled antigravity UFO, according to Mr. Hall was most probably guided into World Trade Center Tower 1.

    Project Camelot whistleblower Aaron McCollum has also revealed in that U.S. secret antigravity craft that he traveled in possessed a stealth camouflage capability to appear and sound like a commercial jetliner, such as a Boeing 747.

    Jon Kelly’s analysis of the 9/11 antigravity UFO, which identifies the September 11, 2001 false flag operation as “a showcase for exotic military technologies including black project UFO’s” is set out in the ExopoliticsTV interview video far below.

    A total of four advanced exotic technologies exclusively in the possession of U.S. black budget military intelligence have now been inked to use in the 9/11 false flag psychological operation by an executive command and control network that reaches to the,
    highest levels of U.S. government
    world political and financial elites
    Examiner reporter Alfred L. Webre has identified these four U.S. black budget exotic technologies as key to identifying, planning and/or carrying out the 9/11 false flag psyops:
    9/11 remote controlled antigravity UFO (Richard D. Hall, researcher; Project Camelot whistleblower Aaron McCollum);

    Quantum access Tesla-based time travel teleportation to access images of 9/11 in 1971 (Andrew D. Basiago, DARPA Project Pegasus whistleblower);

    Directed Energy weapon (possibly although not necessarily HAARP) for controlled demolition of World Trade Center towers by molecular dissociation.

    Q: Why would the US take part in 9/11?

    Andrew D. Basiago: What I know is that in the early 1970’s, Project Pegasus had moving images of one of the planes hitting one of the Twin Towers on 9/11; that 9/11 was known and spoken of by project principals; and that the defense attaché to Project Pegasus was Donald Rumsfeld, the individual who was serving as Defense Secretary during 9/11.

  36. Directed Energy Weapon Evidence
    “Evidence of use of a directed energy weapon was present at the top of the WTC buildings as ‘lathering up’ started before buildings started coming down. ‘Lathering up’ in videos preceded the collapse of all buildings, even Building 7 which supposedly Larry Silverstein when he said, ‘Pull it’ to firefighters meant controlled demolition.

    Color alteration and modification in news videos compared to other photos/videos at tops of buildings indicates “doctoring” of images. When the Seattle Dome was destroyed with controlled demolition, the dust created by the destruction did not get any higher than the top of the building.

    The WTC dust got into the upper atmosphere almost immediately – which indicates very tiny atmospheric dust sized particles (0.1 micron and smaller), in fact smaller than atmospheric dust that stays mainly in the Troposphere.

    “Lathering Up” Incriminating
    “WTC Building 7 ‘lathered up’ even before WTC Building 2 went down. WTC Building 7 not damaged at all by WTC Building 2 going down – right next to each other.”

    Freon tanks
    “Very odd, large tanks were removed from WTC building and OSHA made bogus statement about what and why they were removed. Was Freon used in WTC takedown?

    A NYC cop whom the researcher met with Cindy Sheehan said he was injured in WTC Building 7 and removed on a gurney, but his eyes were covered so he could not see anything as they left the building.

    He reported he was able to see dead bodies lying all over the floor as he was being carried out – before building 7 had collapsed. Was this due to Freon asphyxiation put through ventilation system like in a recent Russian submarine dis/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_146.htm_911_146.htm_911_146.htm>

    9/11 witness evidence of use of directed energy weapons at WTC
    Where Were All the WTC Bodies?
    “Emergency Room physicians Dr. Tony Daher and Dr. Lincoln Cleaver were interviewed on TV on 9/11 about the casualties. They said there weren’t any casualties after about noon on 9/11. No more casualties came to the Emergency Room. Firemen saw no bodies but talked about the antenna on top of building 1 that was at ground level on top of about one story of rubble.”

    No Fires In Buildings
    “William Rodriguez, Senior Janitor at WTC said there were no fires in the buildings. He conducted rescue efforts, saved injured workers and had keys to every lock in both buildings.”

    Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Beam Weapon Demonstration
    In 1955 the microwave oven was invented and was a concept for a beam weapon. In the summer of 1990, the researcher observed a demonstration of the Livermore Shiva laser facility in the middle of the night. A 16’ diameter amber colored beam was shot straight up into the sky from the lab and all air traffic was diverted for a 5 mile radius during the demonstration. When the researcher asked a grad student working at the laser facility what they were trying to do, he said, “Make a star”. The researcher knew that could not be true because lasers are used to molecularly dissociate materials by releasing tremendous amounts of energy as very advanced and complex waveforms. Livermore had long been involved in development of HAARP [a directed energy weapon] since 1978 in secret collaboration with the Soviet Union, and advanced beam weapons.

    Minneapolis Bridge Collapse (August 1, 2007)
    The researcher states, “Similarities to WTC disaster, every bridge segment [in the August 1, 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse] failed at exactly the same time instead of domino effect after first collapse. This defies the laws of engineering. It should have been one place failed and sequential domino-like failures followed for a normal engineering collapse.”

  37. Dear Ms. DawnAtilla,

    Thank you for your effort at providing substantiating quotations. It has, unfortunately, two major problems: namely, (1) you did not credit the source(s); (2) you did not connect these quotations together into a meaningful “whole.” Moreover, it is hard to tell which words and analysis are yours, Ms. Atilla, if any.

    Some of the quotations seems to come from Dr. Judy Wood, and maybe a snippet from Alfred L. Webre and his interviews with Mr. Richard D. Hall and Andrew D. Basiago.

    Yeah, well, Dr. Wood’s work has its own strong points and weaknesses. I suppose a great example of the latter is her inability to synthesize the efforts of other 9/11 researches (e.g., the anonymous physicst) or to address valid specific criticism of others. If I remember correctly (no guarantees and I’ll apologize if I get this ASSUMPTION wrong), Dr. Wood wrote this quotation that you used:

    Basements Of WTC Buildings Undamaged
    “Stuffed mannequins in the basement of WTC with clothing on were carried out of the basement undamaged. If a 100+-story WTC building collapsed into its basement and left a 35-story rubble pile, there would be nothing left in the basement. Even streetcars underground at the WTC were pulled out after the collapse and had no damage.”

    The skew here is to mix two buildings of the World Trade Center complex (namely the towers) with the complex itself. The underground shopping mall may have had stores directly below the towers (and other WTC buildings), but the mall — being a mall — had many other stores that were technically ~between~ the two towers and other WTC buildings (and were under the WTC plaza). The “bathtub” that held out the waters of the Hudson consisted of an area much larger than the footprints of the two towers. Debris from the destroyed buildings (WTC-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) did not destroy every square inch of the much larger WTC complex. In this context, I see no contradiction between the escavation of “undamaged goods” (or rather, “not-crushed goods” from certain mall stores) and the statements about everything directly beneath a 100+ story tower being destroyed.

    But Dr. Wood’s collection of evidence that all 9/11 theories-du-jour must address remains a strong point. I encourage readers to objectively review Dr. Wood’s work for valid evidence, but with the caveat that she does have disinformation and skew amidst the nuggets of truth, as exhibited (I ASSUME) above.

    As for the other trio in the quartet that you name drop: I’ve enjoyed reading their works in the past, but — to put it nicely — consider them entertaining fiction writers. I think they subtract from the credibility of whatever argument you were trying to make.

    I don’t know where you were heading or what you were trying to prove with your two postings, because your hypothesis statement and conclusion didn’t exist so failed to connect anything together for me.

    Taken at face value, I think all of your quotations (except the trio’s contribution) that talk about anomalous effects exhibited on 9/11 (if true and not skewed analysis) fit into the paradigm of a neutron nuclear DEW devices that I have championed.


    • Oh yes Im sorry was doing that in a rush from phone…and yes you are right on all reasons for pasting the information is this: I find the “evidence” compelling…it was in no way shape or form a desire to prove anything..or restart the debate. Sometimes I simply cannot control myself🙂. I get most of my info from

      Sent from my HTC Status™ on AT&T

  38. I will only post once here because I do not wish to engage with Senior El Once in an endless merry go round. This is what I have to say about the mini nuke theory.

    When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.

    No radiation = no nuke.

    • Dear Mr. Adam Ruff,

      For the moment, I will set aside your trollish hit-and-run behavior and its claims that you will limit yourself to one posting that itself cranks another spin out of the “endless merry-go-round of Señor El Once.” [You will not be held to your self-proclaimed limit, but you will be made fun of.]

      You wrote:

      When you can show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero I will consider the possibility of mini nukes being used. Failing that I reject the mini nuke theory as flagrant disinformation. Of course if you can show valid documentation that ANY nuclear device, that does NOT emit radiation post detonation, actually exists I will reconsider my position. Failing those two things I have no interest or time to read your incredibly long winded posts that go on and on AND ON forever.

      No radiation = no nuke.

      First of all, you malframe the nuclear devices, Mr. Ruff. They were not “mini-nukes”, because without further clarification (demonstrating your understanding of nuclear devices) these imply to the science-challenged readers “fission or fusion” devices that have much larger explosive yields and leave the kind of radiation signature that you’re foisting up as a red herring.

      The discussion is about neutron devices, which are a variant of fusion, expel the lions share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, can direct those neutrons and subsequently the blast and heat wave, and do ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly, such radiation from the neutron devices depletes quickly and would not be measured at all.

      Secondly, you malframe the radiation argument by challenging me to find “valid documentation that ANY nuclear device that does NOT emit radiation post detonation.”

      No, no, no. You obviously did not read the article above or its predecessor, nor have you googled “neutron bombs” (or “Big Ivan”).

      The search isn’t for a nuclear device that “does NOT emit radiation post detonation.” No, no, no. The search is for a nuclear device that emits radiation in a targeted fashion and does not leave long-lasting, lingering levels of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.

      For the duration of this paragraph, accept the premise of neutron devices and assume this was the PTB’s plan. To be successful, they would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. (Issue “fake” badges that don’t work for radiation.) They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn’t keep the 1st responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

      Mr. Ruff, of course I can’t prove “measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero” for the same reason you can’t prove the opposite of “~NO~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero.”

      (1) If a crew of researchers was permitted to make prompt radiation measurements in a systematic fashion all around the WTC;
      (2) If those measurements were tabulated into a report (with nothing omitted);
      (3) If (nuclear) scientists provided analysis of those tabulated findings in that report (without scientific sleight of hand);
      (4) That report was buried and never made public.

      Ah yes, M-16 armed military security dropped down quickly around the WTC. If you popped out an errant Geiger Counter or camera, those devices were confiscated, and you were ordered in an unfriendly fashion to “leave and don’t ever come back.”

      Ah yes, Mayor Bloomberg even tried to pass a law that made possession of Geiger Counters illegal in NYC.

      Ah yes, the NIST report on the WTC-1 & 2 stopped its analysis at the initiation of the collapse. How long was it delayed?

      Ah yes, the 9/11 Commission report didn’t even mention WTC-7. How long was it delayed?

      Ah yes, the EPA issued false proclamations into the “healthiness” of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction.

      Ah yes, the FTC destroyed CDs and tapes recording the actual conversations of air traffic controllers.

      Ah yes, the military brass changed their story several times regarding responsiveness of the air defenses.

      Ah yes, the NYC Fire Investigators were upset by the destruction of evidence and that they weren’t permitted to test for conventional explosives (or anything else, like the proof of the radiation that you seek.)

      Ah yes, the NIST report of WTC-7 in its DRAFT form didn’t mention the observable free-fall and in its FINAL form analyzed only the first 18 floors of its demise, broke that into 3 stages, admitted that stage 2 over 8 floors (100+ feet) was indistinguishable from gravitational accelaration, and then concluded with a straight-face that these three stages when averaged together were slower than free-fall. How long was it delayed?

      Ah yes, the government commissioned a study to speculate on possible “civilian” sources for tritium that was sampled ~LATE~ (as in “not promptly”) in the run-off from the WTC after much delution. The sampling was also not systematically performed in lots of locations, was not performed at any of the hot-spots, and was in fact HALTED because they were measuring miniscule quantities that were well below the EPA threshold on what is considered safe for humans ALTHOUGH in cases 55 times the expected trace background levels. They speculated into aircraft exit signs, sites from munitions stored at the WTC, and time pieces worn by victims to account for the elevated tritium levels, although very imperfectly.

      Ah yes, the USGS did collect in a systematic fashion dust samples. As far as I know, these samples did not contain nano-thermite. No nuclear physicists from the government or any institution — including Dr. Jones — studied the correlation between elements in the dust. Jeff Prager did and noted they correlate as proof of nuclear fission. (Think “fission triggered fusion configured as a neutron bomb.”)

      Ah yes, Dr. Jones provides no analysis of the USGS dust sample data so therefore saw no correlations in the elements indicating nuclear hijinx. Dr. Jones accepted without question as being the totality of the tritium story at WTC the flawed government commissioned study & its speculation into potential tritiums and stilts this into his no nukes conclusions, but never once mentioned or considered neutron devices and the variety of ways they can be configured. Dr. Jones & Mr. Ryan speculate that thermite might be responsible for six energetic spikes from the hot, under-rubble fires, but does not speculate into what maintained the hot-spots between spikes.

      Here is a recent quote from you, Mr. Ruff 2013-08-10, used here to pre-emptively shut up Triple-Dubya. Substitute “Dr. Jones” for “Chandler” and “Ryan”:

      It isn’t an “attack” to point out the massive gaping holes in [Chandler’s] paper or [Ryan’s] book it is valid and proper criticism of sloppy work that just happens to be dead wrong.

      The point of all the “ah yes” items was to demonstrate examples of government pressure applied to agencies charged with writing reports and to get those reports stilted. Or to get them suppressed.

      Again, I ask, where is the government report that systematically & promptly samples for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulates those measurements, and offers analysis that concludes “no radiation”? Give me the sample numbers taken closest to the hot-spots.

      And in case you were wondering, tritium is not an output of conventional controlled demolition with or without nano-thermite; it is, however, an output of neutron bombs (and fusion devices).

      And what about the damage to vehicles along West Broadway and in the caticorner car park? For the specific (e.g., metal) and targeted (e.g., line-of-sight) nature, they can’t be attributed to hot-and-spicy clouds of burning thermite.

      The Banker’s Trust Building had facade damage from 9/11 and was repaired. Before occupancy, it was torn down. Why? Maybe because errant neutron radiation can lead to embrittlement of steel.

      Over the weekend 2013-08-11, Adam Syed posted something from John Albanese, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite.)

      There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7’s collapse – again – you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse – but no high frequency bangs.

      9/11 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people – many carrying video devices – every major network with multiple camperas transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.

      Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise – even screams – could drown it out is laughable.

      Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument with a straight-face: “insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives).” Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: “no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added.” In reality, energy had to have been added, but it wasn’t in the form of loud, chemical, conventional explosives. It was a controlled demolition, but who is to say how loud tactical neutron bombs would be by comparison?

      On the surface, your request to “show us some measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero” seemed somewhat rational and even gets 2013-08-10 Triple-Dubya’s panties into a wad “Hmmm….brilliant in its simplicity. Isn’t it?”

      However, if dust samples can be collected in a systematic fashion (and reveal nuclear evidence) and if tritium measurements even in a haphazard fashion reveals elevated levels, then where is the prompt, systematic, complete and total collection of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation measurements? [Guess what? Any anomalous readings debunks the “gravity-driven pile driver” of the OCT, as well as conventional, chemical explosives with or without thermite. Ergo, shouldn’t be a surprise that any such report — if it existed — would be quickly buried.]

      The neutron nuclear DEW primise does not live or die without a report on radiation. And even if a report were coughed up supposedly providing tabulated data samples with consistently no radiation (particularly next to hot-spots), is the track record really there that it could be trusted? The sum total of all of the other evidence keeps neutron nuclear DEW devices in play as explaining 9/11 at the WTC.

      Here’s something you wrote to RT, I believe, on 2013-08-08. Change the focus to be neutron nuclear DEW research and apply it to yourself:

      You are apparently put off by the 2 hours you would have to spend [researching neutron nuclear DEW] and want us to put it into little bite size chunks for you […] Nice! Well my answer to you is hell no, do it yourself, if you are a genuine truther you would want to look at the evidence, you would seek it out all on your own and consume it as fast as you could and then consider it and evaluate it. The fact that you can’t be bothered to spend the two hours tells me a whole lot about you.


  39. “No radiation = no nuke.”

    Hmmm….brilliant in its simplicity. Isn’t it.


    • {The following is written by Mr. HybridRogue, who I call triple-W, because he is too much of a weasel to post here and be challenged directly.}


      “To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being “like a foundry” down in that mess.”~Rogue

      “What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures? Let me guess. I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling”~Senor

      Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions. The whole post is at the URL below on December 26, 2012 at 11:28 am for you to see for yourself.~Rogue

      And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO. While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute. Senor will not address this point, but will insist that “we must take the whole event as the profile” – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first. And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?

      He simply insists that it couldn’t have been because of the ‘hot spots’, but that is another issue that does NOT answer the primary question, but leaps ahead to his argument about hot-spots.

      The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light. This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.

      Senor’s come back is always ‘but these were tiny little nukes’, that is also why they didn’t make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.

      But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars. A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive. Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor’s pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.

      And this is a discussion about the profile of the destruction of the WTC – the actual explosive event.


    • Triple-Dubya lives up to the “weasel” that I append to his initials. It starts out that he is too weasely to post on my thread, posting here instead 2013-08-08. He charges:

      Notice that Senor does not answer my point at all, but leaps to another topic entirely. And he never comes back to the point that he has no proof of when those beams were deformed, after his assertion it happened during the explosions.

      Triple-W previous wrote:

      To assume that these twisted beams are the immediate result of the explosions is without foundation. You do not know that they were not bent and twisted while deep within a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them, nor do you consider the reports of it being “like a foundry” down in that mess.

      There are four main pieces of evidence the the weasel tries to brush aside by not addressing specifically: (1) the arches A & B, (2) the horseshoe C & D, (3) the twisted-up stuff E, and (4) the steel doobies F and G.

      In order to create the horse-shoe D, the physical space needs to be available for one end of the beam to be bent to “kiss” the other end, after of course something heated its mid-section to be bent. That physical space would not have been available once the pile had come crashing down and was sitting smoldering.

      Just as importantly, take a look at the multiple examples of what I call a “steel doobies”. In G, it stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image (I’m told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The “steel doobie” is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble. In fact, steel doobie F wasn’t under the rubble either.

      So, one can’t malframe the discussion, as attempted by Triple-W, that “a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them” deformed them into what they are. In fact, Triple-W has no explanation for how chemical explosives with or without thermite could make this doobie.

      What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a “steel doobie”? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The “steel doobie” clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of “steel doobie” and its ejection so far away.

      Triple-W’s game playing:

      And the issue I just covered as an example of Senor leaping ahead spewing encyclopedic rhetoric, while never actually addressing a given point, is his constant MO.

      Or maybe this proves Triple-W’s MO in not addressing the point: arches, horseshoes, and steel doobies!

      While I have attempted to get him to address head-on the known profile of a chemical demolition, and he fact that both the towers and Bldg7 have every single attribute.

      No, they don’t have the complete known profile of chemical demoltion. The decimation of those buildings was too quiet to be chemical demolition. The damage to vehicles on West Broadway in the parking lot (and not to flags, people, paper) could not have been achieved by hot-and-spicy burning thermitic dust from the towers.

      Senor will not address this point, but will insist that “we must take the whole event as the profile” – this is a clear and obvious dodge – we WILL take the whole event as profile, after we address the prime questions first.

      I addressed the point… again. Ho-hum. It is Triple-W who does the dodge. Been smokin’ a doobie, but not a steel one.

      And one of those primary questions is, how is it that the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail, if it is not in fact, chemical explosive demolition?

      Notice the hypnotic suggestion of Triple-W: “the destruction of the buildings matches the profile of a chemical explosive demolition in every single detail.” Again, it does not.

      The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light.

      The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure — both inner core and outer wall assemblies — would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.

      This is also accompanied by an electromagnetic pulse which would have fused electronics for miles around the Trade Center. That would mean there would have been no videos or broadcasting of the events at WTC on 9/11.

      This is Triple-W spinning like a top and lying. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like (1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield, (2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding where they would have placed the device plus the outer wall assemblies, (3) debris, and (4) the distance from the detonation.

      The fact is, of the small EMP produced, much of could be contained. What wasn’t, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris and cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot. (Remember, the damaged vehicles are evidence that Triple-W can’t explain reasonably, and for sure doesn’t match the profile of chemical explosives.)

      The electronic devices were a significant distance from the towers and out of the range of the minimized EMP.

      Senor’s come back is always ‘but these were tiny little nukes’, that is also why they didn’t make any radiation. The nuclear flash would take place if the explosion came from a device the size of a grape. If this had the power to turn the concrete to dust as Senor exaggerates, then the profiles of such a powerful device would be apparent.

      No, my come-back is “these were neutron bombs whose design and yield are different from little nukes of the run-of-the-mill fission or fusion variety.” The neutron profiles are apparent.

      But Senor does attempt to address an EMP, but again he misframes the actual physical effects, claiming it can scorch steel and blow up cars.

      *BEEP* *BEEP* Nope, weasel. You do the misframing. I never said that the EMP would “scorch steel and blow up cars.” What I said, and you failed to understand, was that EMP would induce electric currents in steel (and not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people). The currents would heat the steel, and if great enough, that heat would cause things like paint, seals, and plastic handles to burn. Get enough things on fire on a vehicle, and the gas tank could blow up.

      However, more telling is EMT Patricia Ondrovic’s testimony, where a car’s door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. I could see that happening with EMP heating the door and expanding it within its door frame to the point of popping off.

      A powerful enough atomic blast can cause such damage. But that would be a blast that would have been even more visible. But more; all of the materials would be radioactive.

      Weasel efforts from Triple-W. He completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived — contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.

      Triple-W doesn’t have the government reports that measured systematically and promptly alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, tabulated the results, and prove they were zero, so he can’t claim the framing of radioactive levels as he does.

      Not some little bit of tritiated water in a basement, the whole place would have been hot with real radiation. All of Senor’s pleading otherwise is simply unmitigated bullshit.

      Ho-hum, Triple-W. The little bit of tritiated water was (1) 55 times greater than expected background levels, (2) wasn’t measured everywhere — not the hot-spots or even close, (3) wasn’t measured in a timely or systematic fashion before dilution and dissipation.

      If Triple-W does not want to rationally go down neutron bomb avenue, then he should have Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan explain:

      What was it that sustain the foundry like temperatures?

      I say the hot-spots resemble nuclear devices fizzling. Mr. Rogue-the-weasel has no explanation.


    • 2012-12-05, 2013-03-12, and 2013-04-15 prove that Triple-W regurgitates and it doesn’t get more tasty:

      I have made an articulated explanation for the hot-spots. This involves the FACT that the thermate reactions contain their own source of oxygen needed in an under rubble scenario.

      Let’s first refine that FACT. Thermate reactions with steel contain their own source of oxygen, namely from the steel, and leave iron as a by-product. Being a chemical REACTION, when one of the components needed for the reaction is exhausted, the reaction should stop. Likewise, measuring the amounts of by-product, one can work backwards with high school chemistry to estimate original quantities of components of the reaction.

      Were this THEORY of nano-thermite’s primary role (with any combination of other chemical explosives) be valid, one would expect a huge blob of by-product (cooled off) iron at the location of every (dowsed) hot-spot. How big would those resultant iron blobs be for such a long chemical reaction, and were they found? I recall seeing only one such blob that they called “the meteorite”, but its volume is no where near big enough to account for the unproven theory for one hot-spot, and there were many.

      How much of each component (thermite & steel) is needed to sustain a hot-spot whose duration is several weeks long?

      How much volume of said component does this represent? [Can be calculated from the burn-rate and duration time. Does hundreds of THOUSAND of miles of imaginary garden hose filled with thermite & any combination of other chemical explosives ring a bell?]

      The answers to these are not trivial. Aside from not being Occam Razor, the blobs weren’t in the pile in great abundance as would be suggested from such chemical reactions.

      As an aside, small iron spheres were found in the dust of the buildings across the street from the towers. Under the assumption that thermitic reactions in the towers generated them before or as they fell, Dr. Harrit calculated backwards to estimate initial quantities of reactants. Also a massive number.

      Continuing with the theory and throwing in a screw ball:

      [My debate partner] wants to pretend that the rubble pile is some stable landscape that isn’t shifting and changing throughout the period we are discussing. This false view dismisses all of the possibilities of embers reigniting areas that were once kept from the smoldering fires until a shift or collapse put the two potentials together.

      I speak to the allegory of a fireplace wherein the logs may be smoldering until something weakens and gives way and the smoldering embers alight some new found fuel {unburned wood} and a flame comes up again. Or a change in the wind, sending oxygen to a smoldering area giving flame anew.

      So according to this premise: (A) is the chemical reaction of thermite with steel from which it obtains oxygen to burn and generate a hot-spot; and (B) is the combustion of building content and requires oxygen from air. B produces flames, smoke, and “smoldering embers” (still requiring air) but let’s set that aside.

      The scenario presented is that: [START] chemical reaction A happens for a time under the rubble without air. Before the limiting reactant (thermite or steel) in A at a hot-spot is consumed, movement within the pile allows air to creep below, such that the heat from A ignites B. B burns and consumes combustible content, moving the burn location. Before it fully consumes either the combustible content or oxygen from the available air, its heat finds another pocket of A that B is able to ignite and get to chemically react. [Go to START for another cycle.] Continue said cycle for many weeks.

      This has several problems with respect to the actual evidence and 1st-responder efforts, starting off with the amount of water from fire hoses and rain that were dumped on the hot-spots and continuing with the amount of chemical flame retardant also pumped into them. [Refer to the introduction of the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan article on speculation into the source of several spikes in the release of gasses off of the pile.] The extent of B type fires under the rubble lasting or being re-ignited “from smoldering embers” would have been severely limited, owing to lack of air and to drowning water & the fire retardants; B type fires could not have gone the duration or held up its leg of the aforementioned burn cycle.

      The extent of A type hot-spots is limited to the amount of thermite (or other chemcial explosives) in the pile, whereby the burn-rate of thermite dictates the quantities needed to go the duration. If the primary purpose of A was to bring down the structure & pulverize content, how likely is it that additional, mind-blowing overkill amounts would be unspent and left-over in the pile from their original purpose to account for this several week long after-effect? How much proof do we have of iron by-product blobs in the pile that correlate to the quantities of thermate reacting with steel to achieve long-lasting hot-spots?

      Lots of people on both sides of the 9/11 divide have stated over and over again that most of the steel in the buildings has been accounted for from the rubble and clean-up efforts. [An example are the discussions with Dr. Jenkins trying to debunk the dustification of steel comments from Dr. Wood.] If the steel is accounted-for as steel (and if we have little evidence of iron by-product blobs), then the steel wasn’t consumed and altered by a reaction with thermite. Therefore, high school chemistry tells us (in yet another way) that thermite was not present in sufficient quantities to account for the hot-spots.

      “Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)”~Dr. Steven Jones, September 2012

      I had written:

      [Triple-W] completely neglects the radiation signature of a neutron device: primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived — contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.

      Triple-W responds with more weasel games:

      On the contrary: “A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device.” Tritium has a relatively short half-life, but it is not days or weeks, it is 12.32 years. Directing “the neutrons upwards” by what mechanism? Radiation means to radiate, that is to travel outward in all directions.

      The application goals for standard, run-of-the-mill neutron bomb that most of the literature covers and was fear-mongered hyped in the media is completely different. It refers to a battlefield situation where a spherical radiating of neutrons (and blast & heat wave) has tactical advantages. Triple-W knows the application goals for a tactical neutron device is different, for it has been explained many times. He tries to skew things with his “radiate… outward in all directions” word-smithery from one cherry-picked quotation about a different application of neutron devices.

      However, his question is valid: “Directing “the neutrons upwards” by what mechanism?”

      The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).

      What would you get if you combined the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.

      Triple-W quotes from Wiki without understanding the significance:

      Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently). Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are “indirectly ionizing.” Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.

      The significance of the bolded statement is that if your device is directing neutrons through, say, a pin-hole cap in the casing and is aimed upwards, the amount of building material that gets hit with ionizing radiation to become radioactive is vastly limited. Yes, you’d end up with some radioactive material, but a manageable cleanup operation and not the thorough spherical dowsing of anything and everything at ground zero and the expected radiation signature of a full-fledged fusion device.

      I wrote:

      The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is Triple-W trying to frame this as being? Is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? Triple-W assumes too much, because with the configuration that I have outlined, the structure — both inner core and outer wall assemblies — would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.

      Triple-W plays his games again:

      Anyone who has seen a photo of the World Trade Towers at sunset with the glow behind them knows that this is absolute bullshit – you can see right through the buildings.

      Wrong! Whereas for much of the floor space for the picture in question (when the towers were nearing completion, “you can see right through the buildings.” But there is an area where you cannot see right through the building: namely the buildings’ core. It is rather pronounced, like a spine in an X-ray. So who is trying to spin the “absolute bullshit.”

      In addition, allow me to introduce some controversy from the Let’s Roll Forum disinformation site. Whether or not we give credit to the hollow-towers theory, what is true is that some form of window coverings were installed, maybe precisely because of the picture in question and its see-through result. I’ve seen no other pictures than that one, yet there were lots of days (after sun up or before sun down) over 30 years when a clever photographer in a helicopter would have tried to recreate it. As far as I know, for most of the towers’ lifetime, it was never again possible to see through the towers in the same way.

      Now that Triple-W’s somewhat rational arguments have been addressed and his premise debunked, let us turn briefly to his other excellent & convincing substantiating arguments. I am utterly speechless at their wit, eloquence, and reason. Touche’!

      2013-08-14: More sludge from Maxifuckanus’ cesspool … defaming scoundrel… Maxipad… Maximum prevaricator…

      2013-08-15: Slurmiester Maximus… Maxasshole… Maxifuck


      This Maximum prevaricator dampens his own imagination whenever it suits his fancy to give wieght to his tepid and forced argumentation.


      Mr Ruff says Mr Eleven is “batshit crazy” I say Mr Eleven is ‘crazy as a shithouse rat… Whether Senior el Once is crazy, a total pretender when it comes to nuclear physics, or just a fuckin’ liar; his mixmash 3,000 word woowoo-posts prove some sort of wacko this way comes…

      2013-08-14: I hope a simple fuck you will do for our slurmiester maximus



  40. Slurmiester Maximus,

    You are not only as crazy as a shithouse rat, you are a hypocrite for bitching about my gracious sobriquets offered to your batch of AKA’s.

    And a hardy fuck you extends to yet another day…


  41. O failed kubernētēs, prone and wailing magister ludi, tried and wanting, heavy of carne who hath cast thy spirit into Hades’ fire. Take thine damned meat-package and cast it therein as well. Taunt us no more with thy empty boasts of wisdom. Languish with the swine from whence thou spawned. We care not to drink from thy bladder of urine flavored vinegar. The puss that crusts and seals thine eyes is not worth an empty wager.
    ~Magus Maverik

    \\][// .

  42. Did Triple-W address the components, reactions, and by-products of thermite with steel? No.

    Did he address how fire-fighting efforts dampened his theory of what was burning under the rubble without sufficient or constant sources of air? No.

    Did he point to any iron blobs, the by-products of thermite with steel? No.

    Did he acknowledge learning anything about the differences between fusion devices and neutron devices, or how the latter can direct the neutron energy? No.

    I leave his two responses as examples of his style of “excellent & convincing substantiating arguments.” As before, I am utterly speechless at their wit, eloquence, and reason. Touche’!

    [Further such examples will be copied & archived elsewhere, before being deleted. They will remain archived until an appropriate time when they and many more can be served up for the weasel’s banquet.]

    Before retiring for the day, triple-W wrote on his own thread (2013-08-16)

    Ahh Maxifuckanus is very good at designing sci-fi weapons for comic books, such as his nookeedoodoo directional neutron blaster which shoots its beam upward through skyscrapers…all that energy directed upward, yet rather than shooting a hole through the center of the buildings skyward, also blows it to smithereens.

    He has two choices, the energy blew up the buildings, or it shot its beam up into the sky. If it blew up the buildings, that neutron radiation splattered all over the materials and irradiated it. If that is the case the radiation would have been detected – it was not.

    Neutron nuclear DEW (neu nookiedoo) directs the highly energetic neutrons upwards through the building or debris of the building. Due to its directed nature and narrow angle, relatively little of the material is hit with neutron radiation that would ionize and be measureable as short-lived alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.

    The blast and heat waves of neu nookiedoo would not be so precise in their targeting. Even a shape charge to radiate as half-of-a-sphere would inflict some blast & heat damage on the other half of the sphere. However, the purposes of the neutron configuration were (1) to expell the lion’s share of the neutron radiation (2) in a manner that doesn’t impact collaterial life-forms and (3) doesn’t leave large quantities of radiated materials, (4) while reducing the blast and heat waves to tactical levels.

    Ergo, either through his own ignorance, stupidity, an agenda, or all of the above, Triple-W lives up to the “weasel” appended to his initials by malframing the situation as “two choices, the energy blew up the buildings, or it shot its beam up into the sky.” No. Not at all. Where the neutron radiation went is different from what could be expected from a blast wave, a heat wave, and EMP, except that by having the former, the latter three are dialed down to tactical levels. The directed neutron beam — if narrow — would be the cause of radioactive materials for the things it hit, but not for materials that the blast or heat wave decimated. And the materials that it hit would have been comparatively small with respect to the whole clean-up operation.

    Triple-W is encouraged to find the exact government reports that measured all forms of radiation at WTC timely, thoroughly, and systematically and spell out his premise of:

    If that is the case the radiation would have been detected – it was not.

    I have not seen such a report. Triple-W’s hero, Dr. Jones, didn’t make a lot of waves to get such a report. And if he did, he’s kept very quiet about the FOIA battles to acquire this specific report. Dr. Jones went on to write his “no-nukes” farce without referencing such a report (or the existence of neutron devices.) In fact, he based that “no-nukes” piece on a stilted commissioned effort whose purpose was to speculate into potential sources for the untimely, unsystematic, unthorough measurements of tritium. [Speculation does not mean it was fact or could contribute to the measured tritium in the way their imprecise models predict.]

    Triple-Dubya, you earned the W from “weasel,” and you continue to earn it.


    • >”Did he address how fire-fighting efforts dampened his theory of what was burning under the rubble without sufficient or constant sources of air? No….”~M.F.
      . . . . . . . . . .

      Aye, for these be taunts to a bellowing sphincter and naught else.


  43. “Señor is like a tar baby that once it gets stuck to you – you can never get it off.”~Keenan Roberts


  44. Triple-Dubya is sounding a bit too worried, a bit too frazzled, a bit too scattered, a bit too desperate, and a bit too repetitive. A 2013-08-20, B 2013-08-20, and C 2013-08-20:

    “Señor is like a tar baby that once it gets stuck to you – you can never get it off.”~Keenan Roberts

    Triple-W advances to Quad-W for his Whining re-postings of being a Weasel that [1] had to be chased around the web and FORCED into a debate he agreed to, [2] was legitimately likened to “an agent for the system”, and [3] had the coincidental appearance of glad-handing a sock-puppet on Truth & Shadows: A 2012-11-29 1:20 pm, B 2013-11-29 11:33 pm, C 2013-08-20 2:13 pm, and D 2013-08-20. I didn’t respond until B, but that response got deleted. Thanks to C, that deleted response was resurrected and updated. The inappropriate posting to D was promptly deleted.

    Yeah, right, “[i]t has nothing to do with his nookeedoodoo argument” that Quad-W was losing handily in trying both to stomp down neu nookiedoo and to prop up nano-thermite, a glaringly weak alternative.

    Yeah, right, “[i]t has nothing to do with ‘fear’ in ‘debating’ him,” because Quad-W’s debating talent lies in insults and ad hominem:

    Maxifuckanus… Maxifucker’s 2nd Doodoo thread… [SEO] is not only a son-of-a-bitch, but a hypocritical son-of-a-bitch… Maximouse…

    Yeah, right, “[w]e have ‘debated’ in circles for month upon month on these issues,” with the above re-tread postings fairly handily demonstrating who cranks the carousel into circles. As mentioned in the resurrected response, I would have preferred to let those sleeping agency and sockpuppeting dogs lie even as far back as November.

    Yeah, right, “[a]nd this involved bringing my mother into the mix by spurious and unfounded assertions,” even though Quad-W provided the telephone number without being asked, even though much later the middle initial & last name of the owner of that telephone were coincidentally the same as an obtuse discussion participant’s alias, even though Quad-W never leaves that alias unanswered in a pincer-ish way, and even though Quad-W pegged the telephone number to his dear old mum. [I thought it was his 007’s Miss Moneypenny.]

    Now that the clerical work is completed, let’s advance to some substance 2013-08-21:

    And so in answer to this post about the nookeedoodoo weapon that Maximouse has made up, he points out that “neutron bombs” have been known about for a long time. But that is not the weapon that he is describing. He is claiming that these neutron bombs have been combined with some speculative coupling to generate a focused beam weapon.

    First of all, I ain’t the only one who thinks this is possible. Here’s something from 1999: China Test-detonates Kiloton Neutron Bomb

    [Retired nuclear physicist Sam Cohen who originated the idea of the neutron bomb] said it would take a specially designed bomb to direct radiation more to one side than to another.

    A shaped nuclear charge isn’t so far-fetched, and is even “speculated” for the Orion propulsion system for space travel. Check out this cool nuclear calculator. With regards to 9/11, maybe you should revisit the Writings of a Finnish Military Expert:

    While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980’s, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.

    The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990’s. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.

    Quad-W puts a bit too much emphasis on “a focused beam”, because in the tactical 9/11 implementation, the beam wasn’t aimed with the purpose of “destruction or death” (which is the standard framing of a neutron bomb) but instead with the purpose to get those highly energetic neutrons “safely” out of the way so they doesn’t turn everything radioactive while allowing for a tactical size blast and heat wave to accomplish “surgical” deeds.

    Quad-W continues:

    [SEO] has essentially “designed” Wood’s power source for her DEW hypothesis {stretching the word hypothesis to breaking point}.

    Indeed. Good point. And if I might add some further speculation, I believe that Dr. Wood has the intelligence and research chops to have come to this conclusion, too. Only, the student responsible for her website was killed in a strange and unsolved manner, leaving much of her website largely under construction since 2006. Like “The Godfather” scene with a horse’s head in its owner’s bed, we don’t know what “offers that couldn’t be refused” were extended to Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones, et al. to STOP their 9/11 nuclear musings premature of nuclear neutron devices and to even get them to actively promote disinformation.

    Quad-W continues:

    Again, there is no independent verifiable proof that such a weapon exists now or did then. Maxo is dealing in pure speculation, regardless of his spinning hyperbole.

    Meh. Coincidence that the premier nuclear physicists in the 9/11 Truth Movement did not discuss neutron bombs or shaped nuclear charges while at the same time advancing “pure speculation” into the capabilities of super-duper nano-thermite in addressing the massive energies of pulverization and hot-spot durations?

    Quad-W continues his losing battle:

    To add an even more ludicrous flavor to this bullshit lollipop he cites the cast of charlatans such as Prager and that whole lot as being in agreement with him! So what??

    So what about this “charlatan” Sam Cohen, who invented the neutron bomb? His 1999 statements about the then-capabilities of a neutron bomb are in agreement.

    They are twat heads that have been debunked just as thoroughly as Maximaze and Judy Judy Judy… Maxifuckanus should try to get published in some modern science fiction magazine. He is down the shitter as far as valid science.

    Says the man without the intellect, fortitude, or integrity to read the entire textbook from Dr. Judy Wood, let alone compile any report (let alone a convincing one) on the good, the bad, and the ugly chapter-by-chapter.

    Let’s throw some of Quad-W’s advice back at him with modifications in [square brackets]:

    My best advice is for [Mr. Rogue] to take his lame [super-duper nano-thermite] stalking horse to a nice quite pasture and do the humane thing… of putting a bullet into [its] poor tortured head.

    Pre-mature and immature are Quad-W’s middle names:

    I doubt if there is a single person here that pays the slightest attention to this boring neurotic bullshit he continues to spew, thread after bloody thread the same monotonous bumble.

    Not a single person? So easy to debunk. Mr. Rogue himself seems to pay me a tad more than “the slightest attention… thread after bloody thread.”

    Thanks to Mr. Rogue for being my foolish foil. Couldn’t have made a better argument (by) myself without him.


  45. 2013-08-30 {This sat in the moderation queue. I asked Mr. McKee either (a) to publish my response or (b) to delete my Rogue’s comment (2013-08-29) and my response. I prefer (b), because it is a distraction from Mr. McKee’s article and Mr. Rogue has other places where he’s re-posted the same.}

    Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn’t just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.

    [1] 2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm
    [2] 2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm
    [3] 2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm

    To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out Carnival d’Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) dedicated to me, when I thought PROLOGUE was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an “Autodidact Polymath” who “worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention” (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm); who has “>35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology” (2009-03-23 at 12:42:29 PM); and who has been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years and 9-11 Psyop… is an issue that [he understands] quite well (2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM). One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: reference links.

    I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:

    Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation… When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader’s benefit and to prove claims of “circus carousel”), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you’ll eventually forfeit.

    Regarding his [third] retread posting (2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm and here) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I’ve used to describe Mr. Rogue — cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent –, the cherry-picked quotations from me lack substantiating links.

    Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his “doctorates equivalent studies in … the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation”. Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those terrible things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the “or not.”

    The strawman premise and distraction that Mr. Rogue builds:

    So Señor drops his phony veneer of ‘gentleman scholar’ with this: …

    The reason that I call it a “strawman premise and distraction” is that context proves that it is not me “dropping [a] phony veneer of ‘gentleman scholar’”. No, it is me “dropping down to Mr. Rogue’s level” using language and words that he understands better and doing an excellent job of mocking him. What is worse for Mr. Rogue is that context also proves that I substantiate with Mr. Rogue’s own exhibit how I come to such dastardly opinions: “cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent.”

    I don’t know why Mr. Rogue keeps kicking that sleeping “agent” dog. Lacking proof other than my suspicions from his stubborn debates with me, it is not something that I’ve been holding to since even last November. “Cheat, liar, weasel” is another issue, and maybe him kicking the sleeping agent dog is just another example of that.

    Meanwhile, Mr. OSS wrote:

    Either have a mature, sourced, responsive conversation with people here or piss off.

    Mr. Adam Ruff dropped “mature” and “responsive” from his paraphrasing (coincidence?):

    So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.

    SEO wrote:

    Doesn’t apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow.

    Mr. Rogue comes unhinged with:

    YOU “EXPECT”??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gotta walk the talk. So, yeah, “I EXPECT” and so do many others (including Mr. McKee.)

    Seeing how Mr. Rogue brings it up, what does he expect? Rhetorical question, because Carnival d’Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) and PROLOGUE already demonstrate the standards of mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments” that Mr. Rogue — “an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years” with a “doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in … the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation” — EXPECTS from himself and others.

    Mr. Rogue slams some hypnotic suggestion down (2013-08-29):

    All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that’s all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.

    Ho-hum. I made 12 points. He claims that his Carnival d’Maxifuckanus has the counter-arguments to the twelve. In actuality, cheating Mr. Rogue won’t let me post mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational counter-counter-arguments to that blog or PROLOGUE; I know because I tried on 2013-03-19, but it was deleted. That’s why you’ll have to go “The Judy Wood Enigma” (2013-04-15) to see his counter-arguments get destroyed, point-by-point and ample examples highlighted of him cheating, lying, and being a weasel in his effort.

    Yep, it demonstrates a lot about the character of Mr. Rogue that he would link to his one-sided Carnival d’Maxifuckanus instead of a two-sided “The Judy Wood Enigma”.

    With 243 comments to this thread at the time of writing, Mr. Rogue has 77 (31.7%) while I have only seven times less at 11 (4.5%). I am such a loser against Mr. Rogue.

    Mr. Rogue, thank you for your participation. You are so cute when you come unhinged.


  46. To correct Mr. Rogue’s faulty assumptions (2013-08-39 10:35pm), “This is what it is all about, all of this ranting is still about THE BOOK.” No, it was about “intellect, fortitude, or integrity.” THE BOOK (from Dr. Judy Wood) merely served as a test thereof that Mr. Rogue gloriously failed. Returning the book to me was never an option, because I already have a copy, because such actions don’t benefit the 9/11 discussions, and because pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were the requirements after the “the good, the bad, and the ugly” book review, so the discussions could be furthered.

    Assuming the “good” was given its fair acknowledgement, I would have been satisfied with so little in the grand scheme of debunking things, and would have been beating in tandem on each individual drum of found disinformation. THE BOOK needed to be taken down legitimately, while preserving that which merited such.

    THE BOOK only comes up in discussions now, because Mr. Rogue performs the same dismissals-without-review games in other areas, like Kevin Ryan.

    Mr. Rogue (August 31, 2013 at 12:27 am) mentions:

    To continue the discussion above. For it is not just this one point about the flash of a nuclear device.

    Mr. Rogue makes assumptions about the extent of a nuclear flash for neutron nuclear DEW devices, where several design and shielding factors were at play. Shield 1 is that the devices were installed in the inner core and aimed upwards. Shield 2 would be anything they constructed around the devices; construction evidence was discussed by surviving tenants. Shield 3 are the outer column structure and floors, which would limit the amount and direction from a light in the core. Shield 4 was building and debris raining down.

    Mr. Rogue continues:

    It also takes into account that one of the telltale signs of explosive demolition is the rows of explosions around the perimeter of a building. And the evidence for just such events is overwhelming; video, audio, and scores of witness testimonies. Unmistakable evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Explosive demolition is not disputed as being involved, but is disputed for being attributed as both the primary and only source of destruction energy. The neutron nuclear hypothesis was that cutter chargers (chemical based) were at the connections between the outer steel wall assemblies, but were timed milliseconds after any (aimed upward) neutron nuclear DEW devices at that level, so that these outer wall assemblies would help contain flashes and EMP.

    It should be noted that if chemical explosives were the primary and only source of destructive energy, they would need to be installed at [every, every other, every third, or so] level in order to account for the actual pulverization of content and concrete. However, the audio evidence does not substantiate this with the actual frequency of detonations, and neither does the visual evidence. The main destructive devices were at every 20 (or more) levels, as would be expected with devices of more energy that could be targeted.

    Mr. Rogue continues:

    And yes there will be testimony as to the furnace-like conditions with molten metal described. But this must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof.

    No, that is a failed rhethorical ploy to say that “furnace-like conditions… must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof. They do not, particularly when redundant and varied techniques were involved.

    Molten conditions require a heat source. Chemical explosives have three problems in accounting for this.

    (1) A chemical reaction is dependent upon the initial quantities involved. Once a limiting-factor reactant in the reaction is consumed — which should have been to a great extent in the demolition –, the reaction stops, heat source stops. Heat from the initial reactions can ignite other things, but oxygen (from air) is typically the limiting-factor reactant in those fires. Being under the rubble combined with fire fighting techniques would have suppressed normal air fueled fires.

    (2) Chemical reactions have the reactants and then the results. In the case of thermite with steel, the results are heat and iron. Other than the one they call a meteorite, where were the excavated blobs of iron in sufficient quantities to indicate proof of such a chemical reaction and its by-product?

    (3) How much unspent-from-demolition chemical-based explosives would be required to achieve and maintain such under-rubble furnace-like conditions? The amounts are massive. And the amounts are explosive.

    It is unreasonable to believe that such massive quantities would be unspent and left-over from their original demolition purposes. The amounts are so massive, we wouldn’t be talking about hot-spots but either (a) hot-trails thousands of miles long; (b) hot-conveyors in feeding a hot-spot and hoping enough steel; or (c)_ moving hot explosions.

    Nuclear devices easily explains the furnace-like conditions. 9/11 was a redundant affair, because nukes in tandem are known to cause fracticide, which could cause them to fizzle and otherwise not meet their expected potential. Fukushima and other historical nuclear mishaps demonstrate quite handily how long a nuclear hot-spot can remain hot.

    Mr. Rogue continues with his rhetorical games:

    The first assumption that then follows is: Isn’t it most reasonable to consider such explosive products as the most likely culprits in keeping the rubble burn going?

    It is an assumption but it doesn’t have to follow. Explosive products — to achieve the thoroughness of pulverization — would require a different placement than the audio evidence indicates, and would be deafening (and wasn’t). Once the demolition task is achieved, it is most unreasonable to believe that the quantities of unspent explosive products would be present (and not exploding) in sufficiently massive amounts to keep the rubble burn going.

    Mr. Rogue utters a hypnotic suggestion:

    To reject this as the most likely prospect is a nonsequitur as far as reason in forensics.


    Mr. Rogue continues:

    The reasons to reject it would need be compelling. I have made a long case as to why I do not find the nuclear, the DEW, nor the blend of the two as a compelling argument.

    Agreed that Mr. Rogue has made a long case, but not a compelling one for explosive products versus against neutron nuclear DEW.

    Mr. Rogue continues on August 31, 2013 at 1:13 am

    The seismic evidence points to explosions in the basements. We have gone over this previously. There were explosions in the basements. There is nothing else that explains the seismic evidence.

    Agreed, there were explosions in the basement. Seismic evidence does not distinguish between chemical explosions versus neutron nuclear DEW detonation. The actual testimony (and not the coaching that inserted words like “fire”, “fire ball”, etc.) of those involved could go either way.

    In fact, when you consider the burn victims in the lobby of the WTC-1, I believe that directed neutrons could have accomplished it (and the shattered lobby) easier than a fire-ball going down or up the elevator shaft.

    Let’s us not forget that 9/11 was also a gold heist from the vaults under WTC-4. Don’t think they would have used nukes on that one.

    Mr. Rogue goes on:

    So if a bomb went off, can the nuclear dew advocate claim it was a nuclear device? … [continued below]

    Mr. Rogue easily falls into the disinfo trap of arguing for a single mechanism to explain everything. However, even limiting one’s thinking to a single source — be it chemical explosives or nuclear methods — still suggests very deep and influential pockets of the perpetrators. So deep, in fact, that they can account for massive, redundant, overkill amounts of that single mechanism. The pockets of the perpetrators were so deep and influential, why would they have limited themselves to a single mechanism to accomplish everything?

    [Continued from above] … Not after all of the complex arguments describing the weapon as energizing a beam in a contained process.

    Mr. Rogue purposely misframes the concepts at play in the neutron nuclear DEW.

    In the instances of neutron devices high in towers, the purpose of the generated beam of neutrons was not for its life-damaging abilities nor for its damaging-inflicting power, because that is limited to embrittlement after-effects. Its purpose was to get the neutrons out of the way. The neutrons were not needed to create massive chain-reactions and a larger explosion; the neutrons were not needed to inflict collateral injuries to life forms outside the towers.

    However, by expelling the neutrons upwards in a beam, many goals could be achieved. (1) The blast and heat waves would be reduced to tactical sizes. (2) The blast and heat waves could be directed somewhat. (3) The amount of created radiation of all forms would be limited, localized, and short-lived.

    (Edited for clarity):

    The proponent cannot have it both ways. Either they were [nuclear] bombs or they were [nuclear] beam weapons. If they were [nuclear] bombs, all of the attendant arguments for the lack of substantive radiation fall flat.

    Wrong, the proponents of neutron nuclear DEW can have it both ways.

    As already explained, the beam portion of the weapon was largely thrown away, leaving from the same weapon tactical blast and heat waves without substantiative lingering radiation. (Where are the government reports on actual radiation levels? Suppressed. Ought to have been a red flag to all.)

    Because the various output yields and configuration of the neutron nuclear DEW devices have been explained many times, I will attribute this deliberate malframing — not to his misunderstanding — but to his character traits that tend towards cheating and lack of integrity. This charge is augented by the following lie and cheat.

    And this point is augmented by all the other arguments made showing how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation are:
    Why ineffective leach fields are the most likely source of most of these substances in metropolitan industrial centers. Which the city of New York most certainly is.

    First of all, five types of radiation are to be considered: alpha, beta, gamma, neutron, and tritium. Official reports proving the first four to be “at or below trace background levels” are missing. Much easier to suppress an entire report than it is to tweak all measured values within the report to be within such a range.

    As for “how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation” [tritium], Mr. Rogue plays the games of (a) ignoring that minuscule is not the same as nothing, (b) ignoring that the minuscule was used with regards to amounts that would have negative health impacts, (c) ignoring that the minuscule amount was not measured in a timely fashion everywhere, and (d) ignoring that the minuscule was still 55 times greater than expected and necessitated re-defining what “trace and background levels” of tritium was.

    Mr. Rogue tried to use argument of toxic elements [in particular tritium] leaching back to NYC from leach fields before, and was pushed back. He brings nothing new to the table to merit the re-hash. If this were valid, the tritium report would have used it to explain the tritium measured at the WTC. The tritium reports referenced the amounts draining off of the WTC at certain locations. No where in that tritium report is there this unfounded speculation of “leach fields” with tritium flowing back to the WTC in New York and attributing the anomalous nature of the 9/11 evidence, tritium in particular.


  47. 2013-09-09

    Unless noted otherwise, the following are quotes from Kevin R. Ryan’s Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. I apologize that I cannot give meaningful page numbers from the book, because I’m using a Kindle. However, when a quote includes an endnote number, this should help locate the exact position in the book.

    … [T]he Bremer Commission essentially wrote the USA PATRIOT ACT. Sonnenberg boasted that 20 of the Commission’s 25 recommendations made it into the controversial and poorly reviewed legislation.

    I learned a lot from the chapter on L. Paul Bremer and how his WTC tower office was one floor above where the impacts occurred.

    Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) first helps define the problem of terrorism and then profits from that problem through contracts worth tens of billions of dollars. … [SAIC] has become a private business that cannot be distinguished from a permanent form of government. In short, SAIC is the “fraternal twin of teh intelligence establishment.” [849]
    [849] Donald L. Barlett and james B. Steele, Washington’s $8 Billion Shado, Vanity Fair, March 2007
    Therefore, LTC Blirtch of SOCCOM and SAIC had the means and opportunity to neutralize any unwanted explosives that might have been buried in the pile at Ground Zero.

    I’ve learned a lot from the chapter on SAIC. The above is a true Helgian Dialectic stoke: “an interpretive method in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis), the contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis).”

    … {the response had the appearance of a} careful rescue operations. [802] But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.
    [802] Suzanne Mattei, Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration’s Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation, Sierra Club,

    This is where I take issue with Mr. Ryan, one of many instances where he frames the discussion to be “the use of explosives.” However, remnants of nuclear devices (like multiple neutron nuclear DEW) would exhibit the same “hurry to remove evidence.”

    … shipped out of the U.S. Some of the citical pieces of steel — including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns — were gone. … bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. … The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, … done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.

    My apologies for the imcomplete and disjointed quotes above. [The above was just what I high-lighted.] What struck me was that they were in such a “hurry to remove evidence”, they sold it as scrap at below-market (bargain) prices. Note the critical pieces that “were gone”, either by removal and/or the demolition means.

    During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that “Security is unbelievable. It’s really on a need-to-be-down-there basis.”[809]
    [808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators,
    [809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.

    … Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. … The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.

    The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.

    … highly secure site, as well as the authority to hire suspected crime syndicate companies to perform the actual cleanup.

    The above quotations sets the scene. If the outcome was as the official conspiracy theory spins, there would have been no reason for the unprecedented and tight security at Ground Zero. Pictures of a gravity collapse would not be damning to anyone. On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.

    … hypothesis that unexplained explosive or incendiary events were occurring at the site during the cleanup efforts. The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extingished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]
    [901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trace Center.

    I agree that “unexplained explosive or incendiary events occurred at the site during the cleanup efforts.” The cited paper notes a half dozen or so of these; spikes in the release of toxic gases. Yes, this indicates the presence of energetic materials (e.g., chemical explosives or incendiaries). The issue is that these spikes were different than what would be required to maintain the long-lasting nature of the fires.

    If we’re talking remnants of nuclear devices — maybe even nuclear fizzling — then this explains the ineffectual “extreme firefighting efforts” on the “violent and long-lasting” “fires in the debris pile” as well as the “unbelievable security.”

    At any rate, Mr. Ryan’s book is providing lots of insight into the important questions of WHO and WHY, and HOW in the sense of entities that could be coordinated to pull it and its cover-up off. Unlike Mr. Ruff, just because I have found some skew in Mr. Ryan’s work, I’m not “rejecting all his work” but I am approaching it initially with high levels of distruct.

    Carrying on with Neu Nookiedoo…

    Mr. Rogue out-of-the-blue posts twice (2013-09-08 at 8:12 pm and 2013-09-09 at 12:09 am whereby the latter time stamp is actually 3 minutes before the former, because Mr. Rogue’s blog doesn’t have its time zone configured properly). He posts quotations from Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins from “Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence” relating to his analysis of an extensive study of the Banker’s Trust building at 130 Liberty Street performed by the RJ Lee Group.

    The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings?mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker’s Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.

    I believe that the above is partially true, but does not tell the whole story. To explain, let me re-tell of an experience in “Solder School” at my first employer during my teenage years. Whenever we hand-soldered components to circuit boards, the rule was that we had to remove the flux used in the solder process to get the heat transfer. I pointed out that flux was petrolium based so would actually serve as a protective barrier on top of the Pb solder and metal lead of the component; water would not get in and rust it; so why remove the flux? The authoritative reply was: “Flux would indeed protect the solder joint in the manner you described, but for a short time. In reality given the long service life of our equipment, flux left on the circuit board would attract dust. Dust in harsh, hot, and humid environments — where our equipment was deployed — would attract moisture. That moisture collected by the dust that the flux attracted over time would corrode the leads and electrical connections. Our equipment would not live up to its (extremely long) warranty.”

    In one of my early jobs out of college, the product in question was a surge tester for three-phase electric motors used in production environments that were often very dusty and humid. Same principle: dust collected in the windings of an electric motor would, over time, attracted moisture that could eventually create corrosion and thus potentially little shorts between individual coils of the windings. Eventually due to the tiny shorts, the three phases of the motor would not be balanced. [The surge tester tested two windings at a time and detected such inductance imbalances between any two phases even in the early stages of corrosion, which allowed maintenance workers at such production facilities to plan and schedule when such pieces of equipment should be taken off-line for cleaning and refurbishing, well before big imbalances that can lead to unplanned catastrophic equipment and production line failure.] It took a significant period of time (a year or more) for such tiny failures in the winding impedance to get to a critical point, and such were the maintenance schedules.

    I would like to see examples of “WTC Dust [being] corrosive to unprotected metal.” I think many are cases where other mechanisms caused the protective paint coating to be burned off. NYC, being at sea level and at the end of summer, would be a humid place. Thus unprotected and with dust landing on metal that would attract moisture, we observe many instances of the rapid onset of rust and corrosion.

    As for the dust affecting “the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures,” this doesn’t tell the whole story. As my real-world experiences prove, that dust in computer/electrical systems over time would definitely start to cause problems, like intermittent shorting. But in order for the dust to cause immediate problems of this corrosive nature, the dust would have to be highly conductive.

    Oh, but in Mr. Rogue’s quotes from Dr. Jenkins (with my emphasis added):

    Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction.

    This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.

    [1] This is a highly speculative effort that Dr. Jenkins was trying to use to explain torched vehicles. And it doesn’t match real world expectations. Farm/Ranch work [also performed by me in my teenage years] is a very dusty endeavor. It takes a very long time for dust and environmental (e.g., humid) conditions to reach accumulation levels that would lead to shorting or other electrical problems in such equipment.

    [2] More troubling to Dr. Jenkins speculative theory is that the vehicles were torched in cases seemingly from the outside-in or strange patterns that did not impact the engine/battery area. The vehicles were turned off and parked, which significantly limits the active electrical circuits & places within the engine/battery/starter area that could be shorted together to start a fire immediately: like between the two battery terminals. If you put a highly conductive metal screw driver across the battery terminals, you’ll get a spark; you might even get the battery to explode; whether or not this will lead to fire in the engine compartment depends. Right across the battery terminals or at the starter are pretty damn near the only location within the engine area that could possibly cause a fire, and the electrical conduction of the dust would have to be assured and not intermittent or flaky.

    Dr. Jenkins drops a lot of innuendo about conductive elements measured within the dusts (true), but that doesn’t measure up when talking “point A to point B conductivity” that would cause a fire igniting short. Dr. Jenkins seems to believe in “magic dust” that can wind its way under the hood and across the battery terminals (or starter terminals) in sufficient and conductive quantities, or that could wind its way through the air filters and into the passenger compartment behind the dash and into the cooling vent holes of constantly powered electrical devices (e.g., security systems, clocks, or stereos) to cause conductive-dust shorting.

    Experience (personal and otherwise) proves that, while dust can cause electric shorting, it is something that takes significant time to happen.

    [3] Dr. Jenkins speculative theory does not match the evidence of timing of the “spuriously ignited vehicle fires”. He implies that a thicker layer of dust deposits may have been required to ignite the vehicles Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place. EMT Patricia Ondrovic’s testimony, among others, discounts this view. The cars were “popping off” well before a “thicker layer of dust deposits” could work its way into the engine cavity and, say, short the battery. She also talks about a car door popping horizontally right out of its hinges and smacking her into a wall. It was not because the car was on fire, because it wasn’t. [I attribute this to Eddy currents generated in the metal of the door by an EMP side-effect of neutron devices. The Eddy currents heated the door such that it expanded within its door frame to the point where it popped out of the door frame.]

    [4] The RJ Lee Group study, costing 33 million dollars, had a feature common with the USGS analysis of the dust but out-of-sorts with Dr. Jones’ dust samples. The RJ Lee Group and the USGS detected no thermite or nano-thermite. They detected no red flakes, and no “highly energetic particles,” as was found in the apartment dust samples given to Dr. Jones. [I don’t rule out that all three entities are lying in some fashion.] The RJ Lee Group did find a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust.

    (a) If thermite did it and as was calculated by Dr. Nils Harrit, it represents a significant amount of thermite in the chemical reaction to achieve this [not to mention the overkill and obscene amounts of unspent thermite needed to account for the duration of hot-spots.] But curious that such unspent, overkill, and obscene amounts of thermite weren’t in the dust of the Banker’s Trust building at 130 Liberty Street.

    (b) Nuclear devices can explain these iron spheres, created from its tactical but intense heat wave from the steel and blown by its tactical blast wave into the Banker’s Trust building at 130 Liberty Street. Not a problem.

    (c) I do not discount that the permeation of dust would necessitate extensive building renovation and refurbishing of equipment. This would have been true for nearly all buildings surround the WTC. Yet the Banker’s Trust building was demolished after repairs were made. I attribute this to embrittlement of steel, which is a side-effect of neutrons on metal [like from a mis-aimed or jarred askew neutron nuclear DEW devices.]

    [5] Here’s some nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood’s website. They show the sequence of when fires started in the parking lot. The quotations are from Dr. Wood. She correctly asks why the “hot-and-spicy dust” does not catch paper, leaves, people, etc. on fire? The fires do not all originate in the engine/battery area [and I am presently stumped to speculate on where within a turned-off automobile a fire from conducting dust could be achieved other than right at the battery. Due to configuration of air conditioning vents, it would be a challenge for unfiltered, conductive dust to wind its way to the insides of the vehicle and then into the compartments of powered-portions of a turned-off vehicle (e.g., security system, clock) in order to short them into igniting a fire.]
    Figure toast1. afterWTC2 was destroyed there don’t appear to be any fires.
    (9/11/01) Source:
    Figure toast2a. The cloud from the destruction of WTC1 rolls toward the parking lot.
    (9/11/01) Source:
    Figure toast2b. Just after WTC1 is destroyed, fires start to burn the vehicles in the large lot, but not the paper. Why?
    (9/11/01) Source:
    Figure toast3. The vehicle fires increase in strength as sunling begins to emerge through the clearing dust cloud.
    (9/11/01) Source:
    Figure toast4.The air upwind of the WTC has visably become clearer. The vehicle fires continue increasing and flames can be seen.
    (9/11/01) Source:
    Figure toast6. Sunlight begins streaming through the intersection.
    Figure toast7 The intersection and the grasssy lot are covered with paper and dust that did not burn. So, what caused the vehicles to suddenly catch fire?
    (9/11/01) Source:
    (9/11/01) Source:
    Figure toast8. How did these cars catch on fire?

    Dr. Wood presents More Toasted Cars

    Dr. Jenkins was a co-author on Dr. Jones nano-thermite papers (if memory serves me), such as hot-spots. I have issues with that work because its technical babble skips over the salient point [as stated by Dr. Jones himself] “Something maintained those hot-spots (not just NT)”. He (with Dr. Wood’s help) has misframed the vaporization argument and its energy requirements. He has produced other stilted work that I have issue with. I don’t want to take Mr. Ruff’s position of “rejecting all Dr. Jenkins work once instances of deliberated disinformation are discovered”, but that doesn’t mean that I should trust any of Dr. Jenkins work (without vetting) either.

    So the alternative to the magic, conductive, energetic dust theory of Dr. Jenkins is a side-effect of neutron nuclear DEW devices. Namely, EMP (electrical magnet pulse). An EMP can be mitigated by many things, from the design of the device to its placement to its distance from an object to other “metal” obstacles in the way (like other buildings). To be sure, an EMP originating within the steel core that themselves were surrounded by external steel wall assemblies of the towers (and metal floor pans for concrete) would reduce EMP from that device, except what slipped out line-of-sight through, say, window slits and falling debris.

    EMP would generate Eddy currents in metal that it hits line-of-sight. [For the sake of discussion, let’s say the trunk of a car.] The magnitude of the Eddy currents depends on distance from source and how much surface area gets hit (e.g., isn’t shaded by obstacles.) Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat in the metal that could be great enough to cause paint on the metal as well as rubber & plastic & things touching the metal to burn (e.g., door seals, door handles, plastic gas caps, etc.) Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn (or not).

    Something of note from the fire damage exhibited in some of the images of torched vehicles in Dr. Wood’s collection are the delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.

    [Disclaimer: police car 1 was just behind a mail truck that was also on fire. More views from this police car, Figure 9(a). In this one instance, it could be argued that the proximity of a burning mail truck to the rear of the police car caused the fire damage on the police car. However, one is left with still explaining how the mail truck as well as vehicles not as close on the same side of the street and the other side of the street caught on fire, as seen in the image before WTC-7 came down. Plus, explanations for the other anomalous “pattern” fire damage from other vehicles are needed, which EMP does.]

    Police car 1

    Police car 1 (another view)

    Police car 2

    Police car 3

    Police Pickup


    FDNY car

    Proximity of one flaming vehicle to another can and does determine whether or not the second vehicle will go up in flames. The issue is in accounting for the torching of, say, the first vehicle in a cluster. Magic, selective, mobile, conductive, hot-&-spicy, energetic dust doesn’t convince me.

    ++++ begin to be deleted from T&S

    Mr. Rogue complains 2013-09-08 at 10:44 pm:

    FALSE ADVERTISING: There is NOTHING of substance that is new in this book [from Dr. Judy Wood] that is not on that website! So there is nothing out of date as per Jenkins?criticisms either.

    Mr. Rogue has admitted that he never finished reading Dr. Wood’s book before he violently tore out 500 pages — 10″ x 7-1/4″ and stacking to just over 1″ thick — from this hard cover book and used them to line his bird cage. Thus, having not finished the book, Mr. Rogue has no basis to say “There is NOTHING of substance that is new in this book [from Dr. Judy Wood] that is not on that website!” Substance may have been in the part that made him “slam the book shut in disgust” and that he didn’t read.

    Indeed, Dr. Wood’s textbook overlaps the content of the website, but the organization of the book as well as the more extensive correlation of images of WTC damage to map positions are but two examples of differences of substance from the website. Just with these two noted exceptions, Mr. Rogue’s over-generalization — “NOTHING of substance” — gets shot down.

    Indeed, a failing of Dr. Wood’s textbook was in not addressing Dr. Jenkins’ criticisms. However, some of Dr. Jenkins’ criticisms are built on a faulty premise (admittedly exasperated by Dr. Wood). For instance, Dr. Wood is often attributed with saying “the steel was dustified (or vaporized)” without specifying quantities of steel that she is talking about (and with her own images proving that clearly not “all of the steel was vaporized”). Yet, when Dr. Jenkins goes after the vaporization of steel, he purposely misframes it by calculating the energy it would take to “vaporize all of the steel in a tower” (to take steel from a solid to a gas) and comes up with a ridiculously large number exceeding that of the sun.

    The above demonstrates a multi-level cheat from Mr. Rogue that get defeated by several technicalities. Ignoring them for a moment, one level of cheat is still glaring. Even when the significant overlap between Dr. Wood’s website and textbook are acknowledged, the fact remains that her website needs to be take on image-by-image by whatever theory-du-jour is trying to explain what happened. As was pointed out on 2013-08-12, here is just a sampling: (1) the arches A & B, (2) the horseshoe C & D, (3) the twisted-up stuff E, and (4) the steel doobies F and G.

    The following statement is so important, it appears in many places but particularly on a sticker that gets placed on the inside cover of her textbook and should truly guide our attentions:

    “Thank you for having the courage to look at the evidence.”~Dr. Judy Wood

    The cheat is to avoid such a discussion about the evidence and to frame a new discussion as “false advertising” with respect to what the book covers. Until the website carries (a) improvements made in the book and (b) corrections to the book or website, then the book should be given deferrence (unless book and website in that area are identical.)

    Mr. Rogue complains 2013-09-09 at 2:02 am. {This is really 2013-09-08 8 pm MST. Truth & Shadows and COTO are on EST; SEO for purposes of email is on MST (2 hours behind); Mr. Rogue’s blog is 4 hours ahead of EST and 6 hours ahead of MST.}

    Maxitwat won’t give it a break for even a day.

    Log of SEO activity shows:
    [1] 2013-09-04: Public posting from SEO.
    [2] 2013-09-05 1:34 pm: email #1 from SEO to Mr. Rogue.
    [3] 2013-09-05 at 3:56 pm {1:56 pm MST}: hybridrogue1 notes having received the email.
    [4] 2013-09-05 4:20 pm: email #2 from SEO to Mr. Rogue.
    [5] 2013-09-06 at 1:15 am {7:15 pm MST}: hybridrogue1 acknowledges having received the email.
    [6] 2013-09-06 2:48 pm: email #3 from SEO to Mr. Rogue.
    [7] 2013-09-06 at 9:31 pm {2:31 pm MST}: hybridrogue1 acknowledges having received the email.

    A simple inspection of the normalized time stamps shows that Mr. Rogue’s acknowledgement of my last correspondence was 2013-09-06 at 2:31 pm (MST), and his complaint of “[SEO] not giving it a break for even a day” comes at 2013-09-08 8 pm (MST). When the clock hit 2:31 pm (MST) on 2013-09-07, one day had elapsed; when the clock hit 2:31 pm (MST) on 2013-09-08, two days had elapsed.

    Thus, simple math demonstrates that at the time Mr. Rogue wrote his 2013-09-09 at 2:02 am complaint, SEO had already given it a break for two days. [SEO has had many periods greater than a day with no comments on Mr. Rogue’s actions.] Thus, these exceptions prove wrong Mr. Rogue’s complaint and shows him knowingly promoting a lie, a small one, but a lie nonetheless.

    Mr. Rogue complains:

    Now the entity is back to throwing up his chunks of 2000 word posts on Prologue at C1.

    Not true.

    [And if a previous posting of mine was found worthy and resurrected over the weekend so that Mr. Rogue had to delete it again, it wasn’t me who resurrected it. Such powers I do not have. At a previous juncture, it was Puddy Dunne (I believe) who caused Mr. Rogue ire by resurrecting posts of mine that Mr. Rogue had deleted. If it is happening now, then maybe it is Ms. JerseyG whom Mr. Rogue has been offending. She may have resurrect a posting of mine (I’m guessing 2013-08-12) as well as a 2013-08-13 posting of hers with “Touche?Mr El Once?well done!”, because otherwise the comments seem a bit disjointed. While on the topic of the 2013-08-12 posting, it came in response to a 2013-08-07 posting of Mr. Rogue’s, which have at least four full days’ separation and demonstrate the falsity of “[SEO] not giving it a break for even a day”.]

    Mr. Rogue wrote on 2013-09-09 at 9:54 am

    It was just last night [2013-09-08, Sunday] that he spewed more of his filth on my thread that I made clear he was not welcome at.

    Not true. Whether or not my works are classified as “filth”, I had no hand in posting or “spewing” anything [anywhere on the “Internets”] Saturday or Sunday.

    And for all I know, if it could have been you as administer of your thread who UNDELETED my trashed comments just so you could delete them again and make hay with it. [However, I think it was Ms. JerseyG.]

    His copying of my sign-off of: \\][//, with his, //

    Mr. Rogue does not understand copy. Were I to copy his sign-off “\\][//” (the front end of a steam locomotive engine), that’s what it’d be, exactly. Instead, because my alias is Señor El Once [Mister The Eleven] and because two slashes “//” look like a slanted version of eleven [“11”], it seemed only appropriate to deviate (and not copy) my own signature.

    In summary, Mr. Rogue’s latest efforts give me no cause to deviate from my assessment of his character that uses “lying” and “cheating” as descriptive words.

    ++++ end to be deleted from T&S

    // <> \\][// and this is only ~3,600 words on T&S and ~4,800 words on 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW.

  48. 2013-09-13


    Mr. Adam Ruff wrote [2013-09-12]:

    I now place [Barbara Honegger] in the same category as Morgan Reynolds with his Hollogram theories and Judy Wood with her bogus DEW theories. I have no further use for miss Honegger and do not consider her to be a real truther.

    I admit to not having studied Barbara Honegger’s videos or Mr. OSS’s analysis in detail [due to other things in my life requiring focus], so such an assessment may be valid. However, this does not alleviate anyone of the task of preserving the nuggets of truth from those works that merit such.

    Case in point, the “don’t land here” semaphore flags were waved with Mr. Ruff’s gratuitious (negative) reference to Dr. Wood; with a whole year of Rogue-ian acrobatic circus to avoid taking Dr. Wood’s work out of contention legitimately chapter-by-chapter [with my blessing and help]; and with a recent clumsy COTO clown-act [2013-09-11 at 3:10 pm] with the frame:

    [SEO] cannot even provide a clear example of what is substantively unique to the [Dr. Wood] Book in comparison to what is provided on the [Dr. Wood] website of the author of the book. It is [SEO’s] responsibility to prove the case that the book is unique, rather than mine to make an argument of nonexistence; onus probandi.

    The research required for my response (unpublished) helped me discover something very crafty in that framing that I will get to in a moment. A snippet extracted from my response tackles the skewed charge of “lack of uniqueness” in the book prior to the gentleman’s agreement to review it:

    – [2012-02-16] “Dr. Wood’s website has not been thoroughly debunked. … In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done.

    – [2012-02-17] “Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. “

    – [2012-06-08] “If you have read her book and her website, you would know that there is significant overlap between the two, although the website has more errors, is more disorganized, and can’t be considered Dr. Wood’s final word.”

    The crafty thing from that framing — “prove the case that the book is unique” — is that it turns the focus onto the book exclusively and acts as if the debunking of the evidence on her incomplete, error-prone, disorganized, and several years old website were a foregone conclusion. It is not. And this was made clear to me when I attempted some of the busy work necessitated by the “proof.”

    THE DIRT !!!

    Dr. Wood’s book covers the dirt differently and truncated. More importantly, the incomplete web effort on the dirt is a glaring piece of evidence for neutron nuclear DEW.

    Briefly: Neutron nuclear devices have a different radiation signature than other nukes: namely primarily the ejected highly-energetic neutron radiation that in turn energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit (and that the blast & heat wave don’t annilate). The directed energy weapon (DEW) variants of this aim the majority of the neutrons in a manner (e.g., upwards in a cone-shaped charge) that throws most of them away and reduces “collateral damage” to life forms that might otherwise be hit by a spherical emission of neutrons (e.g., the framing of battlefield neutron weapons). This configuration also reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels. Multiple neutron DEW devices would be needed for each tower with slight overkill numbers to account for the high probabilities of inter-device fracticide that can lead to device failure or nuclear fizzle (e.g., not reaching designed nuclear yields).

    One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.

    This page on Dr. Wood’s website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.

    Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?

    Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?

    Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.

    Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.

    Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!

    Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn’t have been room for pedestrians.

    Figure 102. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.

    Figure 103(a). This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.

    Figure 102(a). The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.

    Figure 103(b). The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn’t come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!

    Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.

    Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.

    Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.

    Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the “pile” in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?

    Note the references to “still fuming from the wet dirt” and “still hosing down the ‘pile’ in March 2002”, which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.

    I also call readers’ attentions to figure 93 above, aptly titled “clean wrinkled beams” and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been “burned” off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vacinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.

    I call readers’ attention to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slighly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.

    Mr. Ruff still ought to file the FOIA for the suppressed government report that may or may not prove his “No Radiation” assertion, but let this dirt be one of many glaring signs (a) about why the report is still suppressed and (b) what information it might contain.


    All of of this I wouldn’t have discovered if I wouldn’t have gone back into the maw of the Wood-sian disinformation sources to rescue nuggets of truth worth saving.

    If they can fly a plane low over the Pentagon from one direction, plant evidence it came from another, and through the MIC media outlets get the world to believe it hit the Pentagon, then they ought to be able to afford a few dozen neutron nuclear DEW devices as part of the missing $2.3 trillion in DOD spending.

    Ergo, the moral of this story is that sincere 9/11 truth seekers should be mindful of the errant, but as of yet unsaved, nuggets of truth in newly labeled “disinformation” sources, such as Ms. Honegger’s work. Do not be too swift in REJECTING ALL OF THEIR WORK in one fell swoop.

    P.S. I don’t champion Dr. Wood’s theories 100%, mostly because — as this dirt work shows — she stops abruptly short of appropriate nuclear conclusions. The anonymous physicists used to decry Dr. Wood as being a disinfo agent for gathering together of all the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camping them under “kookie” umbrellas (ala Hutchison, Tesla energy from space, etc.)


  49. {This 2013-10-31 comment sat in the moderation queue on T&S for whatever reason, including oversight. Upon seeing it not published and reflecting on its content, I subsequently asked Mr. McKee to delete it. Version 2 because version 1 was utterly destroyed by a crash of the application I was using to author it, some of which could be residual artifacts of other work I was doing.}

    Version 2.

    I wrote on 2013-10-30:

    I wanted to point out that Mr. Ruff on August 9, 2013 came up with his own [hit-and-run] “particular theory” [“No radiation = no nuke”] but then did not defend his position (so it wasn’t defended effectively) when challenged. … I’ve promoted this particular nuclear theory of 9/11 events and defended my position effectively when challenged [coincidently by Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue.] The two even conspired at one point to put together the definitive 9/11-nuking-debunking article.

    Jejune Mr. Rogue (2013-10-30) tries to defend Mr. Ruff:

    [T]hese charges against Mr Ruff are unfounded and outrageous.

    “Unfounded?” Jejune Mr. Rogue’s hypnotic lies are so easy to expose. Doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to follow the link to the exact hit-and-run posting by Mr. Ruff. The Neutron Nuclear DEW article and its discussion (among other links I could provide) prove me defending my position effectively when challenged. And this November 17, 2012 – 5:15 am quote from Mr. Ruff proves the wannabe conspiracy to definitively debunk Dr. Wood (that, if done legitimately, I would have championed, supported, and cheered to completion):

    I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so… We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. … I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project?

    “Outrageous?” Indeed! That Mr. Ruff boasts big as his belt is long, but doesn’t walk the talk.

    Jejune Mr. Rogue makes a joke {context added by me in curly braces}:

    I know that you are as aware as I am that there are some issues {e.g., nano-thermite} that can take a debunking and keep on punking. It all depends on the proponent and whether they will accept that the proposition has in fact failed on scrutiny.

    Mr. Ruff laughs heartedly at the joke (on him) 2013-10-30 – 9:49 pm

    Agreed. Many of us, you and I in particular have given SEO’s theories a fair hearing for example and they have failed under scrutiny.

    “Failed under scrutiny”?!!! El-Oh-El. What SCRUTINY?

    Does Mr. Ruff’s failure to buy, beg, borrow, or steal Dr. Wood’s textbook fall into his definition of “a fair hearing”? Or how about jejune Mr. Rogue’s failure to read the same when plopped into his lap and his willful & violent destruction of the same? Or how about the link to the group effort to page-by-page, image-by-image debunk Dr. Wood’s website? It isn’t even as if low-hanging fruit ripe for debunking doesn’t exist there, because it does! It is the fact that Mr. Ruff’s “fair hearing” doesn’t even go there to ACKNOWLEDGE buried nuggets of truth that any 9/11 theory-du-jour has to address.

    As is his character, Mr. Ruff boasts:

    We need to hold their feet to the fire and insist that they counter our arguments that were already made EFFECTIVELY before we entertain further discussion.

    I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Ruff. His hit-and-run “no radiation = no nukes” “argument” was countered. Walk his talk he should. His feet are in the fire. “Where is the report that tabulates the timely & thorough measurements of radiation at the WTC — all measurements at zero or background levels — and conclusively says there was no radiation?”

    Mr. Ruff confuses me with Mr. Rogue and himself in the following:

    Simply waiving hands in the air and saying an argument is no good is NOT a valid debate response. SEO loves to do this and trolls use it as a favorite tactic.

    Links provided upon request that substantiate Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff doing this. Actually, their recent postings here are great examples.

    Mr. Ruff needs to walk this talk, too:

    They ignore our arguments as though they don’t exist and then pretend they are having a legitimate discussion. IT ISN’T A LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION. In fact in a real debate failure to rebut or respond effectively to your opponents point means you lose that point and perhaps lose the entire debate if the point is important enough.

    Mr. Ruff thought he was talking about me, but he was wrong. How many times has he and Mr. Rogue complained about the length of my postings? The reason my postings seem so long is that I am most assuredly ~NOT~ ignoring their arguments. In fact, I quote their arguments verbatium so that they can be deconstructed and addressed point-by-point.

    Epic FAIL, Mr. Ruff.

    Here’s a clever little dity from Mr. Ruff:

    Furthermore the repeated bogus points if not countered each and evey time stand a chance of derailing a thriving discussion. This tactic is totally dishonest and dispicable of course but I think it goes hand in hand with trolls and operatives alike. I would like to think about this problem as a group and see if we can come up with an effective counter to it without becoming censors.

    My comment did not derail the Pentagon discussion, and Mr. Ruff’s insinuation that I did is just “totally dishonest and dispicable” — as is becoming par for his course. However in terms of derailment, Mr. Ruff’s and Mr. Rogue’s reaction did, particularly the request for the group to go off into the weeds further by “coming up with an effective counter.”

    I’ll tell you what your two options are in this regard, Mr. Ruff.

    (1) Most effective: just ignore me because you don’t have the chops to take me on; don’t engage me; let me dribble my lather like a panting dog and I’ll be gone but lurking after my advertisement.

    (2) You come to the debate prepared; you do your homework; you acquire my playbooks (e.g., Dr. Wood’s website, anonymous physicist); you recognize that debunking a point or two [or entire chapters] doesn’t take the entirety of THE EVIDENCE presented in the work out of play. And if you are indeed walking your talk, you will ACKNOWLEDGE the items that under other 9/11 theories lack reasonable (or logistically feesible) explanations.

    If indeed you’ve debunked X, you provide links in #2 and quick as that, it is done.

    Fair warning: if the links you provide do not debunk X and in fact pre-date X and X actually debunks them, you lose. For example, in making my neutron nuclear DEW argument, I’ve addressed the errors and omissions in Dr. Jones’ no-nuke work ~and~ the faulty studies that his work is based on. Thus, puking up his old papers won’t cut it. Another example is relying on Dr. Jenkins 2007 work to debunk not just a portion but the entirety of Dr. Wood’s 2010 work (and all EVIDENCE contained therein) won’t cut it either.

    Mr. Rogue writes (2013-10-30 – 11:28 pm):

    It has gone so far beyond the the original issue of his hypothesis and morphed into fanatic sniping.

    Here’s a great example that Mr. Rogue still maintains: Carnival d’Maxifuckanus. I’d offer up other examples from COTO, but Mr. Rogue has so pissed them off that he is |<– this far –>| from being banned. [El-oh-el.]

    What I don’t want to deal with anymore is this disparagement of our character.

    I understand. And if Mr. Rogue wouldn’t keep putting up fresh instances that illustrate the baser, immoral, unethical nature of his character, it wouldn’t be an issue.

    There is no sane basis for these outrageous allegations to continue.

    Au contraire! First of all, nice hypnotic suggestion about the allegations allegedly being outrageous. Still, the allegations are substantiated. Secondly, it isn’t as if old allegations are dug up Willy-nilly. New fodder gives continued life to those old allegeations of poor ethics. Thirdly, in this court of public opinion just like in a court of law, it is sane and reasonable to point out deceit and disingenuous tactics. It is sane and reasonable to point out a continued pattern of such, so that new verbiage from the “tainted source” can be given proper “distrust but verify” weighting.

    Mr. Rogue wrote:

    You [Mr. Ruff] were merely speaking to what you see as proper debate, and it had nothing to do with him [SEO]. Yet he had to jump you one more time. I don’t know how long this bullshit has gone on but it has to stop. Now.

    Au contraire! If Mr. Ruff is going to speak up to what he sees as proper debate, then I am going to hold his feet to the fire to walk the talk.

    Shall we count the number of postings I made to Mr. Ruff? One. Yet how many times have you “jumped on me” (and on your blog) since then? Twasn’t nothing and twasn’t once; twas more than that. Who could have stopped it himself by just STFU?

    Rob Balsamo writes (2013-10-31 – 12:08 am):

    Hey Willy… who made you King of the debate? … I am a bit tired of your arrogant attitude and dictating to others who are respected.

    Indeed. [Of course, I don’t completely count myself into the group of others whom Mr. Balsamo respects, because I still champion nuclear 9/11 and am courageous enough to reach into the disinfo vehicles of Dr. Wood and others for nuggets of truth to bolster my case.]

    Then it is Mr. Ruff who comes to the defense of Mr. Rogue 2013-10-31 – 4:27 am:

    Rob I don’t know if you are aware that the comment you quoted from Willy was directed to me and was about Senior El Once (SEO). SEO has been a weird stalker/troll towards Willy for a long long time and nowadays has been stalking me whenever I post something here.

    The first sentence is probably true, and Mr. Balsamo probably isn’t aware. The second sentence, however, is false on many levels.

    T&S is my home court, and my tenure exceeds that Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff. From my perspective, it is Mr. Rogue who stalked me and my hobby-horse topics here. From my perspective, Mr. Ruff entrance here is akin to being the Gilligan to Mr. Rogue’s Skipper.

    Both Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff are both partial to book reviews without having or, more importantly, reading the book. Regardless of the negative spin that Mr. Rogue puts on it, he INVITED me to his (now former) home court both in the links he proudly posted here and in the negative language of his comments there that called me out by name. [El-oh-el! Mr. Rogue got pawned bad on his (former) home court, although his was the hand that did it and turned even his mates against him.]

    Sure, I am now one of the few proud subscribers to the half-&-half worthy/bullshit that Mr. Rogue now offers up on his (lame) blog. But no one here would know that even were they to go there, because Mr. Rogue DEMONSTRATES that he can’t handle reasoned, reasonable, rational debate by NOT approving any of my comments. His latest comment was a re-hash, actually reflects badly on him, and happened just this morning. Don’t forget to study his wonderful homage to me, Carnival d’Maxifuckanus. Alas, I failed to follow him to Willy Loman despite Mr. Rogue’s “Veritable1” sock-puppet extending the invitation.

    So, who is stalking whom?

    As for Mr. Ruff? He’s a big blowhard with a high school diploma who wants to set standards for debate that I support but that he has no historic track record for following himself. I call that hypocritical.

    Not just that, I am calling out Mr. Ruff. If he wants to poo-poo my nuclear 9/11 theories [“No Radiation = No Nukes”], I want him to step up to the F-ing plate and defend them to the standards that he himself proposes (either on a new relevant thread here or on my article.) I want him to convince me with evidence and rational argument, because I am F-ing tired of being the sole duped useful idiot on the topic. (I can be convinced. Gee, I no longer champion NPT, pods-on-plane, big nukes, Woodsian DEW, super-dooper nano-thermite, …)

    And if he doesn’t or can’t come to the F-ing plate, then he should (a) STFU and (b) be open-minded enough to give me a fair shot at convincing him.



  50. Mr. Dennis writes:

    i am not up on the nukes thing but…

    Until I can merge the two along with salient points from their comments, here’s a couple of articles I wrote that can assist you understanding 9/11 nukes.

    You’ll note that Mr. Rogue played a prominent role in the discussions. You’ll also note in the comments to the second one that Mr. Adam Ruff does a hit-and-run [August 9, 2013].

    Mr. Dennis continues:

    [I] had read somewhere (sorry, no cite available, so cannot attest to credibility) that radiation levels of some elements around wtc immediately after 9/11 were spiked, thereby indicating that nukes were used.

    This is actually the heart of the contention of Mr. Ruff’s hit-and-run. He claims there was no radiation at the WTC. The truth of the matter is that there were no released reports on lingering (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation showing them to be approximately at or below expected trace background levels. Without a thorough and systematic measuring and reporting of radiation, the best we can do is put this radiation question up on the fence in the hopes that the proponderance of other evidence will tip it one way or another. [Tritium, energy requirements for pulverization, decibel signatures, 1st responder health, vehicle damage, Prager analysis of the USGS dust, etc.]

    Be that as it may, witty Mr. Ruff wrote [2013-11-01 – 8:27 pm]:

    The record shows that SEO was the first one to attempt to derail this topic by posting a totally off topic rant about my comment that had nothing to do with him/her/it. Since that post SEO has been trying his/her/it’s best to drag this thread down into the muck of 9/11 nukes…

    The record shows this particular “he/she/it” relating “his/her/its” posting to the theme at hand, which was Mr. Ruff’s rules for debate. “He/She/It” had hoped that when Mr. Ruff’s previous actions were held up to his own standard, Mr. Ruff would rise up to rectify being so hypocritical on several matters. “He/She/It” called out Mr. Ruff for his hit-and-run [August 9, 2013] in the hopes that Mr. Ruff would follow “his/her/its” link and finish what Mr. Ruff started PRECISELY so that it would not derail the discussion here on T&S.

    Mr. Ruff has never substantiated this parenthical side-swipe:

    [9/11 nukes] (a totally discredited and thoroughly debunked theory…)

    In proving that I do not ignore Mr. Ruff’s words, he continued in the same parenthical thought:

    [9/11 nukes] which has NOTHING to do with the Barbara Honegger show article this thread is about.

    The sub-topic of the discussion was one that Mr. Ruff brought up, referring to rules of debate.

    Paraphrasing Mr. Ruff, “My question is why is [Mr. Ruff] unable to maintain focus on [and understand] the topic and stick to it [e.g., rules of debate, hit-and-run August 9, 2013]?”

    Then in proving that his high school diploma in debate was not wasted, Mr. Ruff then exhibits:

    I think it is because he/she/it has other motives and/or is bat shit crazy. Personally I lean towards bat shit crazy.

    Instead of “and/or”, let’s go with “and”.

    For once, Mr. Ruff and I are in complete agreement! No contention whatsoever.

    “He/She/It” most certainly has other motives: TRUTH. Nuggets of TRUTH belong with the TRUTH. Nuggets are championed, even when hosted within disinformation vehicles.

    Anyone else know of nukes that explode and leave behind no radiation?

    Nope. But I do know of nuclear weapons that explode and leave only short-lived and not lingering radiation levels.

    At this point, dear readers, Mr. Ruff’s hands are on the prybar of this discussion’s derailment, which that strawman “no radiation” exhibits quite well. Mr. Ruff’s reputation doesn’t fair better were lurker readers to follow the hit-and-run link [August 9, 2013], because the same response in more words is essentially given. Mr. Ruff should know this, because he was given a link to it, too. The issue there is that Mr. Ruff on more than one occassion has admitted to purposely not reading and skipping postings from me (even when addressed to him), such an open-mind has he. Worse, if he doesn’t know what his debate opponent is saying, it kind of shoots a hole in his objectivity as well as his debating skills.

    Some new technology perhaps?

    No, neutron nuclear devices have been available for quite some time. What is new is shifting application goals and therefore implementation details. Read my articles.

    When someone makes me aware of such a device I will address SEO’s nuke theory again…

    Hello, Mr. Ruff? If you can be bothered to read, here’s your awareness warning of such a device:

    A promise is a promise, Mr. Ruff. I’m going to hold you to it.

    … but until that time as far as I am concerned his/her/it’s theory has been decisively debunked and he/she/it is simply too mentally ill with OCD or something to drop it and admit the theory belongs in the garbage.

    Providing links, understanding, and fresh words to substantiate Mr. Ruff’s most hand-wavey claim that “his/her/its theory has been decisevely debunked” would be helpful to readers. Otherwise, I suspect that Mr. Ruff’s very own rules for debate would end up hoisting him onto his own petards.

    No radiation = NO NUKES! Get it through your thick skull SEO and quit derailing threads jerk.

    No lingering radiation <> NO NUKES! Get it through your thick skull Mr. Ruff and quit derailing threads jerk. Go out to your hit-and-run and attempt your weak arguments there.

    P.S. To Mr. Dennis’s other points about “what should be done?” Very important and something I don’t have the answer to. I figure that I’m still in the mode of getting the extent of the message to the masses so that they will become more observant and recognize when the same games are played against us. I’m hoping that one of those newly awakened mass will have the answers.


  51. I have one comment, it is to point out that, yours Señor, is Argumentum Verbosium – and it seems to work for you in some instances.

    You lob such a complex and convoluted mix all together in one blast that it is exhausting to go through a complex rebuttal. As I personally don’ give a shit what you think about these things anymore I have no intention of dealing with it.

    If others wish to buy into this mixmaster razzmatazz that is their business.


    • Jejune Mr. Rogue has difficulties when discussions get “complex”, it seems. I underestimate his advanced age if “it is exhausting to go through a complex rebuttal.”

      Mr. Rogue is of the mistaken impression that a single big message is worse to deal with than n smaller postings of equivalent content. Actually one big message is better, because it doesn’t create n forks in the discussion that then become a different form of Argumentum Verbosium, forum-flooding, and distracting shot-gun tactics. A single big message is authored, edited, and refined, necessitating more contemplative thought and more time in both its composition and any rebuttal. It isn’t shoot from the hip to get the last tweet in before the others do, which is Mr. Rogue’s claim to retirement fame.

      If he personally didn’t give a shit what I think, why did he hypocritically post here? He has proven himself intellectually incapable of acknowledging nuggets of truth at even the lowest levels of “convolution in the mixture.” Shot his objectivity all to hell, as well as his honesty in the recent past, shuffling all his postings into the bin “Distrust but VERIFY”.


  52. {This was originally posted on the WillyLomain site: Señor El Once, on 2013-11-05 at 8:05 pm. I thought it made a pretty good summary. Within the hour it netted the first witty knee-jerk response from Mr. Rogue and then the second 15 minutes after that.}

    My hobby-horse is “neutron nuclear DEW.” But if this discussion on controlled demolition (CD) with chemical explosives shoots out my hobby-horse from underneath me, I’ll be happy to be set straight. However, the linked articles below together with their discussions document pretty clearly what has led me to my conclusions.

    [Disclaimer: I’m here because Mr. Rogue posted the links. Mr. Rogue plays a prominent role in those comments, and takes a thrashing. He hates everything about me, but I thank Mr. Rogue for helping me hone my case, nonetheless.]

    The CD discussions in this thread lament the lack of testing to definitively prove what explosive compounds were involved. Certainly, discovering traces of X [some explosive compound] would be damning. Rather dubious of Mr. Roberts and Dr. Jones to ~not~ want testing on their dust samples well after the fact, due to imagined negative PR that OCT apologists would stir up if the sell-by date expired and nothing was detected. Seems to me the world would want to know even at a late testing date. Even measuring vastly degraded amounts would be damning.

    However, I speculate that they didn’t want such testing performed (or published), because they knew that ~no~ traces of X would be found. This is even more damning, despite the imagined circus of OCT apologists trying to explain it away as “gravity driven pile drivers.” How so? Any rudimentary understanding of physics makes clear that energy had to be inserted into observed destruction. Zero results for X means that the 9/11TM has to keep looking for the true source of the CD.

    Mr. Rogue likes to echo the statement “no radiation = no nukes” to try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own. Readers can follow the links to see why this premise is malframed, so I won’t belabor it here.

    The “no radiation” (at the WTC) premise suffers from the same “lack of testing”, or more correctly, “lack of reporting.” Where’s the report that documents the systematic and comprehensive measurement of (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation levels to definitively prove them “at or below background trace levels”? If it exists, it hasn’t been made public.

    I speculate that they couldn’t juke the data in a believable fashion, so they punted to the tritium report where they had more freedom to play games. For example, they limited the scope of the report to finding plausible sources for the tritium that could possibly have come from building content (including airplane exit signs) and thereby ruled out considering tritium coming from a nuclear CD mechanism. They alter the implied definition of “trace or background levels” to be, in cases, 55 times greater than previous values. They stopped taking samples under the premise that their measurements were indicating levels well below EPA thresholds regarding what constitutes a health risk (despite being much greater than expected.) When their speculation into airplane exit signs fails, their stilted report ventures into weapons sites, neglecting to mention how many weapons were in the WTC complex, where they were, how many were recovered in tact after wards, and how these could possibly account for the tritium in the run-off from the WTC at the few places they measured, etc. The tritium report succeeds in accomplishing its limited scope, but that doesn’t mean it is the full story on tritium at the WTC.

    A side-swipe of Dr. Jones already appears above. The same Dr. Jones re-uses this scope-limited report as by-near his sole authority on tritium and skews it further. He frames the discussion as large nukes, rather than tactical ones. He only discusses fission and fusion devices and what their telltale signs would be in terms of lingering radiation. He omits mentioning neutron devices of any kind.

    When your validation efforts research neutron devices, do not get hooked into the PR rut that speculated how neutron devices would be deployed in the battlefield, had design goals to maximize damage to life forms (via neutron radiation), and assumed all nuclear energy and yields would be used efficiently to their maximum potential. No! As you research, you need to be thinking of goals and deployment that don’t want to maximize damage to life forms and are willing to throw away the lion’s share of the yields.

    Small tactical fission/fusion nuclear weapons are a challenge to design and deploy. Too much energy and explosive yield, in addition to copious amounts of lingering radiation. And they really can’t be used in tandem, due to inter-device fracticide.

    What makes neutron devices special? Neutron nuclear devices are fusion devices that allow the neutrons to escape rather than containing them, as fusion devices do, to generate greater and greater chain reactions and large explosive yields. Because the highly energetic neutrons are allowed to escape, all other typical yields (blast wave, heat wave, EMP, lingering alpha/beta/gamma radiation) are significantly reduced. Moreover, the neutrons can be aimed (somewhat). Think: “aimed out of the way (or up).” This helps in two ways: (1) It means the ejected neutrons upwards aren’t going to fracticide tandem nuclear devices that might be close by. (2) Aimed (upward) neutrons aren’t going to cause collateral damage to life forms relatively close by.

    There is much more to the 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW hypothesis at the provide links, including USGS dust samples that show correlation in various elements sample-to-sample, a correlation that can only indicate (1) involvement in the destruction [as opposed to inherent in the materials] and (2) nuclear fission (e.g., fission-triggered-fusion of the neutron device).

    Dr. Wood’s DEW theories are disinformation! But Dr. Wood’s presented evidence is ~not~, and it is the evidence that she wants people to study, her way of sneaking one by her disinfo handlers. The Anonymous Physicists used to complain that Dr. Wood’s disinfo purpose was to collect all evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camp it under a kookie umbrella so it could be dismissed in one fell swoop. Dr. Wood was prevented from exploring too deeply (or correctly) into nuclear sources. But from the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the parking lot (and not trees, leaves, flags, humans) to the dirt being carted in, spread out, re-collected, and hauled out, nuclear methods are suggested.

    To the degree that enhanced radiation weapons (ERW — neutron devices) can direct their energy, then Dr. Wood’s DEW (directed energy weapon) isn’t that far off. The disinfo is in thinking the directed energy (neutrons) is to destroy, rather than to target out of the way and tactically reduce (and direct) other yields of the nuclear neutron device.

    One final thought. Mr. WillyLoman writes:

    PETN also burns hotter than most of the others and judging from the amount of melting and vaporization of various metals and other materials, it seems to me PETN is the most likely H.E. used. … I believe they made a mistake and used too much det cord resulting in the build up of WAY too much heat as a result. That heat created evidence that can be used to expose what they did.

    I don’t discount that various combinations of PETN and super-duper nano-thermite were deployed. They would have had back-up plans to their back-up plans. They could have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at it. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me if their internal debates couldn’t come to some concensus on what single method should do the deeds, so part of the operation might have used technique A while another part used technique B. The leveling of WTC-4 at a line with the North Wing, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the massive crater in WTC-6 have gotten so little study by the 9/11TM, it wouldn’t surprise me if maybe DEW-from-space was involved (I am on the fence and open to be duped either way.)

    However, the “WAY too much heat” that Mr. WillyLoman speaks of can be attributed to nuclear devices as well.

    More importantly, it wasn’t the heat per se that exposes the primary mechanisms of what they did, but the duration (& heat) of under-rubble hot-spots.

    Do the math from high school chemistry. What is the burn rate of PETN (in any combination with other things including super-duper nano-thermite)? How much would be needed and in what configuration to account for a duration of several weeks? As but one configuration example, think of an imaginary garden hose packed with X and ignore for the moment its diameter: how long would it have to be to support a single hot-spot of four weeks? (There was more than one hot-spot, and some burned longer than four weeks.) The answer is many hundreds of THOUSANDS of miles long. Not very Occam Razor, if you ask me, and this quantity represents the unspent and left-over amount from its initial purpose of pulverizing the towers. Even less Occam Razor and logistically illogical and unreasonable.


    • Within the hour of my 2013-11-05 at 8:05 pm posting on WillyLoman, Mr. Rogue published his first witty knee-jerk response, and the second 15 minutes after that. They appear below in their entirety each followed by my comments.

      hybridrogue1, on 2013-11-05 at 9:04 pm

      “Mr. Rogue likes to echo the statement “no radiation = no nukes” to try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own. Readers can follow the links to see why this premise is malframed, so I won’t belabor it here.”~Señor El Once

      Not so Señor, I make that statement {not echo it} because it is true.

      The fact is that I have taken the nukes at WTC story apart point by point, and in the end, Mr Ruff’s assertion that “No radiation = No nukes” does indeed turn out to be the bottom line.

      But Mr Ruff is more reliant on my studies which come to that conclusion…


      Mr. Rogue did not follow the links to the location where the malframing of the “no radiation = no nukes” premise is addressed.

      Mr. Rogue did not and has not offered a report on alpha, beta, gamma radiation as proof of “no radiation.” [In fairness twelve years after-the-fact, it isn’t as if we’d trust such a report if it popped into the public sphere tomorrow. The best that Mr. Rogue’s case can hope for is that the question on 9/11 radiation is taken out of the picture and labeled “inconclusive,” whereby the issue of a nuclear 9/11 is determined by other evidence.]

      Mr. Rogue ignores the malframing, which is essentially that “no radiation” needs to be qualified with a time stamp of its measurement. Any delay >48 or 72 hours in measuring the radiation (which is the earliest that tritium was measured as I recall) could easily give an indication of “remarkably low-levels of radiation”, which would be expected from neutron devices that boast of non-lingering and quickly dissipating (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation.

      Moreover, if we want to get technical, tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. So by its very definition and its anomalous occurence on 9/11, the “no radiation” argument without qualifiers is thus debunked.

      Mr. Rogue boasts: “The fact is that I have taken the nukes at WTC story apart point by point.” Certainly Mr. Rogue has attempted this at times, and failed. Mr. Rogue offers up links to “two of his studies”. The first one, “DISINFORMATION: DEW-NUKE”, does not even mention “neutron” let alone “neutron nuclear DEW.” So much for that one being taken apart point by point.

      The second “study,” “Carnival d’Maxifuckanus”? Well, the title alone is a pretty good indication of the intellectual level of this endeavor. Whenever “neutron” is mentioned, it is in quoted passages from me, never in anything Mr. Rogue writes, so it isn’t as if it is being addressed to be “taken apart point by point.”

      On Mr. Rogue’s blog, readers won’t find any actual postings from me, like this rebuttal on 2013-09-01.

      Mr. veritytwo on
      October 31, 2013 at 10:08 pm:

      Be interesting to see if Maximustwatus [SEO] would come over here [to Mr. Rogue’s blog].

      Mr. hybridrogue1 on October 31, 2013 at 11:28 pm :

      Actually Veri, Maxitwat [SEO] has posted several comments that have not been and will not be approved.

      Even ignoring that VerityTwo is probably Mr. Rogue’s sockpuppet, the above remains a good indication of Mr. Rogue’s fairness and objectivity, and a weak position that cannot abide counter-arguments.

      hybridrogue1, on 2013-11-05 at 9:19 pm:

      Who would try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own?

      It is in the realm of an objective thinker to think for themselves. I would never presume to try, or even want to try to dissuade anyone from their own research, but rather always encourage such.

      Welcome Scott, to the woowoo world of Señor El Once.

      I brought you to the attention of the site on the matter of the Pentagon. But I should have anticipated this action from the nookiedoodoo man.

      My sincerest condolences.


      Does the second knee-jerk posting add anything of substance to the discussion? The question was asked: Who would try to stop objective thinkers from researching this on their own? The answer may be the same person who offers up such witty, dissuasive, hypnotic suggestions:

      “woowoo world of Señor El Once”
      “the nookiedoodoo man”

      Mr. Veritable1 wrote to Mr. Rogue on October 9, 2013 at 12:16 am:

      Hope [SEO] follows you over to willylomans. This asshole will get ripped to shreds there.

      Regardless of Mr. Veritable1’s sockpuppet status, he makes such an inviting invitation. Curious as to how Mr. Rogue did ~not~ anticipate my arrival at WillyLomans given their exchange close to a month ago.

      New Living Translation of Luke 16:10

      “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.”


  53. Tritium by its very definition is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Its very existence at the WTC — albeit measured haphazardly and for scope-limited purposes — shoots a big-ass hole in the unqualified contention of “no radiation” at the WTC.

    Although I have been championing the premise that such neutron devices do not result in large, long-lasting or l.i.n.g.e.r.i.n.g levels of alpha, beta, or gamma radiation, I could be wrong. I’m learning that likely the levels of such radiation might have been larger than I’ve been promoting, but due to how they were created (by neutrons escaping the reaction and not by a massive reaction), short-lived radiation probably remains true. This was, after all, one of the benefits of neutron devices.

    While dispensing the advice “Know your enemy”, a saying derived from Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” to a participant on Truth & Shadows [2013-11-08] who has several times thrown down the meme “No Radiation = No Nukes”, I was inspired to research the reports that he might dig up to substantiate his views. If that foundation can be legitimately cracked point by point, that constitutes possibly new information that might allow agreement.

    But first, let’s play a game. The bolded phrase will be a 9/11 report, and the italicized paragraph will known issues with that report. Play along, and in your mind (or with a comment) add reports/issues not already mentioned.

    9/11 Commission Report: Didn’t mention WTC-7. Saudi Arabia redacted from report. Two of those on the Commission have since said it wasn’t the full and complete accounting of 9/11.

    NIST Report on WTC-1/2: Assumed the aircraft impacts with jet fuel fires was the reason for the sudden transition into their destruction. Did not contemplate other mechanisms of destruction. Was scope-limited to possible causes for the “initiation” of the collapse. It did not mention any of the anomalies present in the destruction process.

    NIST Report on WTC-7: The DRAFT version did not note the observable free-fall. The FINAL version broke the observable portion of the collapse into three stages, acknowledged that stage 2 happened at a rate indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration (e.g., free-fall), but then in its conclusion it averaged together the three stages so that it could state truthfully that combined stages fell at speeds slower than free-fall. The computer model was never made public, and its simulation — besides over-driving parameters — did not resemble what was observed.

    Tritium Report: Was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. Re-defined “trace or background levels” in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.

    The above represent data points in the trend line of “politics outweighing science” in terms of how government reports were manipulated. Government reports related to 9/11 cannot be trusted at face value.

    Now let’s consider the Paul Lioy characterization of the Dust/Smoke, because it delivers the no radiation premise. Among its flaws:

    Limited its analysis to three (3) “representative” dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets.

    Samples were only collected at “weather-protected” locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.

    Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.

    Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). It ignores then and doesn’t explain their presence.

    Jeff Prager reviewed the data from the (many more) dust samples collected by the USGS in his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]
    . Those samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. For a point of reference, here are some items from Prager’s findings.

    Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities.

    Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.

    Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.

    Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.

    Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.

    Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.

    The Lioy report states:

    We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

    Were any games played in the form of re-defining “background levels” as was done in the Tritium Report? Neither the actual measurement nor what technical definition of “background level” were provided in the report. Given Jeff Prager’s work and the trend lines in many other government reports, rational thinkers have no basis for trusting this report.

    The proponerance of other evidence, such as that collected in Dr. Wood’s work or 1st Responder Health, ought to hold sway.


  54. “Were any games played in the form of re-defining “background levels” as was done in the Tritium Report?”

    Maybe, maybe not. It is up to supposition isn’t it…yes it is.
    Just like your entire proposal – pure speculation.

    There is ONE THING and one thing only that is NOT speculation; that is the nanothermetic product found in the dust by Jones-Harrit.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: