And then there was one: Supreme Court is the last hope for 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani


An 11-year fight for truth: Ellen Mariani and her husband, Neil.

By Craig McKee

They set it up perfectly.

A government “compensation fund” would pay off most families of 9/11 victims, preventing them from ever suing anyone for what happened to their loved ones.

And those who didn’t take the money would be pressured into accepting out-of-court settlements. Everyone would be kept quiet with gag orders and non-disclosure clauses, and the truth about 9/11 would never come out in a courtroom. Brilliant.

And it worked perfectly – except for Ellen Mariani.

The widow of Louis Neil Mariani, a passenger on Flight 175, which is alleged to have flown into the south tower of the World Trade Center, has been fighting to get to the truth about what happened to her husband that day.

Most have taken the money and gone away. Mariani is the last family member still fighting a wrongful death suit for losing a loved one on 9/11. Others, such as the family of 9/11 victim Mark Bavis, also fought for years before finally agreeing to settle. Here’s a statement from the family.

“It’s very hard to find justice in a corrupt legal system,” said Vincent Gillespie, secretary treasurer of the Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund, in an interview. “I feel a sense of obligation to help the country by talking about this stuff.”

Even with the enormous obstacles put in her way by dishonest lawyers, biased judges, and a generally corrupt legal system, Mariani remains determined to take her fight for justice as far as it can go. And that means to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Monday, she got some good news when her lawyer, Bruce Leichty, was granted an extension to file a request for an appeal with the Supreme Court. The deadline had been Sept. 23, but not enough funds had been raised by that point to proceed. With the extension, the defense fund now has until Nov. 1 to raise $11,000 to meet a new filing deadline of Nov. 23.

The odds have been stacked against Mariani since she first filed her wrongful death suit in December 2001 – she was actually the first family member to do so. Around that time the government created the Victim Compensation Fund, which was administered by Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, who has run a number of high-profile compensation funds, including the one to compensate victims of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Feinberg was given total discretion to award what he thought was appropriate in each case, taking into account the future earning potential of the person who had been killed. The final result was that $7 billion was paid out, with all but 94 families signing on.

An act of Congress transferred all 9/11 wrongful death suits to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. He has presided over almost all the 9/11 court cases. Hellerstein has been strongly criticized by Mariani and by the Bavis family in their statement above.

Originally, Mariani was administrator of her husband’s estate and therefore had standing to sue. She was pushed out of that role by her husband’s daughter, Lauren Peters in 2004. On the advice of her own attorney, Paul McEachern, Mariani didn’t fight this, a decision she would later regret.

The loss of control over her husband’s estate led to her initial suit being settled over her objections by the new administrator, lawyer John Ransmeier.

“It was Ransmeier who killed her case,” Gillespie says.

Mariani has been fighting to regain standing in the case since she first learned of a possible settlement. The settlement, she contends, didn’t adequately compensate for her losses nor did it give her any additional information about what led to her husband’s death. She hopes the Supreme Court will revive the suit and give her standing once again.

Besides wanting the truth to be revealed in court, Mariani wants the Supreme Court to uphold her standing to challenge the settlement that was negotiated against her wishes.

It has come to light that while Ransmeier was representing Neil Mariani’s estate in a suit against United Airlines, his law firm was also representing United in other cases. Mariani’s claims of conflict of interest have been ignored by the court.

Thanks to a gag order imposed on Mariani and her lawyer by the New Hampshire probate court, she can’t talk about the case publicly. The 9/11 family members who accepted settlements also had to sign non-disclosure clauses, which have the same effect as gag orders.

Hellerstein has been a controversial figure throughout. Mariani alleges he has done everything possible to keep any 9/11 lawsuits out of court. She has filed motions that contend that Hellerstein is in a conflict of interest position because his son, Joseph Hellerstein, works for an Israeli law firm that has connections ICTS International N.V., the parent company of Huntleigh USA, a firm that was involved with security at Logan Airport. Both Huntleigh and ICTS were defendants in Mariani’s suit. (For more detail on Mariani’s contentions about Hellerstein’s connections, see this court filing. Quite a number of court filings are archived on the web site marianilawsuit.com.

It’s a mess but not a surprise. This is, after all, the same legal system that allowed George W. Bush’s cousin to preside over an appeal by April Gallop in her suit against Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (former defense minister), and Richard Myers (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

It is clear that the “legal system” is not at all concerned about truth or justice but only in hushing up the whole subject of 9/11 liability, not to mention keeping government lies from being exposed publicly.

Mariani was also talked into filing a RICO suit (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) in late 2003 against George W. Bush and other high government officials. The suit was quickly dismissed, and Mariani would later admit it had been a mistake to file it.

So the fight over the past few years has been to regain standing in the lawsuit and to have the estate pursue the wrongful death claim. She is also asking for compensation for her loss. Mariani is collecting Social Security and barely getting by while she pursues this.

“She’s the last one, and she’s hanging on by a thread,” Gillespie says.

The government and the courts have done everything in their power to ensure that no 9/11 lawsuit for wrongful death ever gets into a courtroom. Ironically, the lawsuit of Larry Silverstein’s World Trade Center Properties against both United and American Airlines, filed in 2008, will go to trial, according to the judge in that case. His name is, uh, Alvin Hellerstein. Hmm.

In that case, Silverstein, who took over as leaseholder of the World Trade Center just six weeks before 9/11, contends that negligence on the part of United Airlines and American Airlines allowed the “terrorist attacks” to take place. Silverstein has already collected billions from his insurance company.

It seems that if you’re Larry Silverstein, you can find yourself on the judge’s good side and get your day in court. It does seem hard to believe that this case will ever go to trial. If it does, we know that neither side will be looking to upset the government’s official story of 9/11.

Journalist Christopher Bollyn has followed Mariani’s story very closely over the years, so anyone interested in learning more about this legal saga will find lots of good information on his web site, including his most recent update on her case.

On marianilawsuit.com, you can read numerous court filings in the case that help to explain the details of this incredibly complicated case.

Time is short for Ellen Mariani’s last chance to get 9/11 into a courtroom. She needs $11,000 by Nov. 1. Let’s see if we can help her get there.

If you’d like to help her by donating to her defense fund, go to marianilawsuit.com (to donate by PayPal, credit or debit card). You can also make a check payable to: Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund.”

 Checks can be sent to:

Ellen Mariani Legal Defense Fund

P. O. Box 1284

Greenfield, Mass.  01302

106 comments

  1. A very inspirational story of steadfast courage in the face of such criminal injustice.

    “It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills. It is better to be hated for telling the truth, than to be loved for telling a lie. It’s better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude. It is better to ultimately succeed with the truth than to temporarily succeed with a lie.” – Adrian Rogers (cited in The Berean Call, December 1996)

  2. It’s the old story of the Fox judiciary conducting the investigation into the raid on the henhouse. It’s enough to make anyone who once thought the idea of equality before the law was one of the most beautiful concepts ever produced by human society downright cynical.

    We all watched the system at work in Marcus Welby, Ironside, The Advocates, 12 Angry Men, etc. and thought “how noble, and good to fight for the downtrodden and see the right prevail”.

    Riiiight……

  3. There was a lead I tried to pursue, several years back in 2007. In October of that year, a reviewer on Amazon gave David Ray Griffin’s “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” a five-star review. In this review, Allen Rosenzweig said the following:

    “I have been studying 9/11 data since the day it occurred due to the loss of my brother who was a passenger on AA FLT 11. I truly believe 9/11 was an inside job and since I didn’t receive any money to keep my mouth shut like my brother’s wife did, I have no agenda except to receive the truth. I believe the evidence shows we Americans were lied to by an extremely corrupt government. I hope one day, ALL of the players responsible for this will be punished.”

    This was the first I had heard of this man; I did a google on “Rosenzweig flight 11″ and there was indeed a Philip Rosenzweig who died on AA 11. Does anyone in the movement know Allen, or know how we can reach him? I’ve tried inviting him to be my Amazon friend but no response yet.

    His review of Griffin’s book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/REKMZLESUBIN5/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=156656686X&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=

    1. ETA: In the 5 years since that review, it appears that the user has changed his moniker from “Allen Rosenzweig” to “Tascam48 “Tascam””. But the review is still the same.

    2. When I wrote that she was the only one still fighting I was referring to the families who sued for wrongful death and were still battling within the legal system. I tweaked the wording to make that more clear. Thanks.

  4. I am dreadfully sorry__yes dreadfully so.

    Yet can there really be surprise that the judicial portion of an utterly corrupt and criminal system would act in an unjust manner?

    No of course not. And obviously nobody is surprised.

    These are indeed times that try men’s souls…

    \\][//

  5. The injustice system in this country is performing it’s true function very well. That function being to protect the powerful at all costs and too help supress the masses. The legal system is just one more piece in the big puzzle picture that makes up the new world order and they fit hand and glove with the other pieces.

    I recommend all family members do as Sibel Edmonds did and break their gag orders! Spend the money first though so they can’t take it back. I honestly would not respect a gag order under any circumstances, it just rubs me the wrong way. Gag orders are dishonest at best and constitute criminal coverups at worst. In the case of 9/11 the gag orders are the “worst” variety. Hellerstein is probably connected so intimately with so many people involved in 9/11 that if you knew all of those connections you would be standing up in court like Al Pacino in “And Justice For All” and yelling “YOUR OUT OF ORDER! THIS WHOLE DAMN COURT IS OUT OF ORDER!”.

    Everyone who has ever agreed to a gag order should seriously consider breaking it. Enough is enough, the courts are a travesty and this practice of gagging people needs to be stopped cold in it’s tracks! People….START TALKING!

    1. I don’t think they’ve done any such thing. They probably gave up on the legal route back when NYCCAN was unsuccessful, and focus their energies in simply spreading the truth ripple effect and hoping that the international community and its political leaders start taking a stand, as Italy’s supreme court did recently.

  6. Craig McKee states:

    “Even with the enormous obstacles put in her way by dishonest lawyers, biased judges, and a generally corrupt legal system, Mariani remains determined to take her fight for justice as far as it can go. And that means to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    “It is clear that the “legal system” is not at all concerned about truth or justice but only in hushing up the whole subject of 9/11 liability, not to mention keeping government lies from being exposed publicly.”

    It is interesting that Mr. McKee does not say things like this about the only person to have filed a federal qui tam case about the science fraud on the NIST report’s non-analysis of the demise of the WTC. Instead, Mr. McKee has orchestrated attacks on this person and promoted disinformation about this person. It really makes someone wonder who Mr. McKee works for and what his objective is. Truth is clearly not his objective except to cover it up. Plausible deniability is no excuse for a journalist. Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood and discover the truth.

    1. Mr. Goldstein,

      First of all, I question who you are. I have an Emmanuel Goldstein among my Facebook friends but he’s not you (different birth dates). Your page has very little on it, and your picture looks uncannily like Osama bin Laden. Are you his cousin maybe?
      I’m suspicious of you right off the bat because of your ridiculous statement (at the top of your Facebook page) that “anybody who attacks Judy Wood’s textbook is, in my opinion, a full-fledged disinformation tool.”

      No rational person thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is a disinformation tool. And no rational person would offer up the innuendo that I’m working for the bad guys because I don’t fully endorse Wood.

        1. I won’t even ask how or why you are familiar with how many bathrooms Ellen Mariani has. Do you have any real information to back up your opposition to what she’s doing?

          P.S. Seriously, is your picture for real? Those are at least bin Laden’s eyes, right?

    2. Dear Mr. Goldstein,

      You’ll recall that I am the resident Dr. Wood champion who gave you a couple of left- and back-handed whaps the last time you were here for offering up such a brain-dead and unobjective plugging of Dr. Wood’s work. You do it again.

      I’m not sure who to fault regarding the federal qui tam case of which Dr. Wood was a part. Was it her fault? Her co-claimants? Her lawyers? All of the above? I think all around they did a bad job. It would have been one thing to prove the science fraud of the NIST report, but the vacuum that this left they filled with things that they could not substantiate… on purpose. The lawyer should have known that they had no standing (e.g., from employment, involvement in creation of report) for even bringing their case up, so it was to be expected that it would get thrown out… and with it everything they presented.

      I view the whole matter as a double-jeopardy ploy. By presenting a weak case that was easy to throw out, they prevented others — who might have had standing and better things to fill the created void — from ever making their case in court. Guilt by association, they also got a whole swath of valid evidence labeled essentially as “kooky, nutty, loony” by a court of law.

      You write:

      Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood and discover the truth.

      I amend this to be:

      Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood and discover nuggets of truth.

      Her collection of 9/11 pictorial evidence, as well as the correlation of after-math photos to map locations is most impressive.

      However, her book does have a few errors and omissions, with her tiny brush-off of nuclear suspicions being a glaring one. Her downplaying of hot-spots (and acceptance without challenge of a government report on satellite infrared hot-spots) might even be an example of blatant disinformation. She may bring hurricane Erin to our attention for the wrong reasons and misses the opportunity to expound upon its ramifications: the revealing of active media complicity and of the government’s ability to steer the weather.

      I also have to fault Dr. Wood for a very poor “literature review” in her high-quality scholarly effort. She essentially re-purposed information from her website, much of it stagnant since 2006. She did not take the opportunity in her book to debunk valid criticism of the themes and analysis presented on her web pages (such as Dr. Jenkins). The work of the Anonymous Physicist at the very least would have merited some discussion by the good doctor.

      This being said, nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood fit nicely with Mr. Prager’s tabulation of the bad-ass elements found in correlated quantities in the dust. A “shaped-nuclear charge” is another way of saying “nuclear directed energy weapon.”

      //

      1. “This being said, nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood fit nicely with Mr. Prager’s tabulation of the bad-ass elements found in correlated quantities in the dust. A “shaped-nuclear charge” is another way of saying “nuclear directed energy weapon.”

        Jeeze Señor, you are getting as bad as OBF in slipping this shit in sideways….
        You finally got the nookiedoo ball rolling on the last thread…does it have to be every frikkin one????

        \\][//

      2. Dear Mr. Rogue write to Mr. Goldstein

        Which in actuality brings the question of; who it is Goldstein and Wood really work for. And we could add Morgan Reynolds and Fetzer, who are boosters of this pseudo-scientific fraud that this BOOK is. Enough of your damned sales pitches for this crappy nonsense Goldstein, go fold yourself back into the pages of 1984 where you came from.

        Allow me this opportunity to make hay from a copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook that I purchased for Mr. Rogue — definitely one of my better investements.

        Mr. Rogue, kindly point out the “pseudo-scientific fraud” from Dr. Wood’s textbook. [I do not dispute that some of it might be there.] And while you are there, kindly tell us what nuggets of truth remain, as was the charge accepted by you as a condition of receiving the book.

        Dear Mr. Rogue wrote to me:

        Jeeze Señor, you are getting as bad as OBF in slipping this shit in sideways….
        You finally got the nookiedoo ball rolling on the last thread…does it have to be every frikkin one????

        Unlike the ad hominem that makes up a meaningful percentage of your posting content, my posting was on topic to the theme Mr. Goldstein brought up. Because your short-term memory has you forget the nature of Mr. Goldstein’s previous participation on Truth & Shadows, the “nookiedoo ball rolling” was necessary to re-focus the championing of Dr. Wood’s work to that which are “nuggets of truth” and not the “pseudo-scientific fraud” that his religously zealous promotion of her work would give equal weight to… And that you will quite easily build up a strawman around. Unless I cut you off at the pass.

        “Slipping this shit in sideways?” Oh the wonders of the language used by the practitioners of Public Relations.

        //

      3. A “shaped-nuclear charge” is another way of saying “nuclear directed energy weapon.”~Señor El Slash Slash

        Make that a “nuclear directed energy weapon” sucking on hurricane milk…riiight Mr Majesto?

        What a swirl of disconnected shredbits you call, “theory” and “analysis”..and your “nuggets” of gold leafed turds…

        \\][//

      4. El-Oh-El. To understand Agent Rogue’s ad hominem and skew directed at me, one should understand how Agent Rogue is (figuratively) bleeding from his nose and his lip from his very own copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook that he purposely mashed into his face again and again in lieu of reading it, comprehending it, and preserving the nuggets of truth.

        The “sucking on hurricane milk” is Agent Rogue’s contribution and strawman, his very own “slipping this shit in sideways.”.

        Agent Rogue was played these last three months in an earnest attempt on my part to get objectivity and sincere truth-seeking out of him. Here’s what we can only hope will be the final word: 2012-09-25 on the “Ignorance…” thread.

        He made promise after promise not to expect responses from him, particularly if I addressed him as Agent Rogue. Here’s hoping it works here and forever after.

      5. Oh…now you have piqued my curiosity Señor…

        Do explain what a hurricane some 200 miles off shore could possibly have to do with a nuclear directed energy weapon.

        …this oughtta be good…

        \\][//

      6. Agent Rogue writes his strawman:

        Do explain what a hurricane some 200 miles off shore could possibly have to do with a nuclear directed energy weapon.

        I already did:

        The “sucking on hurricane milk” is Agent Rogue’s contribution and strawman, his very own “slipping this shit in sideways.”

        It wasn’t a point that I was advocating, although indeed Dr. Wood does drop the lingering innuendo on the subject that her brand of “doo” might just possibly “suck hurricane milk.”

        But you brought it up, Agent Rogue, so you defend it. Don’t pin it on me.

        Oh… now you have piqued my curiosity Señor… this oughtta be good…

        Yes, Agent Rogue. “Doo” tell.

        If I were to speculate further, the hurricane was probably the back-up plan. The weather reports of the 9/11 morning without mention of hurricane Erin are proof of the media control. They didn’t want to distract the audience with too many rinky-dink coincidences.

        The back-up plan: should any of the important WTC buildings not get decimated as planned and still require such, the back-up decimation gets “slipped in sideways” later that day under the cover of the hurricane. Likewise, should any of the “nookiedoo doo” more than what was intended, call in the hurricane to obscufate the evidence.

        In such events, the media weather reports will conveniently play ball.

        Aside from the media complicity, a nugget of truth is their ability to control the hurricane. If they didn’t have control of hurricane Erin, might they not have postponed their new Pearl Harbor for another day? If they didn’t know with some degree of certainty that Erin wasn’t going to hit (unless called upon), would all of the FEMA exercises and whatnot have set up their response centers etc. on a damn pier where a storm surge and other hurricane side-effects could (in)conveniently wipe them out?

      7. Señor,

        This last burlesque you put on about the hurricane being somehow MY “straw-man” is such a load of obvious wankdribble…

        You don’t need a weather-vane to know which way the wind blows. There have been hurricanes since the beginning of time — you don’t need to play a harp to find them spinning.

        Buying this Manichean Devil wank, that EVERYTHING is totally under “Their” control is falling for the PR, is handing them the brass ring and falling on your knees as a sublimated zombie. Allowing your epistemic construct to interface with ‘reality’ on that level is spiritual suicide.

        It is also built on bullshit, there is no practical nor empirical reasoning behind this proposition that this hurricane was stalled by some technological interference, other than it fits your screwy science fiction blather.

        You deck is loaded. Loaded with the magic word “suppose”…everything depends on ‘suppose’ with you. Making up plausible stories prove nothing. I have made this complaint to you before, that you have a full stack of suppositions all on a foundation as gaseous as your pronouncements. There is nothing there, just pure air.

        Like I said some time ago, I do not trust your judgement. I will go further now after more time dealing with your “thinking”…I think you are a total crackpot. I think you are full of blithering bullshit.

        I am so sick of getting drawn into these exchanges with you. It is one of those bad habits, falling for such provocations. Your like a bad dream.

        \\][//

      8. Mr. Rogue fakes his outrage:

        This last burlesque you put on about the hurricane being somehow MY “straw-man” is such a load of obvious wankdribble…

        Readers will easily expose your lies by pressing Ctrl+F, typing in “hurricane,” and searching for each occurrence. On September 25, 2012 – 2:18 pm Mr. Rogue was the first (and only) to make this supposition:

        Make that a “nuclear directed energy weapon” sucking on hurricane milk… riiight Mr Majesto?

        It continued with his September 25, 2012 – 3:48 pm posting:

        Do explain what a hurricane some 200 miles off shore could possibly have to do with a nuclear directed energy weapon.

        This is classic disinfo games.

        The games don’t stop there.

        Buying this Manichean Devil wank, that EVERYTHING is totally under “Their” control is falling for the PR, is handing them the brass ring and falling on your knees as a sublimated zombie.

        Shit, Mr. Rogue. As applied to me, what part of “duped useful idiot” don’t you understand?

        I speculate that Mr. Rogue got new orders. Aside from brushing off a nuclear 9/11, he is now also charged with brushing off both HAARP and chemtrails, which are at least two mechanisms at their disposal for achieving weather control.

        And chemtrails? My word. Might very well be what is causing me to “fall on my knees as a sublimated zombie.” I watch the sky. Way up high, it is frikkin’ cold no matter what time of year. It is hard to explain why one cloudless and sunny day will have the regular flight patterns leave no trace in their short-lived contrails, while the very next identical ideal day will leave the skies over my city lined with chemtrails like a farmer’s field. And having observed the original dumping, I’ve monitored the lingering and spreading of the chemtrail into wide, whispy clouds. The irregularity of contrails versus chemtrails from day to day is not my imagination. I don’t have the schedules down yet, but it is like “week on, couple weeks off” in terms of what’s being done up there.

        As for the rest of your ranting posting, Mr. Rogue. Nice strawman segue into your rant about me.

        You deck is loaded. … There is nothing there, just pure air. … Like I said some time ago, I do not trust your judgement. I will go further now after more time dealing with your “thinking”… I think you are a total crackpot. I think you are full of blithering bullshit.

        If what you write is truly your sentiment and not *yawn* just another tactic in your game, IGNORE ME!!! Otherwise, WTF? You’ve been trying extra hard to win an argument with “a total crackpot who is full of blithering bullshit.” How sane is that?

        And for the record, I’ve never asked anyone to “trust my judgement.” In fact, I would prefer that readers not “trust my judgement” but review what I champion in an objective fashion. I’ve even gone above-and-beyond by getting a copy of Dr. Wood’s book into your hands for this purpose, … And how do you fumble that ball? I’ll spare you having me count the ways.

        I am so sick of getting drawn into these exchanges with you. It is one of those bad habits, falling for such provocations.

        Christ o’mighty, Mr. Rogue! If I am giving you such ill health (and not the chemtrails over your city), by all means remember that you are under no obligation to respond to me.

        Man up! Be a man of your word as you’ve promised plenty of times! And frikkin’ ignore me. Geez. Health restored. No problem.

        //

  7. Emmanuel Goldstein on SEPTEMBER 23, 2012 – 9:28 AM, states:
    >”It really makes someone wonder who Mr. McKee works for and what his objective is.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Which in actuality brings the question of; who it is Goldstein and Wood really work for. And we could add Morgan Reynolds and Fetzer, who are boosters of this pseudo-scientific fraud that this BOOK is.

    Enough of your damned sales pitches for this crappy nonsense Goldstein, go fold yourself back into the pages of 1984 where you came from.

    \\][//

  8. I am curious to know what ever came of Judy Wood’s and Jerry Leapheart’s suit. Is it still on the docket somewhere or has it been swept under the carpet along with all of the Hellerstein rulings? THT

  9. Two Judy Wood pushers have showed up that I have not seen here before. I have to commend you Craig because your blog has attracted the attention of the powers that be. They have obviously assigned at least one cognitive infiltrator full time to your blog. One such infiltrator could of course pose as multiple different people to create the illusion of support for bogus theories such as Judy Wood’s or video fakery or whatever. I find it interesting that these “new” people seem to show up each time you post an article and try to hijack the discussion into debunked crappola. As far as I can tell this thread is supposed to be about Ellen Mariani’s legal struggles not Judy Wood’s correct?

    It would not suprise me at all if THT and Emmanuel Goldstein were in fact the same person or sock puppets of a third person that posts here from time to time. Hell there could be one person here with 10 sock puppets, or 20. Maybe Cosmos is up to his old tricks huh?

    1. Well, you could very well be right about infiltrators having more than one persona – in fact I’m sure you are. This Goldstein person certainly doesn’t bring any credibility to Judy Woods cause, though. I will also say that I know who THT is and I don’t have any worries about his agenda or his sincerity. I’m okay with other 9/11 legal battles being discussed on this thread but more in the context of whether ground can be gained through the courts.

      1. Don’t get me wrong Craig I am not trying to shut down free speech at all I am just pointing out the curious nature of some of the entities that pop up here from time to time. It seems clear to me that there is a concerted effort on almost every thread to hijack the discussion. I don’t know THT at all and his/her comment was somewhat on topic I guess but what struck me was how it seemed to fit hand in glove with Goldstein’s erlier comment.

        Perhaps I am just too sensitive to this issue because I have advocated your approach of NOT censoring people and I am interested in carrying it to it’s logical conclusion to see if it is in fact a better way to handle this. I am hyper alert to attempts to hijack because I want to show everyone that exposure is a better remedy to the infiltration problem than censorship is. For example in a previous thread the exposure of certain disinformation tactics seemed to be very effective. When Fetzer was attempting to goad and antagonize me and others with insulting remarks it backfired and served only to expose him further. In the last thread when the Mariani subject came up OBF tried to hijack the thread into video fakery using a thinly veiled connection to Mariani. He was stopped cold in his tracks and told in no uncertain terms that what he was doing was not acceptable.

        Here in this thread I sensed another thinly veiled attempt to derail this discussion and I reacted, perhaps over reacted. Exposure to disinformationists is having a positive effect on us I think simply because we are all becoming more adept at spotting it. We are all also getting better at declining the bait disinformationist offer up as well. In the end this may become one of the hardest places on the net to disrupt because we are in the process of finding the best ways and means to counter disinformation. Other blogs lack the experience because they simply censor out of desperation and never have the opportunity to learn how to counter operatives effectively.

        One advantage of NOT censoring people who exibit signs of being disinformationists is that they can be exposed freely by others who are likewise not censored from expressing their views. Avoiding censorship really is the only way to go in my opinion because when you go the other route, as 911blogger did, you end up crushing speech all together. 911blogger is today a laughing stock thoroughly infiltrated and controlled by obvious disinformation agents. They are on their way to the bottom just like the truth action forum before them.

        Even though the operatives who come here do test my patience, and yours too I am sure, I still do not advocate censorship or banning unless it is an extreme case, such as Brian Good, who refused to debate rationally. He was hell bent on spewing his crap but absolutely could not and would not defend his position when challenged on it. He refuse to debate in good faith (no pun intended) so he was therefore righly called out as a destructive troll who contributed nothing positive to the discussions he continually tried to hijack.

        Anyway Craig and my fellow bloggers I appoligize for the long off topic rant and I hope you will forgive me for it. I want to discuss the topic at hand so in that spirit I would like to suggest a documentary called “The injustice System In America” for an honest critique of our so called “legal” system. I wish Ellen Mariani all the best and I hope the entire 9/11 truth movement gets behind her. She is the last hold out and deserves our respect and our support. She really is THE symbol for us all when you think about it.

      2. On the subject of FREE SPEECH:

        “On Psywar against the Innocent”
        By J. B. Gerald
        Global Research, September 24, 2012

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/on-psywar-against-the-innocent/

        This article from J. B. Gerald is shocking in that it comes from Global Research. It is propaganda in itself. It is a part of the New World Order Psywar itself.

        “Hate Crime” is a euphemism designed to eliminate free speech. This is advocating malum prohibitum – which is a “crime” designed by theory, not a crime in itself [malum in se].

        As much as I despise Islamophobia, I despise this sort of rhetorical propaganda against our rights to individual expression even more. This is the type of tripe that leads to convictions and actual prison time for “Holocaust Denial” in parts of Europe. It is the criminalization of thought – “Thought Crime”; one of the most dangerous slippery slopes into despotism.

        \\][//

    2. I like to think of them as infil-traitors. The hypen and the extra “i.” Good comment Adam, and yes, it does seem they’ve assigned at least one full time cognitive infil-traitor to your blog, to which I say Congratulations! You’ve struck a serious nerve. Yeah, apparently Cosmos had at least 30 usernames at GNN.

  10. Emmanuel Goldstein said : “If poor old Ellen is strapped for cash, maybe she should get a reverse mortgage on her $222,000 four bedroom three bath home in Parker Colorado.”

    Mr. Goldstein, ignoring the fact that I do _not_ support the Prof. Wood thesis in any way, shape, or form,[for reasons I do not wish to elaborate on here], nevertheless, would you have more information about this [ Mariani’s Colorado real estate]?

    I’d be interested in seeing it here, since I currently believe the Mariani affair is just another 9/11 insurance scam [like Silverstein], being played out/trotted out deliberately, to help reinforce/support the government’s official story in the sheeple’s “mind” [and Mr McKee’s?] ; seeing as how Fl.175 never flew into WTC2 that day, [ the flight probably never even existed] and so therefor could not possibly have had a passenger named Louis Mariani.

    Regards, onebornfree

    1. “$222,000 four bedroom three bath home in Parker Colorado.”….

      What is this pretense that a $222,000 home is some sort of palatial mansion, that the money is an extravagant amount??

      Why should anyone lose their home in a fight against the criminal state?

      What is with ghouls like Unbornfreak and Goldstein, who feel they can defame anybody?Folks they don’t know anything about but crap they read on the web.

      I detect the hideous squirming psychopathic mind in these two twisted ‘truthers’. They are probably blood-sisters.

      \\][//

    2. Dear OBF,
      Ellen Mariani has now been roundly busted as yet another actress/agent cast in the role of “berieved 9/11 victim relative” – much like her cointelpro colleagues Bob McIlvaine and Donna Marsh O’Connor. Her alleged husband “Louis Mariani” (who supposedly perished when the imaginary “FLIGHT 175″ purportedly crashed into WTC2) is nothing but one of the three thousand or so fictitious identities making up the blatantly contrived database of 9/11 “victims”. The facial features of “Louis Mariani” – AND his first and last names – appear to have been ‘humorously borrowed’ from Spanish/French superstar Luis Mariano, a hugely popular operette singer back in the fifties.

      LOUIS MARIANI vs LUIS MARIANO :

      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2381641#p2381641

      Here is an exquisite follow-up article by Stewart Ogilby :

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/23/inside-jokes-of-911-and-our-future/

      regards
      Simon Shack

  11. I currently believe the Mariani affair is just another 9/11 insurance scam [like Silverstein], being played out/trotted out deliberately, to help reinforce/support the government’s official story in the sheeple’s “mind”

    What “sheeple”? Do you actually believe that anybody other than those involved in the court case, activists, researchers and those who stumble across this information are paying attention to this lawsuit? The “sheeple” don’t need any more convincing. The majority of them had already made up their minds by noon on 9/11.

    “Hijackers”, “Bin Laden”, “Israel (no wait, forget those reports, nothing to see here, here’s John with the weather)”. Job done. Go back to reading headlines about celebrity garbage (for those mentally drained by one of the most repeated propaganda brainwashing campaigns in history).

    If there was something wrong the media, politicians, religious leaders, military, police, __insert blank would have warned us, right? Riiight.

    The “sheeple” have long forgotten 9/11 (bar the families of the dead kids shipped back from the Middle East) and on each brainwash “top-up” anniversary. So what logical sense does it make to keep stoking the embers on the off chance that more “sheeple” are stirred from their slumber?

    1. OSS, I see this exactly as you do. For someone to create this vastly complicated (and believe me, it’s complicated) legal history just to reinforce the official story makes no sense. As you point out, the official story doesn’t need help.

    2. Mr. OneSliceShort writes:

      “Hijackers”, “Bin Laden”, “Israel (no wait, forget those reports, nothing to see here, here’s John with the weather)”. …

      Here’s the funny part, “John with the weather” on all of the major channels stopped reporting about Hurricane Erin much earlier than the events at the WTC began to unfold, despite Hurricane Erin being at the closest point and a danger (or least an impact to overseas air & sea travel.) Those controlling the news and media knew and were involved.

      Consider this a combo “nugget of truth” brought to us by Dr. Wood and Simon Shack.

    1. Mr. Goldstein, if that’s really your name, I allow this last comment from you on this topic so that I can make my position clear. If you don’t have something of substance to criticize Ellen Mariani’s legal efforts, then you must move on. I’m not going to continue to allow you to throw innuendo into the discussion for the sole purpose of attacking her with no actual facts. As Hybridrogue says in his most recent comment (9:40 a.m.) no one should have to lose their home to fight for their rights.

      By the way, I’m quite serious about my question regarding your photo. You took a Bin Laden pic and had fun with photoshop, right? It’s fine if you’re honest about it.

      1. “You took a Bin Laden pic and had fun with photoshop, right?”~Craig

        I’d say someone may have…but I certainly wouldn’t accuse Goldstein of anything quite so technically proficient.
        I would want to see a larger photo before I would nail it as bin Laden, but from this size it certainly has that potential.

        \\][//

    2. Emmanuel’s goal here is to bait as many of us as possible into an emotional and angry response to his offensive posts. The reason he wants to do this is clear. He wants to disrupt the discussion and derail it into an angry free for all. I suggest he simply be required to do as you say Craig and provide “something of substance to criticize Ellen Mariani’s legal efforts” or move on. If he fails to do that after being warned show him the door. You warned him, it is up to him now.

      1. Ruffadam says,
        >”The reason he wants to do this is clear. He wants to disrupt the discussion and derail it into an angry free for all.”
        . . . . . . . . . . .
        Yes indeed, I agree, and he is not alone here with such a crusade, as you might note.
        There is other pseudoscience punk sauce on a tube steak spurting on this thread as well…

        \\][//

  12. Feigning poverty is something of substance to criticize Ellen Mariani’s legal efforts as well as your collusion to solicit funds. Poor old Ellen would not lose her home with a reverse mortgage.

    (a detailed explanation of how to get a reverse mortgage has been deleted from this comment by Craig McKee)

    PS Even though this has nothing to do with poor old Ellen, if you have any questions regarding the FaceBook photo, ask the FBI.

    1. Mr. Goldstein,

      I get the point. You think she could finance this herself. We don’t need to continue repeating this “poor old Ellen” point. If you have something new to offer, I’ll give it due consideration. If not, please move on.

      And why would I ask the FBI about your photo? I’m asking you. Is it a genuine photo or not? Simple question.

    2. Emmanuel Goldstein mews:
      >”Feigning poverty is something of substance to criticize Ellen Mariani’s legal efforts…”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Feigning relevance is something of substance to criticize Emmanuel Goldstein’s hideous efforts to defame Ellen Mariani, as “poor old Ellen,” while at the same time promoting the garbage of an obvious COINTEL operation against the very core of the 9/11 Truth community.

      I think that any sophisticated analysis of this operation will reveal that this ‘New Wave 9/11 assault’ is so ludicrous as to be laughable; were not otherwise-intelligent individuals falling prey to it.

      As always, ‘Cui Bono’ and ‘MO’ are the operative methods as a base for forensic examination. As far as the first; ‘who benefits?’ – from a depletion in the confidence of the evidence of explosives in the aftermath? It would naturally be the perpetrators who would benefit in a whirlwind of confusions thrown into the mix.

      This is why it is my central thrust to impress upon the readership here, that suspicion is indeed warranted from the very outset when considering these new competing ‘theories’, that are all more ‘sales presentations’ than actual sound hypothesis.

      I furthermore refuse to have this message itself diluted by an immediate knee-jerk reaction of spilling all manner of “technical details” onto it, as if that were a valid criticism of this message. There is a time and place for the discussion of such technical details. However, the FIRST question is: Is it time-worthy in the larger scheme of things? In other-words, is such “discussion” in fact a purposeful quagmire?

      In my experience I have come to the conclusion that indeed it is, that these new wave ‘theories’ are in fact a Pied Piper act, a distracting burlesque, psyop-theater to lead astray.

      \\][//

    3. Emmanuel you will notice is going right for the juggular with his last post. His post is designed to make readers angry AND refocus the discussion onto the disagreement readers will surely have with him and away from the topic. His post is offensive on purpose in order to cause the discussion to degenerate into an angry free for all but it has a secondary purpose as well. The second purpose to his statement is to undermine support for Mariani’s efforts by casting doubt on her honesty. This, I submit to the readers, is an example of a planned and carefully thought out psyop.

      Think about what Emmanuel has said and what it implies, not about Mariani but about him. He said essentially this woman is a con artist who is cold heartedly attempting to steal money from us sympathetic dupes while she keeps her vast fortune for herself AND he said Craig is an accomplice to the con. He says in order to be trusted Mariani must sell anything and everything she has of any value to pay her lawyers before she can ask for help from anyone else. He has also clearly taken the time and effort to look into her finances. What prompted that effort? Think about that and what the motivation was to do that.

      Mariani’s situation financially may be very dire indeed for all we know, she may not be able to keep up with the property tax on her property, she may be on food stamps for all we know. Regardless if she could get a reverse mortgage (which is really a way for a bank to steal your home at pennies on the dollar) is that required of her to gain our help? Must she be totally destitute and hungry and give away every last thing she and her family worked their whole lives to build up before she can ask for help? Of course not.

      Emmanuel knows exactly what he is doing but I know exactly what he is doing as well. So what I am going to do is lend support to Mariani in my own way as best I can. My extra motivation to help Ellen Mariani is hereby dedicated to Emmanuel Goldstein as my personal message to him and his co-workers at the Q-group. Get it? Got it? Good.

      1. And let’s not forget that Mariani could have just gone for the money from the beginning. She’d be were well off if she had done that. But she risked getting nothing to try and get her suit into court. She actually gave up control of her husband’s estate based on some dubious advice from her lawyer and instead she went after Bush and his buddies with a RICO suit. Goldstein, if that’s his real name (we know he won’t even say that his picture is real), has not a shred of anything to impugn her motives.

      2. Indeed Ruffadam,

        There is the unmistakable stench of the ghoul wafting from Emmanuel Goldstein.

        This creature has never made any sense, from the very first comments he made on this blog. But his disgusting tripe on this thread has certainly been the worst of it. Something has crept in from the crypt.

        \\\][//

  13. The following is an email I sent to Professor Jones this morning. This is the 4th day since I inquired as to whether Dr. Jones was going to be forthcoming with an answer to Prager.
    [The forum here should note that I am an equal opportunity basher when such becomes necessary.]
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/21/911-dust-by-jeff-prager-final-version/

    1.Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements  of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.

    2.Dr. Stephen Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever.

    3.Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.

    4. I just as adamantly disagree with Dr. Stephen Jones. That 911 was a nuclear event is certain and anyone attempting to maintain that it was not is part of the cover-up being foisted upon the American people.

    5.Exposure to nuclear radiation is the most odious and repulsive event a human being can experience. That secret is being kept by those in the media spotlight in the 911 movement, to include Dr. Stephen Jones.
    __________________________________________
    This is from the ‘conclusions’ of Prager’s article on VT. It would be “nonsense” to get peeved at me for passing this on to you Professor.

    I seem to be running up against point number 2 above: 
    “Dr. Stephen Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever.”

    This is YOUR reputation that is at stake here doctor. But I am suffering from your silence as one who has supported your work for many years, and have consistently argued for the chemical explosive scenario for WTC.

    A lot of us are reaching the end of our rope here while you twaddle around with your peer review celebrations and gladhand your pals on 9/11blogger. If you aren’t willing to reach out to the layman, the layman will eventually abandon you.

    This email should not be considered confidential.

    ~Willy Whitten – 9//28/2012 @ 8:48am

    1. This morning I received an email from Professor Steven Jones, notifying me that he has made a public response to Jeff Prager’s spurious allegations against him.
      That response can be found at the URL below:

      http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-30/mini-nukes-wtc-one-more-time

      Also this link within the article above, on the heat of the rubble pile is found at the following URL:

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

      \\][//

    2. Dr. Steven Jones throws some pixie dust into the air to keep us blinking from seeing the evidence of “nookiedoo” [nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)].

      Regarding the possibility that mini-nukes were used in the WTC Towers to bring them down, I wrote a paper in 2006 which was peer-reviewed and then published in January 2007.

      Nice appeal to his own authority.

      I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not. Here is the mini-nukes paper:
      http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

      Making Dr. Jones’ wish come true, I read that paper and have given my review several times here in T&S. Here is the logic error that doesn’t take a nuclear physicists to see:

      Three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures respectively A, B, and C. Becaused we measured D, not only were these exact three known nuclear weapons X, Y, and Z not used, but no friggin’ nuclear weapons were used of any sort or manner. … [Dr. Jones didn’t] entertain any speculation into what could cause radiation levels D (e.g., Tritium).

      The above is in addition to redefining trace levels of Tritium to be 55 times their previous levels.

      Jones: First, as I emphasized in my mini-nukes paper, the dust particles in greatest abundance were “unregulated supercoarse” – and not micron-sized.

      This is a scientific slight of hand. The issue isn’t what particle size was in greatest abundance. The issues are that significant amounts of “the fine (<2.5μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10μm- diam) particles” were present and the energy required to obtain them isn’t accounted for.

      Jones: With regard to nano-thermite, I have repeated noted that NT could have been used to ignite more conventional explosives such as HMX rather than necessarily being used alone.

      Another scientific slight of hand, because neither he, nor A&E9/11Truth, nor the govt tested for these “more conventional explosives” in the dust when they had the opportunity to do so.

      Prager: “2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.”

      Jones: Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT) – not explained in the official story! We have indeed considered this “mystery” – see (for example) our paper published here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

      A little bit of truth slips out: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).” Alas, the paper into which he tries to sideline us does a scientific slight of hand by focusing on six spikes in temperature (that NT may well account for), but ignores trying to explain how the overall temperature between the spikes was maintained. He don’t go there then. He don’t go there now, except for the highlight admission.

      Prager: “5. Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.”

      Jones: OK – but did you know that after early retirement I also continue in alternative energy studies, including what some would call “cold fusion” studies?

      Another deft side-step by Dr. Jones. The point from Prager was that Dr. Jones is aware of many different formulations for nuclear devices, their elements, and their signatures. (Unlike Prager), Dr. Jones did not correlate the elements from the USGS dust sampling that would prove 9/11 nuclear hijinx right up Dr. Jones’ area of specialty. Instead, Dr. Jones deliberately skewed his “no nukes” paper away from neutron devices.

      Prager: “6. Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever.”

      Jones: Baloney, Mr. Prager — if you’re reading this, you can see that I’m publicly discussing this notion. Obviously I’m not refusing “ to discuss the issues raised in this essay” as you allege. Why will you not carefully read my published papers and respond to them?

      I’m wondering if the “baloney” refers to Dr. Jones actually agreeing that 9/11 had a nuclear component, or if it is limited to his discussing it in a… *cough*… public forum (9/11 blogger) that would not even let me register [because certain topics like a nuclear 9/11 were deemed too contraversial & diversive and because I was going to talk about 9/11 energy requirements and nukes most likely being able to meet this]. This … *cough*… public forum outright banned Mr. Craig McKee within a scant few days, and it had nothing to do with ad hominem or disgusting debate tactics or other breaking of the rules of civil discourse.

      Prager: “7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy. ”

      Jones: Nonsense, Mr. Prager – please read my peer-reviewed cold fusion paper published in Nature:
      S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, “Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter,” Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989).

      I wonder what the “nonsense” refers to. Does it refer to “the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium?” Or does it refer to “precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy?”

      Dr. Jones should be clearer.

      Meanwhile, in trying to avoid paying $32 for the Nature article, I located this link that has has some great tritium quotes:

      Thermal effects in the earth and the distribution of He [Helium] and tritium can be explained in part by the fusion reactions… Based on this new concept, we predict that some tritium should be produced by d-d fusion in the earth (see equation 1). Since tritium decays according to t -> He + beta with a 12-year half-life, detection of tritium in volcanic emissions would imply cold-fusion production of tritium. …

      Other HT data from the Mauna Loa station, such as the high reading in the latter half of 1972, are also coincident with volcanic activity, although a tritium-releasing bomb test also occurred in Russia in late August [1972] A major spike in the atmospheric HT observed near Hawaii in Dec 1974 – June 1975 [10] coincides with another large volcanic eruption on Hawaii Island, but the significance is again obscured by H-bomb tests.

      9/11 was not a volcanic event. Therefore, this 1989 article suggests that Dr. Jones knows that tritium is released by various nuclear weapons. Yet his “no-nukes” papers down play tritium extensively.

      Jones: We note that Mr. Prager does NOT address several points in my mini-nukes paper, including the issue of how the mini-nuke fire-ball could have been stopped without melting through and destroying the “bath-tubs” under each Tower.

      First of all, Dr. Jones’ mini-nukes paper frames this in a dubious manner such that it will align with the public’s preconceived notions of what constitutes a mini-nuke.

      Mr. Prager was speculating about multiple neutron devices. First, they were directed energy devices (like a shaped-charge) pointing up at each point so that they would not “take out” devices lower in the structure or “melting through and destroying the bath-tub”. The massive crater below WTC-4 disproves this, as well; refer to 2:08 in the movie Dimitri Khalezov 911 video.

      Secondly, the design of the device maximized the neutron energy and minimized blast/heat energy, so the “mini-nuke fire-ball” might just be another mal-framing scientific slight of hand.

      Here’s some hand-wavey gems from Dr. Jones’ introduction and conclusion:

      Jones: Endless discussions are not fruitful, whereas measurements and experiments often are.

      Of course, wasn’t it Stalin who said: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

      What we see from the USGS measurements into what was contained within the 9/11 dust is that: “Those who measure the dust decide nothing. Those who analyze & tabulate the measurements [or do nothing with the measurements, as the case may be] decide everything.” Prager proves that Dr. Jones did not do this with the USGS hard evidence, let alone with his own dust samples.

      Jones: In general, I would say there are two ways to find out whether the “official story of 9/11” is true and complete, or not: 1) by looking at hard evidence and doing experiments to test hypotheses based on that evidence; and 2) analyzing historical and eye-witness testimony.

      In my talks, I have emphasized method 1, using the scientific method. But I also emphasize method 2, pointing (for example) to the whistle-blower testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the lack of air defenses that day. And the important evidence regarding the purchase of put options on American and United Airlines during the week prior to 9/11/2001. There are many examples of both types of evidence that point to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.

      I applaud Dr. Jones for pointing to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.

      Alas, his own involvement seems to have been to lead the sheeple away from consider 9/11 being a nuclear event, and that continues to this day.

      //

      1. I encourage anyone actually interested in discerning the truth of this matter to actually read for themselves the papers and data given by Jones et al on this issue. As our dedicated and self declared ‘useful idiot’ clearly hasn’t the slightest grasp of these issues.
        . . . . . . . . . .

        http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

        Jones on Aftermath Pile WTC.

        Furthermore, the USGS samples held residues which were indeed indicative of energetic compounds as obtained by FOIA action by myself and James Gourley; which we discuss in this paper:

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

        Actually, the chain of custody of our samples is given in some detail in our published, peer-reviewed paper here:

        http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000

        “Super-thermite matches” and how these could be used for “triggering explosives.” http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/tt/pdf/techs/thermite_matches.pdf
        Original mini-nukes paper:

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-th

        Similar energetic nanocomposites have been known to
        be amenable to spray-on applications. In fact, some
        investigators have reported that
        The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-,
        and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We
        have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates
        to make sol-gel Fe2O3/Al/Viton coatings. The
        energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film.
        Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
        hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by
        thermal stimulus. (Gash et al. 2002)

        \\][//

      2. Lord “No-Nookie” Rogue should be very careful about trying to pin on me his own flaws [a dishonest disinfo technique] and the issues that he “clearly hasn’t the slightest grasp of” [that I can readily prove with links to Lord No-Nookie’s own words in these very forums.]

        Rather than I, the famed duped useful idiot, it appears to be the Lord No-Nookie who seems to not have comprehended Dr. Jones first paper and how he stilted tritium.

        It doesn’t take much effort to search for “tritium” in that paper. The stilt is how the nuclear reaction is framed as a [singular] thermonuclear (fusion) bomb” and how massive its tritium would be. [It wasn’t singular, it was multiple with each being significantly smaller in yield.] The innuendo from his paper is that the bomb was large, as given by his references to hydrogen-bomb testing.

        How about this PR hypnotic suggestion from Dr. Jones conclusions:

        Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.

        What Dr. Jones doesn’t state is that the few nano-curie level is 55 times greater than what it should have been and needs a source.

        After acknowledging in a stilted way (high) tritium levels were present, Dr. Jones does not provide comprehensive enough and complete enough rational and scientific speculation into the cause thereof. Dr. Jones, like Lord No-Nookie, is to put a PR hypnotic period at the end of the sentence that would dare to mention 9/11 nukes.

        But rather than trying to stay within Dr. Jones’ purposeful mal-framing that Lord No-Nookie hopes to prop up, let us go elsewhere. From Wiki:

        A neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW) or weapon of reinforced radiation is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation (fast neutrons) rather than explosive energy. Although their extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated, it is the enormous radiation released by ERWs that is meant to be a major source of casualties. The levels of neutron radiation released are able to penetrate through thick, protective materials such as armor, making them useful as an anti-tank weapon.

        Before we go any further, ratchet down the magnitude of this in your mind. 9/11 wasn’t a single neutron bomb; it was multiple ERW per each tower as well as WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.

        Being much smaller on 9/11, we have to reign in how much penetration (or escaping) the ERW would exhibit with regards to energy levels being able to leave the steel confines of towers, as well as the fact that this is a DIRECTED energy weapon and aimed where they wanted it.

        A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon’s X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.

        The “usual” nuclear weapon yield—expressed as kT TNT equivalent—is not a measure of a neutron weapon’s destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. Compared to a fission bomb with the identical explosive yield, a neutron bomb would emit about ten times the amount of neutron radiation. In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1–2 MeV).

        Guess what? Chromium and nickel were measured by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices by Mr. Prager.

        And how about the amounts of required tritium in the ERW and that were observed and Dr. Jones brushes aside by stating only what it was not?

      3. “Guess what? Chromium and nickel were measured by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices by Mr. Prager.”~

        Conclusion
        “The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC.
        Thermite, discussed briefly above, is such a pyrotechnic mixture that cannot be easily extinguished and is a common component of energetic nanocomposites. Unusually high detections of sulfur, silicon, aluminum, copper, nickel, iron, barium, and vanadium might all be explained by physical release of materials from such energetic nanocomposites.
        Additionally, the detection of 1,3-DPP at the WTC supports this hypothesis. Finally, the spikes in VOCs,detected by EPA on specific dates, are more readily explained as a result of short-lived, violent fires caused by energetic materials.”

        These conclusions are drawn from 62 pages of empirical data, with a complete list of references from studies backing up the data.

        Prager challenges Jones to repute his argument, and Jones has. It is Prager who has not addressed a single on of the papers that Jones et al have produced. There are not just a few points Prager need address and squirm out of rhetorically – this is a long complex compound exposition of scientific data that adds up to sound conclusions.
        Furthermore these papers have been available for years – so the arguments should be known – and should have be addressed first and foremost before charging off on this pseudo-scientific charade.

        The useful idiot still handwaves the fact that this 55 times the nano-curies of “what should have been there” is minuscule, and irrelevant, a becquerel (Bq) is a tiny unit of radioactivity.

        We still find our idiot making the argument that decibels can be measured from sound recordings, and the attendant denials of witness sonic testimonies…So what we have with Mr Useful Moronicus is a spinning gyre of stuttering connections with a center that will not hold.

        \\][//

      4. Referring to what goes into a neutron bomb, I wrote:

        Guess what? Chromium and nickel were measured by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices by Mr. Prager.

        In a lame-ass and totally ignorant defense, Lord No-Nookie comes back with a brain-dead (and unattributed quote):

        The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC.

        “Has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data” but that doesn’t mean that it does. Hell, and with such weasel words we need to be thinking about what explains all of the unusual environmental data.

        Too bad that Dr. Jones admits himself:

        Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).

        I know when I’m ahead in the debate when the Lord No-Nookie uses quotations he doesn’t understand, flood the forum with postings, and resorts to ad hominem.

        The [Lord] doth protest too much, methinks.

  14. The chances of the US Supreme Court granting a petition for writ of certiorari, the type of appeal Ellen Mariani hopes to file, are nominally low but they may be substantially greater in this case because it significantly affects and involves the public interest. (See our disclosure statement: http://marianilawsuit.wordpress.com/disclosure/ )” Furthermore, if God willing, a writ is issued it does not mean that the Court upon hearing the case will rule favorably on Mrs. Mariani’s behalf.

    Mrs. Mariani’s case is extremely meritorious, but unfortunately that alone will not always be enough to get the “highest court in the land” to accept one’s petition for a writ of certiorari and from there proceed to gain a favorable ruling. Nevertheless, as all believing Christians and perhaps many others as well should clearly realize, with God all things are possible. “Man proposes. God disposes.” (from the Latin “Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit” found in Of the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis) No matter how dim the chances of success for any given plan or proposition may appear in a strictly human context, it is God who ultimately decides whether or not something will succeed or fail.

    History informs us that some of the greatest battles have been won against seemingly insurmountable odds. Could it be that Ellen Mariani who has been scorned in some quarters for her heroic efforts will triumph like a David over Goliath? Could it be that she will confound and conquer her adversaries, much like the little peasant girl St. Joan of Arc did as she led the entire French army against the English? Who can say? Certainly, David and Joan were ridiculed to no end before God allowed them to triumph. Both of their victories were victories for their entire nation. It is not without possibility that Ellen’s battle for 9-11 truth, much of it having to do with consciousness raising as to the incredibly horrific deception that was perpetrated against an entire nation on 9-11, will succeed, perhaps in ways none of us can foresee at this time.

    Rachel Corrie was run over by an Israeli armored bulldozer, but her memory and what she so valiantly struggled for lives on. Ellen Mariani has been run over by the American judicial system, but she has got back up and she is still fighting. If it be God’s will may she conquer and may her victory be a profound victory for not only the American people, but many other peoples around the world who have suffered so unjustly as they are subjected to America’s cruel interventionist war policy.

    1. If you get a judge like Craig McKee and a “forum” like truthandshadows, only one side will be permitted to testify and present evidence, while the other one is blocked, and yours could be the favored side. 50-50 is better than you have now, given the merits of your case.

      1. Mr. Albury, I’ll suspend your ban for this one comment, perhaps because I’m in the mood to refute your ridiculous point. I only present one side? Is that your contention? Which side is it that I prohibited, exactly? I would suggest that there is as great a level of diversity of views on this blog as on any other. You are one of four people who have been banned from this site for reasons you’re aware of. None of the four has been blocked because they disagree with me. Thanks for dropping by but please take your disingenuous distortions somewhere else.

      2. I’m aware of the fact that I was banned for asking you if incendiaries or demolition explosives could have caused that 180-degree bend in the ~3-story “horseshoe beam” found in the WTC tower debris, Craig, and for not proving to your satisfaction that steel is usually cold bent. I was threatened with it repeatedly for not drinking 9/11 “truth movement” Kool-Aid.

        1. What a great point that would be … if it were true. But alas, it’s not even close. The brief exchange of bending metal was long before your banning. Your repeated and tunnel-visioned attacks on April Gallop and your incessant sarcastic remarks about an earlier threat to ban you were more to the point. As I said then, I got tired of you. So now you’ve had a couple of free shots; let’s go back to status quo. Maybe you can do as 911artists does and bash me elsewhere. He made up a special web site advertising a non-existent interview with me. Surely you can top that. Good luck on your future anti-truth travels.

      3. Agent Albury Smith comes and goes so quickly, while dropping something right up my bat-shit crazy alley:

        [Could] incendiaries or demolition explosives have caused that 180-degree bend in the ~3-story “horseshoe beam” found in the WTC tower debris? [Could] steel [be] usually cold bent.

        Oooo-oooo-oooo!!! *waving hand in air* I know! I know!

        The answer: No, incendiaries or demolition explosives could not have caused that “180-degree bend in the ~3-story “horseshoe beam” found in the WTC tower debris.” They could cut it, or blow it into pieces.

        But “nookiedoo” is another matter. The name “Nookiedoo” was affectionately given to “nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)”, most likely with a neutron radiation design.

        Because in answer to part 2: No, steel beams are not usually cold bent, and the fiery nature of incendiaries or demolition explosives would not make bending that three-story “horseshoe beam” all that easy within the ~11 seconds of a given tower destruction. Eleven seconds or so is a really long time for a nookiedoo, but not long enough for other mechanisms to heat the steel thoroughly to allow such bending.

        Too bad that Agent Albury didn’t provide a link to his blog where his words are copiously collected and saved for us to learn from his wisdom.

        //

      4. Incendiaries do not make things hot? Is that a point bouncing around here? Is this coupled with the idea that heat does not soften steel?

        Very curious.

        Ask a blacksmith how he bends a house-shoe sometime.
        An anvil, a hammer and a furnace seem to be the common methods.

        Of course only in a game of horse-shoes does being close count.

        Not in logic and argumentum however.

        \\][//

    1. - Because from the phrase “nuclear DEW” (directed energy weapon) you have coined the phrase “nookiedoo”

      – Because you have demonstrated a rather consistent “no-nookie” agenda in your tenure here…

      – Because I am reading “A Game of Thrones” on my Kindle…

      In this Truth & Shadows circus of “Agent Smith”, a “duped useful idiot”“Abbott and Costello on acid” — I shall henceforth now knight you “Ser No-Nookie”!

      Wear thy new Christianing with honor, Ser No-Nookie!

      //

  15. Our useful idiot is now idiotic enough to play at “Christianing” – whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. I suppose he means christening…but it’s anybody’s guess at this point what the hell he is talking about___maybe he has ingested too much nookiedoodoo??

    I have never understood what is useful about an idiot at any rate…seems like a morbid form of entertainment to take pleasure in their rantings…sorta like watching Dr. Phil…I don’t get it, and don’t condone it. It’s like the fascination with “freaks” at a carny, an inhumane activity.

    So shall we now expect some thousand word etymological rampage with subtracted brisance and attenuated dB ringing silently in our ears? The Shadow only knows.

    Still this tar stuck to my fingers…like the curse of Macbeth…”Out damned spot”.

    \\][//

    1. Lord Ser “No-Nookie” Rogue,

      Kindly send via email to your good Dr. Steven Jones the link to this more public forum, where his 9/11 Blogger rebuttal to Prager is rebutted by his humbleness, moi.

      Alas, the joust should take place here, because 9/11 Blogger has been proven to be less than publc. They never let me even register, claiming that my hobby-horses were too divisive. Mr. McKee can enlighten us as to why they banned him within just a few days of his first participation.

      //

      1. Isn’t that weird; I answered your question about 911blogger before I even knew that you’d asked it. I was responding to onesliceshort. The funny thing is that a couple of people from that crowd think I’m bitter about being banned (Snowcrash, I believe), which is really funny. I only ever mention it to show how that site is run – being banned puts me in very good company.

  16. Rather than attempt to draw Mr McKee in on this with an emotional appeal to his being banned from 9/11blogger. Why don’t you yourself email Jones with your wackadoodle nonsense?

    \\][//

    1. Lord “No-Nookie” Rogue,

      If “wackadoodle nonsense” is your honest opinion, then it would serve you and your cause well to just STFU.

      You engage me, you give me renewed opportunities to re-enforce the “wackadoodle nonsense” on “nookiedoo”, which thanks to you, maybe I should re-christen “neu nookiedoo” for “neutron nuclear directed energy weapon (DEW).”

      As for me contacting Dr. Jones, why should I? You seem to be exchanging emails with him, maybe even inspiring him into doing his recent but lame 9/11 Blogger stop-gap measure against Prager and Wood. He seems to be feeding you your hynotic talking points that, like an obedient foot soldier, you re-post here without much additional analysis or thought of your own [as an excellent reflection of how much you truly don’t understand.]

      STFU is actually such great advice, I’m surprised nobody with whom you swear your allegience has told you sooner to deploy it as your tactic here. Geez, it would have stopped me dead in my tracks easily a dozen nuclear-damaging postings ago. It would have saved you from dishing out inappropriate ad hominem that easily gets reflected back on you.

      The only STFU downside? You would have lost those paid-to-post opportunities for income. But I’m confident you would have made them up elsewhere in other “wackadoodle nonsense” that you feel duty-bound to give center stage and I probably would have lent you silent STFU support on.

      Remember: STFU can be your friend in making a convincing case, although damn hard for you to act on.

      //

  17. >”As for me contacting Dr. Jones, why should I?”~Useful Idiot

    Because in your delusional overheated brain you think you have the chops to debate him.

    If you think you got the stuff call him out yourself. Make a challenge that he can’t counter. It’s your trip beancounter. I can’t honestly see Dr Jones lowering himself into your sewer however.

    >” You would have lost those paid-to-post opportunities for income.”~Useful Idiot

    You will obviously try ANY tactic to get me to “STFU”. Now won’t you blithercakes?
    Anything to leave you the field for your twisted blabjob.
    You are indeed Sashadik reanimated – hysteria incarnate.

    \\][//

    1. Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, suggests that this humble “duped useful idiot” should contact Dr. Jones directly…

      Because in your delusional overheated brain you think you have the chops to debate him. If you think you got the stuff call him out yourself. Make a challenge that he can’t counter. … I can’t honestly see Dr Jones lowering himself into your sewer however.

      Through the Lord No-Nookie’s regular email exchanges with Dr. Jones, I expect that any “challenge” from me has already been passed along… one would hope long ago [2012-03-05]:

      [Mr. HybridRogue1] Use my March 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm posting as the starting point for your back-channel access to Dr. Jones. I’ve given my critique. Have him address them.

      I’m sure that the more recent emails between Ser Rogue provided Truth & Shadows links to Dr. Jones. It is rather noteworthy that Dr. Jones would choose 9/11 Blogger as the setting for his Prager rebuttal [that I’ve trashed above on October 4, 2012 – 1:42 pm], when nuclear topics aren’t discussed there to the extreme of pre-banning people with such hobby-horses. Dr. Jones is more than welcome to participate in this forum; he hasn’t been banned or pre-banned.

      Duped useful idiot me? Having the “chops to debate” Dr. Jones? I am perfectly content to have Dr. Jones nookie-school me, making it not much of a debate when we find that we agree on most things.

      To get us onto the same page literally, I’m even willing to purchase Dr. Jones his own copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook [as a starting point], if Dr. Jones doesn’t already have it and if Ser Rogue doesn’t jump at the opportunity to unload his copy on Dr. Jones and thereby fulfill the conditions that I placed on Ser Rogue’s copy — the “good, bad, and ugly” gift that keeps giving [to Ser Rogue (figuratively) bloody noses.]

      The reason Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, suspects that “Dr. Jones [won’t be] lowering himself into [my] sewer is that in “getting schooled” and obtaining understanding, I’m going to raise my hand and ask intelligent questions whose truthful answers might not be so easy to utter without more uncomfortable questions and without the nuclear truth about 9/11 slipping out via those “damn naggit nuggets of truth.” Unlike 9/11 blogger, the (de)tour of our discussion won’t be so easy to control, I’m afraid.

      From my (now distant) past, I received (unheeded) career advice from the Dean of the Engineering School who taught one of my Sophomore courses. He often came to the class after (seemingly) three-Martini lunches with engineering executives and, with his hand feverishly jangling keys and coins in his front pocket as a distraction while he spoke, would proudly detour the lesson with talk of the bright future we engineering students will have upon graduation. Alas, I was stuck in the homework, and he was skipping crucial steps in his lecture that would help my understanding. The career advice came after a bout of my “hand raising and intelligent question asking”:

      Señor El Once, you are in the wrong field. You should become a lawyer.

      Missed my calling. But not my ability to persist in asking intelligent questions.

      Somewhere in his dozen or so postings in this thread and the next one over since my last posting, Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, laments:

      Am I supposed to just let this crap [about nookiedoo] go past without comment in the hope that it will end?

      Yes.

      Not your blog. Not your responsibility. “Do NOT feed me, Seymore.” Do not manufacture opportunities for me to respond, thereby allowing my nookiedoo “shit to slip in sideways.” To use the venacular of the internet: STFU.

      And if I err in my assumption and “my crap” [about nookiedoo] is Ser Rogue’s responsibility and obligation to not let “pass without comment in the hope that it will end,” lurker-readers and participants alike should be asking themselves why? how so?

      Meanwhile, here are the highlights from Ser Rogue illustrating why he is the no-nookie Lord.

      October 4, 2012 – 3:18 pm

      - Can’t say the same for our useful idiot
      – I suggest he save this flatulent dialog for his morning sit on the “throne”.

      October 4, 2012 – 5:53 pm

      - Falling back on your beancounter ways again aye Mr Useful?
      – Idioso is mixing dews and pineapples again.
      – Bombs or fricking ‘reactors’? Which one is under the shell for this game?
      – This wank about posting counts, and ‘agent tactics’ is so much, “bla bla bla”.
      – A perpetual “bla bla bla” seeming more like “wah wah wah” with each proceeding post.
      – Crisis on a Cracker…

      October 4, 2012 – 6:04 pm

      - All we seem to have now is this nuke biz flitting about
      – Is Useful Idiot proposing that nukes were used [at the Pentagon] as well?
      – what is all this nuke splidge dribbling on this commentary?
      I suggest the nuke issue has been too stressed on this page already.

      [Such a great hypnotic suggestion.]

      October 4, 2012 – 9:00 pm

      - Because in your delusional overheated brain…
      – It’s your trip beancounter.
      – I can’t honestly see Dr Jones lowering himself into your sewer however.
      – You will obviously try ANY tactic to get me to “STFU”. Now won’t you blithercakes?
      – Anything to leave you the field for your twisted blabjob.
      – You are indeed Sashadik reanimated – hysteria incarnate.

      //

  18. Such a bizarre character this Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic…

    An obvious fad monger, now with this “hypnotic suggestion” jive, ever since viewing the Derren Brown videos.

    Yes it is not my blog. It is not the useful idiots blog. Everyone posting here knows it is Mr McKee’s blog.

    At one point I am asked why I defend Professor Jones here. An equally relevant question is:
    Why does this useful idiot make it his crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones?
    This as I see it is the crux of the matter. Why does the idiot leap aboard every woowoo train that leads to the disparagement of the controlled demolition proofs?

    Why all this boinko bullshit trying to convince this forum that I am a paid agent of the state, while pretending that ‘controlled demolition’ is somehow the ‘official story’ and twining all of his commentary in that spool?

    It is correct that Jones’ information stands on it’s merits. It is also correct that his detractors disinformation fails by the demerits. But this is a forum where we speak to our own ideas on that which is does and does not have merit.

    Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic states his mission is to: “Feed my sheep” – and that does in fact seem his goal. My goal is to wake-up the fucking sheep. I could go into page after page of deconstructing the subtext of this lunatic the infamous ‘Duped and Useful Idiot’, but as far as I am concerned he has reached his circle limit.

    He like Fetzer before him has gone over the top in to ‘hysterical mode’…just like Fetzer popped his wad on ‘Vector as a property of an inert object’ and then doubled down with his bet on ‘Analogy’, walking away from the forum with empty pockets – if the Bouncing Party Head, Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic continues on his current course he will hit similar jagged shoals and meet Circe with all her aborted compassion and her deep black soul.
    Go ahead Señor share that goblet with her.

    Otherwise you could join the forum in the various topics that are discussed, rather the riding your one trick pony into every arena and getting bucked off like the clown you have so far been.

    \\][//

    1. Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, wrote an unsubstantiated assertion that I demand he substantiate:

      Why does this useful idiot make it his crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones?

      Ser Rogue should prove it with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links.

      Ser Rogue regularly gets his knight’s helmut rung to refresh his faulty medium- and long-term memory in the discussions here. I’ll wager that the instances of me “belittling” Professor Jones or otherwise attacking him personally — other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt’s bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11 — will turn out to be illusions that slipped into Ser Rogue’s thinking relative to me exclusively from the “belittling” and unwarranted personal ad hominem attacks coming from his own keyboard and aimed at me. Do we need look any further than “Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic?” Or how about “Señor El Sashadik” from not all that long ago?

      In case any one missed it from much earlier threads, two of the reasons Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, is so knowledgable and eloquent in discussing Bernays and “public relations” treatment into public perceptions (such as what the comments of Truth & Shadows projects) are that his professional career was in visual media industries using his artistic talents and that PR was one of the subjects of his personal study.

      Applying what he learned, here is but one example of such a PR hypnotic statement:

      It is correct that Jones’ information stands on it’s merits. It is also correct that his detractors disinformation fails by the demerits.

      Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones’ information “stands or falls on its own merits.” It is the missing “or falls” phrase that disproves the former, because I’ve legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter.

      And I maintain that I accomplished this repeatedly without having to attack or belittle Dr. Jones personally other than speculations on a much larger agenda that would conceivably tap Dr. Jones as a resource, not much different than I do with Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord.

      Three (3) falsehood’s addressed.

      Mr. RuffAdam wrote in another thread:

      Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.

      Speaking of “operating dishonestly,” the rest of Ser Rogue’s posting “[tries to] stand but falls on its own (de)merits, needing no further comment from me.

      // the bizarre character, Señor El Periwinkle Skuzzyphrenic

  19. Señor says, that I should prove his attacks on Jones. I need not as he has admitted to references to it thus:
    > “other than references to Dr. Jones doing the govt’s bidding by steering the public from a nuclear 9/11…”
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    This charge is in itself spurious nonsense.

    But he continues as follows:
    >”Both statements are false. The former is wrong, because it should be that Dr. Jones’ information “stands or falls on its own merits.” It is the missing “or falls” phrase that disproves the former, because I’ve legitimately exposed some of the demerits in Dr. Jones work, thereby disproving the latter.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones’ work is spurious nonsense as well.

    I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used “ad hominems” or “belittled Jones’ PERSONALLY “- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones’ work.

    I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.

    I am speaking to his claiming that Jones’ first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is “scientific slight of hand”,that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply does not grasp the issues spoken to. Any “demerits” the useful idiots has spoken to is from his own fevered imagination.

    Señor Idiot’s disingenuous combining of my personal studies into Bernays and the topic of propaganda with my career as a special effects artist, is in itself the use of the very same PR tactics he accuses me of using.

    Señor claims his engineering teacher advised him to get into law rather than continuing engineering, I think that was bad advice – Señor should have stuck with the Tango.

    \\][//

  20. I will also mention that Señor’s quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.

    It is obvious to me that Señor has no ethics nor sense of shame, and will say ANYTHING to win an argument. He is already chugging from Circe’s poisoned goblet and will soon turn into a complete pig to be roasted for her feast.

    Or perhaps she will keep him alive awhile for entertainment, a tango dancing pig is a pretty funny thing to picture in the minds eye.

    \\][//

  21. As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…

    Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor:

    STOP.

    It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product’ – it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.

    Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.

    I am sure that Mr McKee will provide you with an article on the topic where you rhetorically tango away to your hearts desire. Until then, let it be digested that you are becoming a fanatical bore with your constant trip of pushing.

    \\][//

  22. Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, posts three in a row as a clear indication of his hasty “shoot from the hip” ways. Damage control, I suppose, because the details of his threesom try to weasel out of the dishonesty in his attacks on me.

    Ser Rogue stated that I had a “crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones.” I demanded that he prove this assertion “with exact quotes from me, citing his sources with links.”

    None of his responses had any URLs in them. None of his responses proved anything of a multi-posting “crusade.” None of his postings proved anything of the “belittling” language that I might have used on Professor Jones.

    So this glaring lie remains at Ser Rogue’s feet as but one example of him “operating dishonestly.”

    My references to Dr. Jones doing the govt’s bidding by steering the public away from a nuclear 9/11 is not a “belittling” remark. Ser Rogue tries to change the playing field by saying: “This charge is in itself spurious nonsense.”

    The fact of the matter is, a significant portion of a university professor’s salary — particularly those doing scientific research — is “soft-money” obtained by proposing research projects that someone will fund. That “someone” in most instances — particularly when the area is nuclear physics — is the government. Dr. Jones has been beholden to the government for his entire career, such is the level of this “spurious nonsense.”

    Ser Rogue feebly paries with another dishonest unsubstantiated hypnotic suggestion:

    This boast of legitimately exposing demerits in Jones’ work is spurious nonsense as well.

    Does fifty-five (55) ring a bell? As in Dr. Jones re-defining tritium trace levels to be 55 times greater than they were prior to 9/11. Or how about his 1989 papers that prove that tritium is a by-product of fusion reaction, yet he had no good explanation for any of the tritium on 9/11/2001?

    Here’s a great gem! Dr. Jones make a big show of having taken his Geiger Counter to the dust samples and measured no radiation. Yet, Dr. Jones knows from his very own research that neutron radiation is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect; a Geiger Counter will not produce results from a Deuterium-Tritium detonation. Scientific slight of hand, no?

    Ser Rogue has never been able to defend the logic error in Dr. Jones work that makes my assertion of him steering the movement away from a nuclear event a bit more substantial than “spurious nonsense.” Does Dr. Jones no-nukes paper on Tritium ever mention neutron bombs or enhanced radiation weapons (ERW)? No.

    Ser Rogue also trips over an imaginary garden hose many hundreds (of thousands of) miles long packed with super-duper nano-thermite (NT) that, by rights, Dr. Jones should have laid at his feet to explain how it could possibly explain a single hot-spot. Of course, maybe it could be said that Dr. Jones always advocated NT in conjunction with other materials and recently even states: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).” When Dr. Jones saw NT being extrapolated into explaining 9/11 features that clearly it could not, he should have set the record straight with the science-challenged 9/11 yeomen. He did not. Quite the contrary, he encouraged it.

    Ser Rogue tries to weasel out of his lie:

    I did not say nor intimate that Señor Useful Idiot, called Jones names or used “ad hominems” or “belittled Jones’ PERSONALLY “- I am speaking to the empty boasts such as those just made above, to the fact that he does indeed belittle Jones’ work.

    First of all, Ser Rogue’s lie was that I “belittled” Dr. Jones. How can this be accomplished if I didn’t call him names or deployed ad hominem? Oh, that’s right! It’s “the empty boasts… just made above” that I’ve proven aren’t so empty.

    Ser Rogue makes this refined accusation without substantiation:

    I am speaking to the charges that Jones in some way had to do with the scientific community coming down so hard on Pons and Fleischmann. He has continually reinforced this slur begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds which has absolutely no foundation in the facts.

    Your hypnotic PR statement about what “has absolutely no foundation in facts”… well, it has no substantiation. I suggest you google the 1989 or so video with a younger Dr. Steven Jones making comments on behalf of the US govt regarding the merits of Pons and Fleischmann, which appeared to pour cold water on cold fusion for lots of researchers, when in truth with 20/20 hindsight, inspired areas where Dr. Jones continued to research.

    Another dishonest technique by Ser Rogue:

    I am speaking to his claiming that Jones’ first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction, is “scientific slight of hand”,that is in some way useful for ‘government propaganda – when it is a fact that our useful idiot simply does not grasp the issues spoken to. Any “demerits” the useful idiots has spoken to is from his own fevered imagination.

    Notice how Ser Rogue does not go into details about Dr. Jones’ “scientific slight of hand,” that I was able to mention again in this very posting. Ser Rogue doesn’t address why any reader — not just me — would come to that conclusion. Instead he attacks me personally and “belittles” me. More evidence of operating dishonestly.

    Here’s another clever strawman:

    I will also mention that Señor’s quoting of Mr. RuffAdam in the midst of his hyperbole is a particularly cheesy and underhanded tactic. To insinuate that Adam was making reference to me in that statement is especially odious, and we both know that it is a lie – a baldfaced filthy lie to say that Adam had me in mind when he posted that.

    Obviously, Ser Rogue didn’t read the thread, because my first assumption was that Mr. RuffAdam was referring to me [but then he said he wasn’t.] Who he was referring to, he has not revealed. Doesn’t matter.

    My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam’s quotation was not to insinuate that Mr. RuffAdam thought that of Ser Rogue. No, no, no.

    My purpose for bringing up Mr. RuffAdam’s quotation was to juxtapose proven examples of Ser Rogue operating dishonestly with the penalties that it should inspire readers to apply, like “not trusting a single word from [Ser Rogue’s] mouth… skip right over posts from [Ser Rogue]… engaging in debate [with Ser Rogue] is futile.”

    As what I hope will be my last comment on this here…

    If only Ser Rogue were a man of his word when he makes such promises. More than just a several times, he was “seriously finished with [this] asshole.” It has gotten so funny, I’ll be inspired one of these days to produce a “best-of Ser Rogue’s throwing in the towel and wringing his hands of me.”

    Rather than continue this flaming nonsense, I have some simple advice for Señor: STOP.

    Ser Rogue admits that it is he who “continues this flaming nonsense.” Other than me calling him respectfully “Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord” that comes from his own coinage of “nookiedoo”, Ser Rogue will be hard pressed to find instances where I flamed him. What will be found are instances where properly-applied science and analysis of the evidence burn Ser Rogue and where Ser Rogue’s own flaming words burn him back.

    It is in your own interest Señor, to lay off this persistent spamming and sales pitch for this particular ‘product’ –

    This sounds like a threat.

    Who is Ser Rogue, the no-nookie Lord, to be commanding in all capital letters that I STOP bringing up this particular “product”: “neu nookiedoo” [neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)]?

    it is the exact technique used by the F-Troop, to spin off into their sales pitches and disrupt the dialog of every thread.

    No, it is not the exact technique. I’m substantiating “neu nookiedoo”. It has properly applied science and analysis of the evidence behind it, and ties many more pieces of the puzzle together than the other conspiracy theories.

    It is not in my hands to STOP, but Ser Rogue’s. I told Ser Rogue what he had to do. STFU.

    He is the one who continues to provide me with opportunities and openings to discuss neu nookiedoo, while bashing him with his own dishonest techniques.

    Regardless of the merits you see in your nuclear thesis is beside this point. Try participating with the rest of the forum rather than trying to jam this down our throats.

    Ser Rogue should review how neu nookiedoo was legitimately brought into the discussions, and that others created the opportunity. If Ser Rogue would have taken his own advice to STOP or my advice to STFU, it would have been a single lonely posting: a rabbit-hole entrance for lurker readers to explore for nuggets of truth.

    As for what is truly being “jammed down our throats,” we only need to tabulate Ser Rogue’s posting count (like the latest his-3-to-my-1) and correlate that statistic with Ser Rogue’s PR tour of hypnotic assertions filled with lies, ad hominem, and other dishonest operations to get neu nookiedoo out of consideration.

    The [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.

  23. Hahahahah…what a load of horseshit Señor.
    Still ‘tabulation masturbation’…and posting count rather that the obvious overwhelming word count for Señor Useful Idiot and his Oink Tango.

    “poof”~J Wood

    \\][//

  24. Whether Señor is a jackass or a weasel will one day be found out.

    Like he, I can turn words back on him: if he’s not being paid to post this Nuclear/DEW shit, why doesn’t he “shut the fluck up”? Why is it his single agenda?

    \\][//

  25. And now a third post in a row…

    Just to make the point that Señor Jackass can now post another 800 word rant, and say that is one to my three. Isn’t it cute how that works?

    \\][//

  26. “In any event, the apparently baseless mini-nuke and DEW claims seem to make a mockery of legitimate 9/11 research.”~Aidan Monaghan

    Jones to Prager:
    “Why will you not carefully read my published papers and respond to them?”

    Why do YOU suppose Prager has not addressed Jones’ papers? That should have been first on his agenda if he was going to allege that “Jones is a fraud”.

    This makes a mighty four Señor__so__ Sock it to me!…{grin}.

    \\][//

  27. Proponents of the “mini-nuke” theory are invited to organize their data and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper, to submit to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a reply to this Letter. That reply will be published.

    A thorough response should address all of the points above. The Journal editors (corresponding to known practice in the scientific community) state that they will allow such responses to be published without peer review constraints, the main requirements for publication being relevance, civility in the presentation, avoiding straw-man arguments,
    raising specific points and questions, and naming of the author(s) so that they may be contacted for further discussion.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

    \\][//

  28. The Lord No-Nookie (aka: Mr. Rogue, Agent Rogue, hybridrogue1), in proving that “he doth protest too much” gave us five-in-a-row:
    October 7, 2012 – 1:41 pm
    October 7, 2012 – 4:24 pm
    October 7, 2012 – 4:30 pm
    October 7, 2012 – 6:11 pm
    October 7, 2012 – 10:57 pm

    None of them said anything significant. I was planning on letting him have the last word.

    [BTW, the unattributed rebuttal challenge from the posting; it was given in 2006 or so. I couldn’t find any published challenges on the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Was it because there were no responses, or they aren’t publishing them? Also, I’m not advocating “mini-nuke”; I’m advocating “neu nookiedoo,” so the challenge is malframed from the get-go.]

    However, as I was collecting & re-purposeing my words on “neu nookiedoo” [neutron nuclear directed energy weapon (DEW), which sometimes goes by “enhanced radiation weapon (ERW)”], I got to thinking about some of the latest coincidences on Truth & Shadows.

    Coincidence #1: A normally sane and rational Mr. Rogue goes all rabid and postal whenever “neu nookiedoo” comes up, becoming his online alter-ego “Lord No-Nookie”.

    Coincidence #2: Lord No-Nookie has proven back-channel email access to Dr. Jones, to the point where Dr. Jones is emailing Ser Rogue with a link to his recent (incomplete and lame) rebuttal to Jeff Prager’s Dust Analysis on 9/11 Blogger and possibly other talking points for Ser Rogue to deploy against my wild-ass bat-shit crazy. [I substantiate here my “incomplete and lame” assessment of Dr. Jones rebuttal.]

    Coincidence #3: The banned Agent Albury Smith makes an oh-so-brief appearance here to drop a horseshoe of good luck, some three stories tall, that is in need of further contemplation.

    Coincidence #4: After I offer a curt explanation, the Lord No-Nookie offers up two responses to this horseshoe, with the second one a scant 26 minutes after the first being such a classic no-substance ad hominem:

    What a circus those two make… Agent Smith and the Useful Idiot… like Abbott and Costello on acid.

    Indeed, that is like a disinformation semaphore that on the surface appears to be a wave-off (“Nothing to see here, folks! Move along now.”), when in reality both agents are waving us to land there. So let us revisit the relevant parts again so they can be fleshed out and so that the Lord No-Nookie will know what he needs to escalate via back-channel email to Dr. Jones.

    The banned agent Albury dropped a nugget of truth on October 1, 2012 – 4:00 pm when he asked:

    [Could] incendiaries or demolition explosives have caused that 180-degree bend in the ~3-story “horseshoe beam” found in the WTC tower debris?

    I answered him on October 1, 2012 – 5:21 pm:

    No, incendiaries or demolition explosives could not have caused that “180-degree bend in the ~3-story ‘horseshoe beam’ found in the WTC tower debris.” They could cut it, or blow it into pieces. But “nookiedoo” is another matter.

    The Lord No-Nooke plopped down his two cents on October 2, 2012 – 7:26 pm (just before the aforementioned “acidic” ad hominem):

    Incendiaries do not make things hot? Is that a point bouncing around here? Is this coupled with the idea that heat does not soften steel? Very curious. Ask a blacksmith how he bends a house-shoe sometime.
    An anvil, a hammer and a furnace seem to be the common methods.

    I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the word “furnace.” The blacksmith heats the entire piece of metal before attempting to bend it with his hammer & anvil into shape.

    When large pieces of metal are too long for the furnace, the area to be bent is heated. It should be noted that iron and steel are great conductors of heat. The ramifications are that it will take more heat (and/or time) to get a localized area of a large piece of metal to glow red-hot and be easily bent, because heat is conducted through out the steel. Here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a horeshoe:
    Core Beam bent

    When science literate people study this and try to apply the theory of chemical incendiaries or explosives, they should be left with questions that can’t be easily answered.

    – Why was this core column not cut there?
    – How close was this core column to the neighboring core column that would have been rigged with such incendiary or explosive?
    – How much higher temperature does the incendiary or explosive have to burn to not only do its job on the target column but to also span the distance to a neighboring column and to heat it in a localized manner such that it weakens to the point where the weight above it bends it like a horeshoe?
    – How quickly could this inceniary or explosive on a core column heat a localized portion of a neighboring column to the bending point? [While Jon Cole and Dr. Jones have done experiments with thermite to show how quickly in human terms (many seconds) it accomplishes its task, the nature of the anomaly within the towers destruction suggests that it would have had to have happened several orders of magnitude faster (milliseconds or less.)]

    Now that we are discussing bent pieces of metal, study these images compliments of Dr. Judy Wood [Woo-hoo! Glad that I should slip her shit into the discussion sideways]:

    Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
    Multiple pieces bent

    The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. An incendiary or explosive is localized in terms of where it is initially applied. While fast and hot, such “conventional” mechanisms come up short in explaining these bends, because they would cut or destroy what was right next to them.

    These bent beams had an arc over their whole length. It implies a massive heat source (several orders of magnitude hotter than “conventional” mechanism”) that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.

    Moving on to other images that imply a destructive mechanism in a completely different ballpark than a conventional incendiary or explosive:
    twisted beam 3
    twisted beam 2

    In the following images, note the wall assemblies that are rolled up like “steel doobies”. Note also how the interior and exterior sides of these wall assemblies are “steam cleaned”, meaning they have no paint or other things attached to them.

    twisted beam 1 and rolled up carpet
    Fields on the rolled up spandrels
    The Steel Doobies

    A conventional incendiary or explosive cannot explain how the spandrels that connected the three beams in a wall assembly could be heated so completely that they’d wrap themselves up into such a tight “steel joint.” Yep, the towers were smoked by something: “neu nookiedoo.”

    Finally, we have the meteorite, which is noteworthy for how it fuses together various materials. What sort of heat source created this?

    Readers are encouraged to read about “enhanced radiation weapon (ERW)” and neutron boms, but starting with the caveat that it is scaled down to the size of a grapefruit, which we know was possible given that 1960 gave us the small Davy Crocket nuke. Then, we are to imagine that each tower (and WTC building) had multiple such “neu nookiedoo” grapefruits and that each could have their energy aimed in a useful direction (e.g., UP, so that they don’t knock out lower “neu nookiedoo” or the bathtub).

    Allow me to bring up an example of ERW or “neu nookiedoo” with regards to the initiation of the destruction of the South Tower (WTC-2). The top of the tower starts to lean, and according to Newton’s laws, its angular momentum should have caused it to continue tipping out to the path of least resistance and then as a near cohesive block fallen onto neighboring buildings. Instead, before the “pile driving block” progresses a few floors below the “impact level”, the innards of that upper block get “dustified”; no longer is it a cohesive mass; the angular momentum of that cohesive block is arrested and suddenly becomes the “angular momentum of lots of tiny pieces.”

    By observing the roof line of WTC-2 in this early phase, David Chandler once calculated that the roof line of the upper block fell at 2/3 the speed of gravity. The implication is that the upper block suddenly lost 2/3 of its internal structural support. This is no easy feat.

    9/11 South Tower “Collapse” compilation [video]

    David Chandler does prove energetic (chemical) material were present in the destruction by an ejected projectile that suddenly changes direction, at 1:11 in this South Tower Smoking Gun [video].

    However, Mr. Chandler takes a step beyond his expertise by stating (0:55):

    These effects can be cause by late firing explosives, which can produce white smoke trail. White smoke, consisting of aluminum oxide is a by-product of a thermite reaction.”

    My comments are not meant to take away from explosive materials being deployed as secondary mechanisms. I’ve always championed that thermite or whatnot blew the bolts connecting the wall assemblies together milliseconds ~after~ “neu nookiedoo” decimated the insides; the walls helped mask and contain such hijinx and side-effects, like greater EMP.]

    Mr. Chandler’s PR hypotic assertion is that all of the white stuff is smoke and the by-product of only a thermitic reaction.

    The reality is that lots of things can produce white smoke. Moreover, much of what we observe — IMHO — is more “white” steam and dust, from the “neu nookiedoo” having energized the metal to the point where it “cooked” off whatever was painted or affixed to it. The steam from that cooking is evident in many pictures.

    When the wall assemblies are studied in the debris pile, they do not exhibit evidence of burns or scorching that would be a by-product of a “fiery” incendiary or explosive. [In this image of Wall Pieces cooking things off [img], what configuration of incendiary or explosive would cause the entire length and width of a wall assembly to be affected?]

    No, the wall assemblies to me exhibit having their metal heated to the point where they “cooked off” things, like a burner on a stove.

    Smoke rises and its rising particles can be seen going to great heights even from a small fire. Steam, on the other hand, also rises but then quickly disappears as vapor in the air. Dust eventually falls and settles. The WTC decimation exhibits all of the above, but a nugget of truth from lots of imagery is the proportion of each in the immediate aftermath.

    Referring to the image above, here is a re-purposed discussion from another 9/11 disinfo site (Let’s Roll Forums) on Steaming Meteors from 2011-07-20, shortly before they banned me, because evidently “nuclear devices” was a taboo subject like it is so many other places:

    Turn our attention to the large chuck [A] of building fascade that appears on the left-hand side and the first chunk we see as our eyes scan from top-to-bottom.

    Now turn your attention to the bottom edge of that chunk and scan to the right to locate [B] the “five pieces of smoking meteor” (or so it appears.) I’ll address this in a moment.

    Secondly turn your attention to the wall chunk just above the “meteors” [C] as well as the onces below them [D]. Those chunks in particular are from the interior side, not the exterior. Where is the “finishing” material that would be glued or painted onto the interior beams?

    Go back to the original chunk [A] and note that we see the exterior side. Directly under it is another large chunk [E] with the exterior side also facing us. This one seems to be “billowing smoke” but not as badly as the 5 meteors [B].

    Look at the nature of the smoke.

    My hypothesis is that this isn’t really smoke. It is a combination of steam and fine particles. The directed energy weapon turned the residual trapped water molecules in office content (e.g., dry wall, concrete, porceline) instantly into steam. Volumic pressure of the expanding steam from everywhere within the content “containers” caused those containers to blow themselves apart leaving dust and steam.

    Lots of factors determine the rate at which such “watery” content will dissolve and have the the molecules stream off or rather steam off, as we see with the 5 falling “steaming meteors”, which aren’t on fire, don’t have flames, and don’t have traditional smoke.

    Those wall sections that give us views of the interior red? The hollow tower’s crowd says they were never finished. On the other hand, I say that there is enough residual “white” on these interior faces to suppose they were finished to a degree, but that those “watery” elements had “steamed” themselves nearly clean. The wall [D] and those meteors appear to be still steaming apart the “watery” drywall and paint that were affixed to them.

    At any rate, the “steaming 5 meteors” are a smoking gun to get us to look at other steaming elements in the collapse.

    Now let us return to the coincidences given earlier in this thread.

    Let’s have the Lord No-Nookie use his established back-channel email contact to Dr. Jones. [Were I to contact him out of the blue, my email will be considered spam. Plus it needs to be more public.] Because 9/11 Blogger doesn’t allow my participation, let’s use Truth & Shadows as a neutral location for the “nookie-schooling” that I am looking forward to receiving from the good professor.

    Dr. Jones should calculate what energies would be required and their duration and their configuration to cause horseshoe and arched beams.

    Remember, the steel beam has to be essentially heated end-to-end to the bending point in the precious few fractions of a second while the content of the towers crashed around it.

    I maintain that “neu nookiedoo” can do it, easily… And account for tritium, dustification of content, low levels & short duration of “standard” (alpha, beta, gamma) radiation, etc. Super-duper nano-thermite and any combination of conventional (or exotic) chemical incendiaries and explosives? Not so much. Let’s recall that Dr. Jones himself says in the 9/11 Blogger rebuttal to Prager:

    Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).

    I hope that the Lord No-Nookie will STFU… until Dr. Jones can bail him out. We don’t need another five postings in a row like what precedes this.

    Sincerely yours,

    // Señor jackass or weasel with a “neu nookiedoo” agenda, ‘cuz this duped useful idiot thinks it closest to the Truth based on properly applied science and analysis of the evidence. Expressed in only ~2,471 words. Woo-hoo!

  29. >”Remember, the steel beam has to be essentially heated end-to-end to the bending point in the precious few fractions of a second while the content of the towers crashed around it.”
    ~Señor Dupe

    This is based on the ASSUMPTION that this beam was bent to a horseshoe in the initial collapse rather than being in the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it for a furnace length of time.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    There is no need to “account for tritium..”
    As explained countless times now; the levels were MINUET.
    . . . . . . .
    “dustification of content” – has to do with brisance, not heat, and RDX or PETN can account for both.

    And going through all this YET AGAIN…for christ sake…

    You got something Señor Dupe: “A thorough response should address all of the points above.” – Those points being those in the letter found here:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

    Whether you submit that to Journal or not, you need to “organize [your] data and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper,” rather than this stutterbop dribbled here.

    One more thing Señor Dupe, you say:
    >”However, Mr. Chandler takes a step beyond his expertise..”

    Just WTF is YOUR “expertise” tango dancer?

    \\][//

  30. The Nookiedew Burlesque

    The foundation that Señor Useful Idiot bases his criticisms of Professor Jones begin with the slander begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds; that Jones’ played a role in the debunking of the Pons-Fleischmann cold fussion experiment. I went through the history of this in great detail in one of our first debates about the status of Jones.
    He had NOTHING to do with it except to offer collaboration in good faith. The entire field of nuclear physics tore the findings of Pons-Fleischmann apart before Jones had anything to say about it, which was when the report had already been rebuked. Jones was at some convention and did make a remark at that time. But he certainly was not involved in instigating an attack on Pons-Fleischmann. But Jones’ work in the field of cold fusion far precedes this, as a history of his publications on the issue will prove. Thus there is no basis for the continuing attacks on Jones, which are all as spurious as this foundation of sand. [See adendum 1]

    We are then catapulted to Señor Idiot’s complaints about Jones’ first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction. Here Señor Idiot puts a large stack of chips down on double zeros and spins the wheel, with this spittle about 55 times the background of Tritium. As I have noted this is a miniscule amount – that measurements in Becquerels is of tiny amounts of radioactivity. Even falling back on the concepts of the shielding processes of a ‘neutron bomb’ and attenuating some ninety something percent of the release of precursors and isotopes, would lead to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times – and likely millions of times the background for Tritium.
    Jones’ Geiger Counter would not measure Tritium__true, but Tritium would not be the ONLY radiation from a nuclear explosion. There was no radiation in the dust samples or the steel beams Jones Geiger tested .
    To the idea that tritium from gun sights is absurd – the FBI had an office space in one of the towers as well as the WTC7. There could have been a huge arsenal – several hundred weapons and extra sights and other such items in that space alone. But the most important thing to recall is that Becquerels are a tiny amounts of radiation, a nano-curie, a billionth of a curie. 55 times the background is minuscule any device even a small one would have released thousands if not hundreds of thousands and likely millions of Becquerels.

    Then there is the utter nonsense to do with decibels {dB} and Sunder’s assertions that they somehow determined there were no explosions based on measuring dB from recordings. The assumption that one can some how extrapolate from a process that is impossible in the first place, is doubly crippled by the body of evidence that there were explosions. And this has all been gone ’round. Yet Señor refuses to flush this turd, seeing it as one of his precious ‘nuggets’. It is not a nugget, it is a turd of nonsense. It is impossible to measure dB from a sound recording.

    Then there is this issue of attempting to force the illnesses of the first responders into a ‘radiation sickness’ argument. That this is adequately dispelled by the actual empirical data will not sink into the thick skull of the useful idiot. And anyone with two neurons to click together will see this is so by reading/studying the following link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

    The above paper also gives a compelling argument for the chemical explosive and flagellants as the most reasonable explanation for the hot spots in the rubble. And also explains any disfigurement of metal anywhere at and around the WTC complex, including the vehicles. And that key is eutectic damage.

    http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS/wtc.asc.ch3/

    USGS Spectroscopy Lab
    Spectroscopic and X-Ray Diffraction Analyses of Asbestos in the World Trade Center Dust
    Asbestos Content of the Settled Dust

    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/13/2012-14203/world-trade-center-health-program-addition-of-certain-types-of-cancer-to-the-list-of-wtc-related

    Malignant neoplasm of the larynx.
    . . . . . . . . . .
    As the caustic toxicity of the chemical and gaseous content of the dust is adequate to explain the first responder illnesses, it must count as a secondary, not a prime argument. First there must be actual evidence of that radiation. Tritium itself won’t do, as has been explained too many times already.
    Uranium is in any environment on this planet, thus it’s daughters would be as well. We need proofs of copious amounts of something radioactive…but there is no proof of any.

    So this leaves our little dumpling cherub with not only a quiver full of broken arrows, but indeed an unstrung bow.

    Addendum 1
    Since they were seeking different lines of evidence for the same phenomenon, Jones asked the funding agency, the United States Department of Energy, to inform Pons and Fleischmann about his research — and suggest a collaboration. Scientifically speaking, collaborating was a good idea. Scientists are expected to understand the current research and theory in their fields in order to ensure that their work is up-to-date and takes recent advances into account. Though Pons and Fleischmann had extensive training in chemistry, neither of them had studied nuclear physics, which was Jones’ area of expertise. Additional physics knowledge would have been especially helpful in this case because the hypothesis about fusion occurring in palladium was so unconventional. It went against the grain of well-supported physical theories — which suggested that the deuterium atoms inside palladium wouldn’t get close enough to one another to fuse. Both groups had relevant knowledge that the other lacked. By collaborating, they would broaden their understandings of the problem, techniques, and evidence — and would be better able to judge whether or not fusion was occurring.

    Unfortunately, the benefits of collaboration were not enough to persuade Pons and Fleischmann to work with Jones’ group. Pons and Fleischmann were convinced that Jones had used details gathered from their grant application to get his experiment running. They refused to collaborate — and in so doing, missed an opportunity to expand the expertise of their team.

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_04

    Worried that Jones would scoop them, Pons rushed to perform neutron experiments of his own, but his search for neutrons did not start off well. He was initially unable to detect any sign of neutrons being released from his cold fusion cell, although the large number of neutrons produced by fusion should have been relatively easy to detect. Pons then tried a second technique for neutron detection. This time he found neutrons — but a hundred million times fewer than the number he had expected to detect! However, this was still many times more neutrons than the number that Jones had found. Nothing seemed to be matching up — Pons’ neutron results didn’t agree with his heat measurements, with Jones’ neutron results, or with established nuclear theory, which suggested no fusion should be occurring at all!
    Though they’d just agreed to a joint submission in 18 days and despite the fact that they’d originally wanted 18 months to complete their experiments, Pons and Fleischmann jumped ahead of Jones and submitted a journal article on their own just five days later. This action broke with standards for scientific behavior on two levels. First, they failed to uphold the ethical standards set by the scientific community by breaking the intent (if not the letter) of their agreement with Jones. Second, they didn’t sufficiently expose their ideas to testing. In their rush to publish, they failed to perform some simple and obvious experiments, the results of which would have provided key evidence about whether or not their cold fusion hypothesis was correct.
    In a last ditch effort to validate the cold fusion results, fellow University of Utah professor Michael Salamon was allowed into Pons’ lab to conduct experiments searching for neutrons coming from Pons and Fleischmann’s own fusion cells. If any experiment could be sure to replicate the conditions of the original, this would be it. During his five-week long test, Salamon was unable to detect any neutrons.
    The journal editor who allowed the original article to be published with minimal peer review did not adhere to the standards science had set for such publications. Pons and Fleischmann withheld experimental details from the community and tried to shield their ideas from testing. They and the other scientists who “reproduced” cold fusion, only to later retract their results, failed to perform adequate tests to evaluate their ideas. And, of course, Pons’ behavior during the helium experiment, as well as the broken publication agreement with Jones, smacked of dishonesty. It’s important to note that even with such unscientific behavior, the process of science still worked. Within a year, the scientific community had investigated Pons and Fleischmann’s claims and come to the consensus that what had been observed wasn’t really cold fusion. However, there was still a price to pay for this misconduct: time, energy, and upwards of 100 million tax dollars were squandered on cold fusion.
    [See also: Huizenga, J. 1993. Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. New York: University of Rochester Press.
    Taubes, G. 1993. Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. New York: Random House

    \\][//

  31. This whole squidsquaddle of Señor El Dupe’ is based on the spurious contention that I don’t WANT nookiedew to be true__Or that I am attempting to HIDE that there is a nuclear element__Or that I would not accept actual proofs of such. These assertions are nonsense.

    I have no vested interest in it at all. If it could be PROVEN, that would be one thing. So far everything I have encountered from the proponents of nukes or dews has turned out to be spinning bullshit.

    But topping off Señor El Dupe’s mundane crap as to the merits of all of this, is the lame attempt to align me with Assbury Smith. Another stoop into pure scandalous PR.
    As I have pointed out this preeck Señor, will try ANYTHING to win an argument.

    \\][//

  32. Mr. Rogue’s three postings had a word count in the ~1,888 range. Therefore, given my habit of quoting my discussion opponent in order to clarify the points I’m addressing, the second version of my response at ~4,356 words wasn’t that out of line. Still, I’ll use this version to whack down the word count. Unless stated otherwise all quotes are from Mr. Rogue.

    +++ October 9, 2012 – 6:54 pm

    I wrote:

    Dr. Jones should calculate what energies would be required and their duration and their configuration to cause horseshoe and arched beams. Remember, the steel beam has to be essentially heated end-to-end to the bending point in the precious few fractions of a second while the content of the towers crashed around it.

    Mr. Rogue demonstrates his lack of understanding:

    This is based on the ASSUMPTION that this beam was bent to a horseshoe in the initial collapse rather than being in the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it for a furnace length of time.

    Yes indeed, I make the logical assumption that the core column was bent into a horseshoe during the collapse, because the 3-story beam required ROOM and SPACE to be bent 180 degrees back on itself. Mr. Rogue’s seems to assert that a long beam “in the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it” would have have enough physical space and freedom of movement within the debris pile to get bent back on itself. This isn’t very plausible for the horeshoe.

    “In the pile later with substantial weight and heat on it” is plausible for accounting for the arched pieces, though. But the defect in Mr. Rogue’s argument: what produced sufficient heat in the pile to adequately heat end-to-end those beams to get the arches? It is not trivial.

    There is no need to “account for tritium..” As explained countless times now; the levels were MINUET. … Becquerels are a tiny amounts of radiation, a nano-curie, a billionth of a curie. … 55 times the background is minuscule any device even a small one would have released thousands if not hundreds of thousands and likely millions of Becquerels.

    Let’s ignore that Mr. Rogue hasn’t explained it “countless times” and that this is the first time he has ever brought up “Becquerels,” which may be thanks to Dr. Jones kibbitzing him via email.

    What we are observing here is a scientific slight of hand. They try to frame the number as being teeny, tiny, small, miniscule — “a billionth of a curie”. Yep, so small, the unaided human eye can’t even see it, so you can forget about it, right?

    It doesn’t matter if the amount is minuscule and non-threatening to health, which is the skew and spin both Dr. Jones and the govt tritium report take. What matters is the measured amount compared to what it should have been. Tritium was measured, even if we can’t verify the validity of that measurement or the report publishing it. Therefore it was important and needs its source identified, not brushed aside as Mr. Rogue attempts.

    This reported number, if it can be trusted, is still 55 times the background level and is NOT accounted for by airplane exit signs or weapons gun sights. The argument is similar to that of Prager’s analysis of the dust. Various elements are found in correlated quantities in the dust from different sampling locations, so therefore were involved in the decimation process. They can’t be attributed to building content (e.g., in computers and things), because the initial disproportionate distribution of building content cannot result in proportional correlated quantities in the dust at all of the different measuring points. So it is with their benign but lame sources of tritium.

    “dustification of content” – has to do with brisance, not heat, and RDX or PETN can account for both.

    If RDX or PETN were deployed in the destruction, it would be true that their brisance could dustify some amount of content. It would also be true that they would produce instantaneous moments of intense heat. Beyond that, however, they fall short in explaining these specific pieces of evidence. Why?

    [1] The same brisance of these explosives would destroy the “horseshoe” beam before its heat could weaken a localized spot on the beam for bending into a horseshoe.

    [2] The fast burn-rate of RDX or PETN means that they cannot account for the necessary duration of an under-rubble hot-spot that could heat end-to-end those steel beams that became arches. (Unless of course massive quantities of unreacted RDX or PETN were in the pile and strung out like a fuse, ala the “600k mile imaginary garden hose.”)

    So, another explanation for the evidence must be sought, regardless of whether or not RDX or PETN or super-duper nano-thermite played a role.

    You got something Señor Dupe: “A thorough response should address all of the points above.” – Those points being those in the letter found here.

    The key phrase is “all of the points” in the games you and Dr. Jones are playing. I don’t need to do that if I agree with most of the points (or don’t know any better to not agree.) Successful disinformation is made up of mostly truth with a small fraction of disinformation. So addressing “all of the points” in a thorough and scholarly effort is just busy work. I’ll go into more detail on my few points of disagreement later.

    Mr. Rogue writes:

    Just WTF is YOUR “expertise” tango dancer?

    Other than Argentine Tango dancing from a decade ago and ongoing literary endeavors, my artistic talents pale compared to Mr. Rogue’s. However, Mr. Chandler, Dr. Jones, and I are all VETTED members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, unlike Mr. Rogue. Enough said, genius artist.

    +++ October 9, 2012 – 8:02 pm

    Mr. Rogue’s “No-Nookiedoo Burlesque”

    The foundation that Señor Useful Idiot bases his criticisms of Professor Jones begin with the slander begun by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds; that Jones’ played a role in the debunking of the Pons-Fleischmann cold fussion experiment.

    That’s my foundation? Nope. Not even close. My criticisms of Dr. Jones certainly didn’t start there, either. Shows that Mr. Rogue has not been paying attention, as this posting from 2012-01-25 proves:

    Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: “Radiation measurements didn’t match A, B, or C levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type X, Y, or Z, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated.” Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source… Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of “trace levels” so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being “below trace levels.”

    Above is the first fold. The second fold within that same 2012-01-25 posting was a game to get an objective review of Dr. Wood’s textbook, which eventually Mr. Rogue played, was played, and exposed as a liar and a con-man (2012-09-25). True to his form, such tactics “trying ANYTHING to win an argument” are continued here:

    We are then catapulted to Señor Idiot’s complaints about Jones’ first paper disputing the nuclear theory for the WTC destruction. Here Señor Idiot puts a large stack of chips down on double zeros and spins the wheel, with this spittle about 55 times the background of Tritium.

    Actually, the 55 number comes from Dr. Ward. The foundation of my criticism with Dr. Jones has always been the blatant logic & reasoning error quoted above. He frames the thinking about nuclear weapons into large bombs with known radiation signatures, and then says, “Oops! We don’t have those exact signatures” [because it had a different radiation signature that neither discusses nor leaves the door open to consider] “so it wasn’t anything nuclear at all.”

    Dr. Jones must be feeding Mr. Rogue information:

    As I have noted this is a miniscule amount – that measurements in Becquerels is of tiny amounts of radioactivity. Even falling back on the concepts of the shielding processes of a ‘neutron bomb’ and attenuating some ninety something percent of the release of precursors and isotopes, would lead to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times – and likely millions of times the background for Tritium.

    Let’s assume these assertions valid. They are based on the validity of a shoddy government report on the tritium levels that Dr. Jones accepted without question.

    The source government report on tritium levels, unlike the USGS report on the dust, is very suspect in how & where the measurements were taken and what was written up. In terms of systematic scientific thoroughness, the two reports are like night and day. Dr. Jones complained many times about the government not releasing reports, slow-walking them, and blatantly skewing them [i.e., the NIST reports on the collapse that stopped at collapse initiation, didn’t provide computer models and assumptions used, and at one point averaged three collapse stages in the WTC-7 (with a 100 foot stage being identical with free-fall) so they could claim with a straight face that these three stages together were slower than free-fall.]

    The point is, Dr. Jones accepted the tritium report without question and is guilty of propagating from that report a new definition of “trace background level” to be 55 times greater than what it was. What skewing of the data was done before Dr. Jones did his no-nukes wave-off? We don’t know.

    And today that I am on a neu nookiedoo bender, it dawns on me that (1) Dr. Jones skewed nearly all aspects of his paper into the realm of large nuclear devices, (2) Dr. Jones did not discuss neutron bombs (and ERW) despite being a form of a nuclear weapon, and (3) Dr. Jones avoided the plausible theorizing of, say, the Anonymous Physicist, under the guise of being “scientific” and “staying within the bounds of publicly known nookie-things.” Gee, he doesn’t want to be found guilty of speculating or hypothesizing in his no-nukes (aka tritium) paper, but he is all over speculating and hypothesizing in the paper with Ryan on the evidence of energetic materials.

    Here’s something for Mr. Rogue to ask Dr. Jones. (a) Does Dr. Jones have a security clearance? (b) Based on Dr. Jones’ resume and from whom he’s worked, does Dr. Jones have very strict non-disclosure agreements with penalties approaching those of National Secrets? Therein might be the key for the glaring weaknesses this former Argentine Tango dancer found in Dr. Jones’ no-nukes paper.

    Jones’ Geiger Counter would not measure Tritium__true, but Tritium would not be the ONLY radiation from a nuclear explosion. There was no radiation in the dust samples or the steel beams Jones Geiger tested.

    A standard nuclear explosion gives off alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. What does a neutron bomb give off? Hint: it tweaks down the output of such “standard” radiation and produces short-lived and hard to detect neutron radiation. Dr. Jones didn’t go snooping for radiation in the dust until well after the fact, when some forms of radiation would have dissipated. Much too much damning evidence was shipped off to China.

    In another glaring example of Mr. Rogue not paying attention, he missed reading in Jeff Prager’s work the articles about Big Ivan, largest nuclear blast in the world (1961) yet giving off very little “standard” radiation.

    To the idea that tritium from gun sights is absurd – the FBI had an office space in one of the towers as well as the WTC7. There could have been a huge arsenal – several hundred weapons and extra sights and other such items in that space alone.

    “There could have been a huge arsenal (in WTC-7)” is vastly different that “there was a huge arsenal.”

    The keyword is “distributed.” Such weapons, if they existed as sources of tritium, would not have been evenly distributed through the WTC complex. In fact, they would have been localized. Tritium at the WTC-7 would have been highest. Was it? Or was tritium all over the place?

    Then there is the utter nonsense to do with decibels {dB} and Sunder’s assertions that they somehow determined there were no explosions based on measuring dB from recordings. The assumption that one can some how extrapolate from a process that is impossible in the first place, is doubly crippled by the body of evidence that there were explosions. And this has all been gone ’round. Yet Señor refuses to flush this turd, seeing it as one of his precious ‘nuggets’. It is not a nugget, it is a turd of nonsense. It is impossible to measure dB from a sound recording.

    The conditions were given where decibels could be approximated from a sound recording. Decibel levels can’t be determined from all sound recordings, but certainly from some that met the narrow band of conditions. Mr. Rogue’s failure to acknowledge this fact is a rather glaring.

    Indeed, I acknowledge the body of evidence that there were explosions. What Mr. Rogue can’t seem to acknowledge from the work of Dr. Sunder is that all of Mr. Rogue’s very brissanty explosives in the quantities required to pulverize the towers would have had deafening sound signatures in close proximity and even at some distance. Point me to all of the on-the-scene surviving first-responders and civilians (Mr. Rodriguez?) who suffered hearing loss while observing (or running away from) the WTC destruction. He can’t do it. Therefore, this remains a valid clue that such quantities of chemical explosives were not deployed; something else did the lion’s share of the destruction. What was it?

    Then there is this issue of attempting to force the illnesses of the first responders into a ‘radiation sickness’ argument. That this is adequately dispelled by the actual empirical data will not sink into the thick skull of the useful idiot. And anyone with two neurons to click together will see this is so by reading/studying the following link.

    The above link has absolutely no information about health effects. While it does list many of the toxic elements leaching out, its purpose was to prove evidence of energetic materials (e.g., thermite) by way of six measured spikes in the levels of certain elements.

    The issue isn’t that toxic elements at GZ wouldn’t impact health. The issue is the sudden impact of serious health issues (nearly all of them cancer related) that historically has only been observed by excessive radiation exposure that accelerates such cancer. Mr. Prager goes into this, but there are other sources.

    The above paper also gives a compelling argument for the chemical explosive and flagellants as the most reasonable explanation for the hot spots in the rubble. And also explains any disfigurement of metal anywhere at and around the WTC complex, including the vehicles. And that key is eutectic damage.

    The above paper from Mr. Ryan and Dr. Jones does ~not~ give “the most reasonable explanation for the hot spots in the rubble.” It hypothesizes what could have caused the six spikes between 10/2001 and 02/2002, but not what caused the hot spots. Dr. Jones from 9/30/2012: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

    From that same paper:

    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

    Mr. Rogue trudges on:

    As the caustic toxicity of the chemical and gaseous content of the dust is adequate to explain the first responder illnesses, it must count as a secondary, not a prime argument. First there must be actual evidence of that radiation. Tritium itself won’t do, as has been explained too many times already.

    Given that the deep-pocket perpetrators knew they were using neu nookiedoo, they would have taken steps to make sure “evidence” of radiation didn’t make the light of day, at least not in blatant form.

    Tritium is a trace indication of nuclear something, but its measured levels can’t be trusted in the govt report that deliberately misrepresented trace or background levels as being 55 times their previous values. Given the track record of NIST and the EPA, 55 is probably way on the low side.

    Along the same lines of controlling the radiation message, where are the companion reports on alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation? Dr. Jones did his skew, and nowhere does he consider a Project Excalibur or neutron nuclear device or even devices right up the alley of his research.

    Let us also not forget that they were so sure of what caused the collapse of the WTC — airplanes, jet fuel, gravity –, the list is rather long of all the things they did not or were not allowed to look for.

    Uranium is in any environment on this planet, thus it’s daughters would be as well. We need proofs of copious amounts of something radioactive…but there is no proof of any.

    In the dust analysis, uranium and other elements were found in questionable large quantities in the dust analysis. Mr. Rogue didn’t understand Jeff Prager’s correlation of the elements in the dust. Moreover, Mr. Rogue needs to look up neutron radiation and its half-life before jumping to the conclusion of what constitutes insufficient proof of something radioactive. Mr. Rogue is purposely misframing the 9/11 nuclear event.

    +++ October 9, 2012 – 9:39 pm

    This whole squidsquaddle of Señor El Dupe’ is based on the spurious contention that I don’t WANT nookiedew to be true__Or that I am attempting to HIDE that there is a nuclear element__Or that I would not accept actual proofs of such. These assertions are nonsense.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    Mr. Rogue rarely makes admissions to failings of individual points in his arguments, let alone to whole concepts that he champions. To take serious consideration of 9/11 neu nookiedoo off of the table, he plays the game of proposing alternatives that are on the margins of being plausible for accounting for feature A (e.g., pulverization) but that are totally inconceivable to account for feature B (e.g., duration of hot-spots) without an astronomical unreasonableness in the deployment quantities.

    Mr. Rogue should take note. When nano-thermite’s brissance starting coming up short for pulverization, Dr. Jones backpeddles and hints that something was used with thermite (e.g., RDX or PETN). Yet this is done without running the numbers out the other end to see what quantities would be required to address hot-spot duration. At best, he and Mr. Kevin Ryan make valid supposition into six spikes in temperature being attributable to pockets of unspent energetic thermitic material. Dangling in the air, Dr. Jones says recently: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

    Need I point out what the government, Dr. Jones, and A&E9/11Truth (alledgedly) failed to test for in their samples? Chemical explosives (e.g., RDX or PETN, etc.) I added “alledgedly”, because failure-to-test is different than failure-to-report. If tested and reported zero evidence of chemical explosives, it would be just as damning as some evidence of the same, because it allows no wiggle room to get away from nookiedoo.

    But topping off Señor El Dupe’s mundane crap as to the merits of all of this, is the lame attempt to align me with Assbury Smith. Another stoop into pure scandalous PR.

    Given that Mr. Rogue taught this forum all about “the two prong pincer attacks of disinfo agents,” he should know a mere mentioning of Mr. Rogue and Mr. Albury Smith as both being agents does not logically have to align the two in any of their overt views. Were Agent Smith allowed to continue to participate, I’m sure it would turn into something akin to the fake television wrestling matches where the victor is pre-determined, and the loser has the task of making his loss believable to help establish the legend of the victor. But hey, that’s just “another stoop into pure scandalous PR” from me, but at least it is a valid stoop and one that I’ll cop a plea to.

    I have no vested interest in it at all.

    His posting frequency, particularly on my hobby-horse themes, contradicts this.

    Mr. Rogue writes:

    If [neu nookiedoo] could be PROVEN, that would be one thing.

    Mr. Rogue has issues with acknowledging the nuggets of truth that prove neu nookiedoo. Worse, he tries to twist the falling tetris blocks of 9/11 evidence into his more mundane chemical CD realm, and is left with gaping holes that he can only fill with belittling ad hominem.

    So far everything I have encountered from the proponents of nukes or dews has turned out to be spinning bullshit.

    Coming from a self-proclaimed “genius artist” who re-posts unattributed talking points from Dr. Jones verbatim with very little that would suggest any depth to his own understanding, this assessment doesn’t mean much.

    For a brief moment, however, let us assume this assessment true; this does not validate or make any more reasonable ANY combination of conventional or exotic chemical explosives (RDX or PETN with NT) that Mr. Rogue has championed. Here’s Dr. Jones again: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).” And while we’re at it, let’s take a look at the horseshoe and arches again.

    The moment of assuming Mr. Rogue’s “spinning bullshit” assessment as being valid has passed. Were Mr. Rogue’s understanding not reliant on Dr. Jones — who truly does have a vested interest today in keeping neu nookiedoo from nuking his reputation –, he would know that Jeff Prager’s analysis of the dust is pretty damning proof, as is all of the evidence amassed by Dr. Wood.

    I’ve come this far, I might as well boost my word count by addressing:

    And going through all this YET AGAIN…for christ sake…

    In order for a “YET AGAIN” to apply, at least one complete looping cycle has to have preceded it. We didn’t have that, certainly not on “neutron nuclear DEW”. I’ve flagged Mr. Rogue in the past for saying “we already discussed X, and I fragged your ass”, when really we didn’t and he didn’t. Just another dishonest word game.

    The eagerness with which Mr. Rogue wants 9/11 nuclear contemplation taken off of the table — a consistent trait since his entrance into these forums in January 2012 — does not go unnoticed, particularly when he uses faulty arguments and dispicable debate techniques to snipe at things in isolation.

    Okay, we’ve got about ~3,847 total from which we subtract Mr. Rogue’s direction quotation 1,070 words, leaves us with my ~2,777 words.

    1. I forgot the word “lingering” in the following paragraph:

      In another glaring example of Mr. Rogue not paying attention, he missed reading in Jeff Prager’s work the articles about Big Ivan, largest nuclear blast in the world (1961) yet giving off very little lingering “standard” radiation.

      And now that I’ve revisited it, let’s take it further. Big Ivan was directed upwards. Certainly it gave off various levels of “standard” radiation, but they went up into the sky along with the directed energy. According to how the nuclear device was designed and deployed, the amount of lingering radiation of the biggest nuclear bomb in the world (1961) was small and dissipated quickly. Preceding Big Ivan in 1960 was the Davey Crocket, noted for its much smaller tactical size.

      Now let us turn our attention back to 2001 (some 50 years later) with many more advances in nuclear weapon’s technology and even Project Excalibur proposals about directing energy from a nuclear reaction and DU (depleted uranium) weapon’s deployment in battle. My contention is that several grapefruit size “neu nookiedoo” [neutron nuclear DEW (directed energy weapon)] per WTC building took them out.

      The devices were aimed upwards, which served many purposes. In the case of the towers, this helped mitigate nuclear fracticide whereby an upper nuke wipes out a lower nuke, thereby causing the lower one to not reach its full nuclear potential, and possibly leaving it to nuclear fizzle [which indeed is precisely what the hot-spots in the pile resemble]. By aiming the device upwards, that is also the direction for most alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. Dr. Wood makes a big deal up the fine particles rising. This is indeed something to consider. Her book and website have excellent pictures of the crater in WTC-6 and the seemingly cylindrical boreholes in WTC-5. [A sphere intersects a plane at a circle. The seeming boreholes in the roof could be more indicative of a cone or spherical blast intersecting the plane of the roof.]

      At any rate, the above is to be considered when framing the seeming lack of radiation on 9/11. Where did it go? What kind was it? How quickly would it dissipate? What would be lingering? How much validity should be placed on government radiation reports, particularly after their failings and skew are noted?

      1. I will answer the grand brew hahaha from Señor Spinball with this simple response:

        I got one, that is ONE email from Jones alerting me to his answer to Prager at said URL.

        We haven’t had any further communication.

        I have no vested interest in this nuclear spat. And If Señor Spinball wants to spin his balls from here to eternity on this topic – so be it. But there’s not a single nourishing analyte in his stew. Even the meaty aroma of the broth is a synthetic fragrance made from neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones.

        \\][//

      2. I have no vested interest in this nuclear spat.

        Mr. Rogue’s 36 comments (37% of the 97 total) with 9,226 words (36% of total) tell another story regarding “vested interest,” as does the fact that most of my 22 comments (22.6% of the 97 total) related to neu nookiedoo and were fueled by Mr. Rogue himself.

        And If Señor Spinball wants to spin his balls from here to eternity on this topic – so be it.

        Why, thank-you kindly, Mr. Rogue. Don’t mind at all if I do.

        And in all the hub-bub about neutron nuclear DEW, its signatures in the dust, and tritium radiation, I completely forgot to bring up Dr. Wood’s textbook, “Where Did The Towers Go?” Such a great collection of nuclear after-effect images.

        If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
        ~ crafty Dr. Judy Wood

        Indeed, the evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinx is on display in those pages, right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection, that Mr. Rogue’s pyroclastic demolition mechanisms don’t explain nearly as well as neu nookiedoo and its side-effects.

        But there’s not a single nourishing analyte in his stew.

        Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!

        Nothing quite like a hole shot into the foot of Mr. Rogue’s argument because of a stupid over-generalization: “… not a single nourishing analyte.” Oh so easy to prove wrong and discredit Mr. Rogue with as little as “a single nourishing analyte.”

        Which nourishing nugget of truth from my posting should I pick to dispell the PR hynotic suggestion cast by Lord No-Nookie? Perhaps the horseshoe? Perhaps the arches? Perhaps the September 30, 2012 quote from Dr. Jones: “Something maintained those high temperatures [in the rubble hot-spots] (not just NT)”?

        Oh, but why put such onus on me? Where are my manners?

        Mr. Rogue brought it up. Mr. Rogue should defend it. Mr. Rogue should get cracking at proving each “wannabe-nourishing analytes” contained therein as not being such.

        It is unclear whether Mr. Rogue is referring to a stew of 2,777 words from my last posting or to a stew of my 15,286 words (~60%) under this article alone. Let’s assume the former for now. We can always double-back later.

        Chop, chop, hop to it, Lord No-Nookie! And don’t miss a single one, so tasty is that broth of damn naggit nuggets of truth.

        Maybe you’ll do better than your good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter review on crafty Dr. Wood’s textbook. Be a good Boy Scout and “Be Prepared,” cuz you just know its coming.

        Woo-hoo! Yet another opportunity to “slip [Dr. Wood’s] shit in sideways!”

        Even the meaty aroma of the broth is a synthetic fragrance made from neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones.

        Speaking of “neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones”, amorous readers should be wary of any double meanings to Mr. Rogue’s earned title — “the no-nookie Lord” — beyond neu nookiedoo that gets smooshed into the waffle treads of his black paratrooper boots that he wears to bed with his skinny black tie, dark sun-glasses, and Scoobey-do under-roos in his DUMB site (deep underground military base) a.k.a. his mama’s basement, particularly in the shadow of my meaty word count being 66% longer and of his comment count stream continuing to dribble on beyond what should be — beyond what he promises to be — his last words. Always the heart breaker, so married is he to his job.

        Oh man, I better stop. This ad hominem writing is so much fun to write. I can see where the no-nookie Lord gets off “spinning his balls” in this vein. Most addictive. But not very convincing, I’m afraid.

      1. For anyone who is interested, Vincent Gillespie, the secretary treasurer of Mariani’s defense fund will be a guest on the Keven Barrett radio show on Friday at 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. EST. The site is americanfreedomradio.com

  33. http://dailyreckoning.com/the-downside-of-mathematics/

    “It’s obvious that you can change the assumptions a bit and change the reported unemployment rate a lot. When statistician John Williams looks at the US data, for example, he comes up with a real unemployment rate of 23% — almost as high as the jobless rate in Spain.

    And yet, the BLS tells us that US unemployment is 7.8%. Not ‘around 8%.’ Not ‘less than one in ten.’ But 7.8% exactly. And yet, there are so many greasy assumptions lurking in the cracks of this number that it is not only completely unreliable and practically meaningless, it is the downside of mathematics. It pretends to tell you something…but once you have taken it in you know less than you did before, because what you think you know is largely a fraud.”~Bill Bonner

    No matter how good you are at math, if you are working on false assumptions the answers will be false.
    I found this especially true when interpreting the maths of Macky and others attempting to prove ‘gravity collapse’ of the twin towers. It is one of the prime Voodoo’s of Technocracy.

    I have found that to be the case on this very thread…

    \\][//

  34. Señor El Dupe has now devoted thousands of words to scurrilous nonsense, and page after page of misframed and unsupported supposition and empty assertions. All of this pressed into threads not meant to bear the weight of all of this bullshit. Shoving it down our throats thread after thread for month upon month, using any convenient slander he can assemble. And when the topic is finally to be addressed legitimately on a story meant for it, he will find he has shot his wad by premature ejaculation before the real party begins. Once again he has proven himself indeed a duped, but useless idiot.

    \\][//

    1. Señor El Dupe has now devoted thousands of words to scurrilous nonsense, and page after page of misframed and unsupported supposition and empty assertions.

      “… The readers’ eyes are getting heavy… so heavy… can barely keep them open…”

      All of this pressed into threads not meant to bear the weight of all of this bullshit.

      “… The readers are getting sleepy… so sleepy… the dreams are starting…”

      Shoving it down our throats thread after thread for month upon month, using any convenient slander he can assemble.

      “… The readers will now tranpose the actions of Mr. HybridRogueWon with Señor El Dupe…”

      And when the topic is finally to be addressed legitimately on a story meant for it, he will find he has shot his wad by premature ejaculation before the real party begins. Once again he has proven himself indeed a duped, but useless idiot.

      Worse than that. The “duped, but useless idiot” has also given out his game plan by mentioning the Dr. Wood textbook that he intends on mining for nuggets of truth towards neu nookiedoo conclusions, sweatheart, a wad that is dribbling off of Mr. Rogue’s chin onto his blouse. Like another famous skin flute player, preserving the DNA from the clothing article might lead to impeachment or treason trials… the neu nookiedoo fallout… Shock-and-awe, baby.

      In a story legitimate for the weight of this neu nookiedoo topic, Mr. Rogue will have credibility with “carousel” accusations only with exact quotations (accurately attributed and well formatted) and GOTO links exactly to source comments in context.

      … Ah, damn! I friggin’ just gave way more of my game plan!

      // what a dupe, but useless idiot I am

  35. Figure it out: Emmanuel Goldstein is a huge Zionist HasbaRAT, having a little fun with the Goyim. He’s doing the double whammy for his little giggles: Use a Jewish sounding name stolen from a futuristic, political novel and easy to do, clever photoshop jobbie of Osama Bin Laden merged on top of a government official portrait (probably some “War on Terro” State department bureaucrat).

    You got to understand the layers of sarcastic and sick humor these people so love. The Internet is a G-dsend to such types (note how I spelled that).

    I don’t know why you folks can’t see it, or maybe it’s just that you’re too scared to say the “J” word and think people are going to call you a Nazi.

    They’ve done this to America’s head over the decades. What you’re seeing today is America rushing headlong in dealing with the problem, or ending up in a dystopian police state.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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