Saturday, December 31, 2011

Finger Pointing at Disinformation's Behind

Hide All / Expand All

This page is not an example of one person using multiple aliases trying to juke the supporting numbers on a debate position on a given forum. The "Maxwell C. Bridges = DupedUsefulI = Señor El Once = Herr der Elf" equation should clear up the alias-equating. Pay close attention to the link on the date to the source material, because this defines where the discussion happened and who particpated in certain discussions. If the link circles back to this same URL, it represents an email exchange.

This page is a mash-up of postings from different forums but with a "spy-versus-spy" theme through its "the other guy is disinfo" pot-shots. I get that. But what nuggets of truth can be mined from the truthful infra-structure supporting the disinformation point?

The postings are repeated from elsewhere to give better context to personalities and opinions of one another.

Maxwell C. Bridges : Seeking Insights into No Planes


Dear Mr. Ace Baker,

I am on the fringes of the 9/11 movement, because evidence and logic leads me to conclude "no-(commercial)-planes" and milli-nukes on the towers. I would be happy to be proven wrong on one or both of these, because no one likes being considered the kook. Alas, the counter arguments to these views have been less than convincing.

I'm presently active as Señor El Once on Truth & Shadows, where I'm defending September Clues.

You were championing no-planes and participated in a biased video challenge. (I forget where I got the link or where it went to.) When traipsing after other leads, your name came up again in another forum. Going to your blog, you made only three postings since 2009.

I am writing to gain insight.

Have you changed your position on "no planes"? Were you burned out with the "focused" attention? Do you have any advice for me in this endeavor to discover truth?

In general, the 9/11 truth movement makes parallel arguments, whereby any number of them can be proven wrong (with adequate evidence & substantiation) without debunking the premise of 9/11 being an insider job, because "parallel paths" to that conclusion remain. September Clues is similar to this: one element of video forgery being proven wrong but doesn't debunk the entire premise. The 9/11 debunkers, on the other hand, have to address and disprove all of these parallel paths to the insider conclusion.

This being said, from your research into the video analysis & September Clues, do you recall the strongest and weakest September Clues arguments, and would you kindly comment on them? Specifically, what (strong) elements of September Clues have you never seen convincingly debunked? Likewise, what (weak) elements of September Clues have been presented to you in a manner where you might now have doubts or even agree with the debunking points of your discussion partner?

Maxwell C. Bridges

P.S. I couldn't resist because I saw some things on your blog that were related.

On another topic, I see that you make fun of Dr. Wood. Here's something crazy. I highly recommend Dr. Judy Wood's new textbook, because she really has done a great job on it. I've only read the first half and vouch for that. Should the second half reveal itself to be disinformation (which I fully expect and also expect to disagree with), we'll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our kids and grandkids how our generation was played. The book is worth the price for its large (7"x10") size and the 500 color images of 9/11 destruction that together with tables correlate those images to map positions to give a person a better perspective.

I'm using Dr. Wood's textbook to gather nuggets of truth to prove my milli-nuclear premise. In fact, that's what I'm doing with lots of disinformation: data mining it for nuggets of truth that make up its foundation. (If September Clues "nose-in/nose-out" etc. is proven as disinformation, a major nugget of truth not to be lost is how the message & media were controlled while the dust was still in the air regarding who did it and how [e.g., not controlled demolition.]) A nugget of truth from Dimitri K., a Russian agent who promotes deep underground nukes, is that in order to get building permits on the towers, they needed a demolition plan and nukes were part of that plan. Dr. Wood debunks Dimitri's deep-nuke premise by showing us the bathtub and subway. Moreover, Dr. Wood provides us with the insight into the physics of large falling objects and why pulverization wasn't just observed but was required.

You see, pulverization of content is a huge energy sink. The energy had to come from somewhere. Its thoroughness points a finger at a well run military operation. However, even they can fake it to appear as something else. So why the need for pulverization and why didn't they just let the top 20 stories of WTC-2 topple over when they started leaning?

Dr. Wood gave me the nugget of truth that answers this question: the bathtub. A massive block of stories or even massive chunks produced by controlled demolition falling from great heights onto the bathtub would have had enough kinetic energy to break or simply crack the bathtub, which would have flooded the towers' basements as well as the subway and consequently the basements of neighboring buildings. But if you pulverize the towers into dust right from the earliest phases of demolition, that much larger catastrophe is avoided.

Your blog had some minor discussion on nukes. When others say that there wasn't any radiation measured, we have to ask who did the measuring and who did the analysis thereof? The govt. The ailments of the first responders is a more accurate indicator of radiation at ground zero than govt measurements/reports are. To correct the record, radiation was recorded, like tritium (fusion) that they said came from aircraft exist signs. The foundry-hot under-rubble fires that burned for months suggest fission. (At the same time those fires debunk nano-thermite, because the fast burn-rate of nano-thermite makes it unlikely to handle the fire duration.) Fusion-triggered fission devices would explain the evidence.

In the 9/11 truth movement (and debunking campaign), one individual more so than any other on either side of the debate steered us away from nukes: nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones. He based his conclusions on the very govt reports that he laments elsewhere as being less-than-forthright. Moreover, too much emphasis on certain types of radiation and their levels (as done by Dr. Jones) is a subtle form of scientific deceit, because radiation is one of the factors (together with blast wave, heat wave) that can be tweaked in the milli-nukes' design. Dr. Jones didn't leave us with a void; he filled it with nano-thermite -- which may have been involved as a secondary mechanism -- and let the yeomen of 9/11 truth carry it where it didn't belong (e.g., duration of under-rubble fires).  Dr. Jones also debunked for the govt cold-fusion in the late 1980's.

Ace Baker : No flying objects of any kind, "September Clues is disinfo," and "Judy Wood is Disinfo"


Dear Bridges,

Thanks for the thoughtful letter. No flying objects of any kind hit the twin towers. No missiles, no military planes, no ufos, no global hawks, nothing. The twin towers were disintegrated with fission-triggered fusion reactions.

September Clues is disinfo. Shack's job was to present the video evidence and associate with missiles and total animation.

Judy Wood is Disinfo. Wood's job was to present the visual evidence and associate it with a false theory of DEW.

More later.

Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Judy Wood may indeed be disinfo


Dear Mr. Baker,

It is I who thank you for your thoughtful brief response and look forward to more when you have time.

In my writing, I mention a flying object (probably a military plane or missile) possibly hitting the 2nd tower, because of two things. One is the on-air interview between the reporter on the street and the studio anchor, whereby the reporter said that people thought it was a small plane or sounded like a missile up until the anchor, by then having seen and been duped by the pixel plane, corrected the reporter by saying it was a commercial plane. The second was a tidbit I obtained while battling trolls in a forum (possibly AlterNet). One female participant wasn't a troll and was asking interesting questions. She claimed to have been in a school building in Brooklyn where she and her whole class / school were watching WTC-1 smoke and then saw some flying object go across the sky (albeit lower on the horizon) and hit WTC-2. She could not definitively say it was anything other than something with wings: could have been a commercial plane, could have been a smaller plane, could have been a missile with a profile like a plane. Of course, she could have been an agent, but she was convincing, I have since taken her word for it and given the benefit of the doubt that something flying hit WTC-2. Ergo, I could be wrong.

I get them confused, but I thought it was the other way around: fusion-triggered fission milli-nukes. Regardless, we're on the same page.

I haven't jumped on the bandwagon to claim September Clues as disinfo, but that doesn't mean I don't have my suspicions. A glaring one is that those who attack it, do it so pitifully and without substance. What I am learning is that no one, by their own doing or the manipulation of others, has the complete picture. My job lies in data mining the nuggets of truth from the disinformation, lest they get discarded (on purpose) with the dubious disinfo conclusions. So I'd be curious as to what part of Shack's SC you think is disinfo. I do not recall him making a case for missiles or "total animation." I just recall him leaving the door open for missiles.

Dr. Judy Wood may indeed be disinfo, but we should not throw away the nuggets of truth from her efforts too quickly. In fact, I suspect that her work will stand the test of time. She wants to reveal the truth (like nukes) but has probably experience threats and pressure to the extent a bargain was struck that she'd get to live and present lots of nuggets of truth, but only if she inserted some kookiness. (Speculation on my part, there.) Whereas DEW seems most unlikely to work on the towers due to the destruction starting at the impact levels, when you consider the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the main edifice at the North wing line of WTC-4, there just might be some DEW applicability there. As much as their might be disinfo conclusions in Dr. Wood's work, there is also solid evidence (well presented) that needs to be stacked up and viewed from different perspectives.

At any rate, I'm finding it most helpful to separate nuggets of truth from disinfo conclusions. I don't like throwing them out prematurely, because then we miss things. All of the above as disinfo? Maybe, but we'll need to be specific.

Like I mentioned above, I look forward to other words of wisdom you might share, when you have time.

Have a good evening.


Ace Baker : No Flying Object

Maxwell C. Bridges : Synching the Amateur Videos


Dear Mr. Baker,

Your posting can easily pull me (back) into the camp of no flying objects. It truly is risk mitigation at its finest. I love the concept that if there is no flying object to distract people on the ground, the probability is greatly reduced of someone accidentally taking a video of a missile or something that isn't a commercial plane. There'd be no clue where to focus any running video, except the fires on WTC-1; they'd have no reason to concentrate on WTC-2. Their first clue would be the explosion.

From the link you sent and my other reading of your site(s), I have the following questions.

You mention a "synch pop" and that this is what the bright flash on the face of the towers was just prior to the nose code entering. Previously, this was used as part of the "pods on planes" argument. Others have used this as laser targeting for a missile. How do you speculate that this bright synch pop was achieved? Someone pointing a laser at the towers for "random" videos to pick up and re-use later in post-editing? Would it be easy to target the exact location of the bombs? And what about the evidence of that targeting beam moving along the face of the building and onto debris, etc.?

Your posting mentions the Bob and Bri video. I'd seen this before, and you're right that a crucial few seconds of the 2nd plane impact is missing, which seems strange if they had the camera on a tripod and left running. What is even stranger to me is that Bri says after the strike (paraphrased), "I saw it. It was a small military-type plane." I suppose, given the nature of the delays of the videos release, the editing, and the locked-lips today of Bob & Bri, maybe her comments weren't live and were post edited and they're being bought-off/threatened to portray that modification as the real thing. What do you think?

In the link to your blog that you provided, a question that comes to me is also one raised but unanswered in its comments. You say that around the towers authorities seized videos. I have not heard this nor seen proof.

I appreciate the discourse and whatever enlightenment you can provide when you have time.

All the best,

Ace Baker : no laser, no targeting beam


The flashes were an explosion, not a laser.

The bombs don't need to be targeted, they are pre-planted in the buildings. There is no laser, no targeting beam.

Yes, the comments about missiles and military planes are part of the psy-op. It's building a bridge back toward the official story. There is no limit to the number of phony witnesses that can be manufactured. The few dozen or so people on record as having seen a plane means nothing to me. They could have easily had a thousand or more. If a thousand people got a million dollars each, that's only a billion dollars. That's less than 1/20 of 1% of the 2.3 trillion dollars "missing" from the Pentagon budget.

The proof of government control of the 9/11 videos is my $100,000 offer. If the government didn't seize them, then private parties would have them. If private parties had them, then someone would accept my offer.


Maxwell C. Bridges : need for the video fakers to know when and where to position the pixels of their composite plane


Dear Mr. Baker,

I'm just trying to get some cognitive dissonance into my understanding and don't mean to be difficult.

You say the flashes were an explosion, not a laser. Maybe and let's go with that. But I believe video evidence exists of something laser-like being right at the spot where both planes entered and then (in the case of the 2nd plane) moved along the face of the building, onto debris, and onto the face of other buildings. I'm just trying to make sense of that. Plus, you mentioned a "synch pop" and I thought this is what it was. If it wasn't in this particular instance, when was it? Or, what "synch pops" were you referring to?

Sure, I can go with bombs being pre-planted in the building and there being no need to target missiles or remotely flown aircraft. However, there does appear to be a need for the computers of the video fakers to know when and where to position the pixels of their composite plane. Therefore, the need for a laser spot or bright explosion to get the "synch pop" seems to exist to my feeble understanding.

I was a late-comer to no-planes but have still been at it for a couple of years now. I only recently even stumbled upon you. I say this to provide some reasonable bounds to how far and wide (or not) your offer might have spread and to offer some limits to its usage as proof. What I think is that any private party with any video footage of 9/11 at all -- even if it was a mundane shot of gawking bystanders -- tried to capitalize on it (for profit, for recognition, for truth, for YouTube glory) well before 2003 +/- a year. If there were no planes, then their footage couldn't capture it and to their minds they'd think their angle or timing missed the actual plane; therefore they didn't have a high paying money shot.

I mean you no ill-will when I poke at the seized video aspect that your postings give the impression had multiple occurrences in NYC. Excluding the Pentagon, I can only think of 2 or 3 instances where someone mentions "the authorities took their footage", but it was more like "I gave the authorities/corporate media my footage" which became the re-played and over-played money shots. Getting his 5 minutes of fame, Evan F. even says (paraphrased) "I was surprised at what my footage contained when it was released and broadcast" as if he were surprised that an airplane appeared out of nowhere in his shot that he probably didn't see when he previewed it before giving it up. So, for my sake and yours, it would be good to either find evidence/testimony of private citizens in NYC having their videos/equipment taken, or to post-edit your blog posting to down play this. (Could even be a new blog posting.)

Yes, cognitive dissonance and their 5 minutes of fame is why I agree that the few (or thousands of) eye witnesses claiming to have seen flying objects means nothing. Most were likely at the scene but looking the wrong direction or at the wrong thing or had their view of a supposed approaching plane blocked. Those further away had even more incentive not to be staring at the towers uninterrupted and undistracted for prolonged periods of time. All the more reason for them to not have seen anything if nothing was there, but they're still eager for their 5 minutes. Even Willy Rodriquez says he saw the 2nd plane hit, although he was also rescuing people from the WTC-1 basement and from the towers with the firemen because of his special pass key.

When you have time, I could greatly benefit from your insight into September Clues and why you consider it disinfo, particularly when (right or wrong) my impression of your efforts is that they present a subset of September Clues.

This is fascinating and I thank you for the exchanges. Feel free to (respectfully) rip me a new one where I am in error.


Ace Baker : missiles, total animation, moving bridge, fake people


Sync pops

If you want me to look at evidence of "something laser-like", then show me.

September Clues / Simon Shack is disinfo because it promotes missiles, total animation, moving bridge, fake people, and gets it all backwards about broadcast delay. Where does September Clues actually take a stand on something, and get it right?


Maxwell C. Bridges : revisit things that you have mentally labeled as disinformation


Dear Mr. Baker,

Yes, your article on "Sync Pops" was where the concept came to me. Yes, it probably was an explosion in your GIF. A couple of other perspectives (and the 1st plane) have a more distinctive flash that isn't the explosion.

I'll have to be a total flake by not providing a link to the laser-something. Sorry in advance. I'm at work and don't collect videos or their links. However, maybe you'll recall the fake shot of the second plane that was taken through a chain link fence. SClues goes to town about how it is impossible for the chain link fence and the towers to both be in clear focus. At any rate, this is the shot that I seem to recall had the reflection of a (white) laser target where the plane was to hit and then move along the face of the building, onto debris, and then onto other buildings.

You asked an important question: "Where does September Clues actually take a stand on something, and get it right?"

My answer is: "I don't know." And "I didn't realize that SC got it wrong."

Just like my data mining of Dr. Wood et al for nuggets of truth requires me to be objective and maintain an open-mind, that is also how I approach all sources. (Maybe I'm the perfect "duped useful idiot".)

Not too long ago I did see how the moving bridge was debunked. Promotion of total animation by SC? If you say so. It has been awhile since I viewed it. But yes, as it relates to the moving bridge, I can see where it might be in error... on purpose.

Fake people? When I first ran across this on their website, I thought "oh-oh, here's where they build in the self-destruct mechanism for the disinformation to take out of commission the nuggets of truth as well as lying disinformation after it had served its purpose." However, as I researched it, it took me from one side to the fence. Certainly not all were simVictims, but between SC and Let's Roll Forums (LRF), a convincing case is being made for a significant number of simVictims. (I discovered the self-destruct mechanism in LRF: hollow towers. I was getting too close with milli-nukes and the nuggets mined from Dr. Wood so they banned me for entirely silly reasons: addressing the admin as "Mr. Jayhan".)

SC and the broadcast delay and getting it backwards? News to me.

Again, I'm learning that no source is going to give us the straight scoop. Some are infiltrated or duped. Some are just wrong in some of their conclusions. But it can't be useful disinformation if it is all wrong, otherwise it'd be dismissed out of hand.

So please bear with me as I may cause us to revisit things that you have mentally labeled as disinformation. I'll accept that judgment as valid. It is invaluable to learn of specific things that are wrong, to cherish the things that are right, and to preserve those right things from the inevitable disinfo self-destruct.

BTW, I haven't given you kudos and respect for taking on Steven Wright in that stilted and biased forum. Took guts.

Ace Baker : Steve Wright set-up


Thanks re Steve Wright. The show was a total set-up, in that he knew everything I was going to say, and I knew nothing of his responses. But it was very important to get his responses down on video. I interviewed Wright at his home 2 weeks later. My deconstruction of him is all in 9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera.

Follow Progress!/@psyopera

Phil Jayhan : Re: The Hollow Towers, Reality Shack Forum & Simon Shack


Check out these private messages Simon Shack is sending to me via Skype chat; Not sure what you guys think of him at this point, but I am tired of holding out an olive branch to this clown; This guy is just an ass.


[6/19/2011 5:04:55 PM] simon shack: Well - isn't it high time to turn the funniness into something tangible?

[6/19/2011 5:06:28 PM] simon shack: Your forum is the last 9/11 gatekeeping operation around. You should try some new stuff! :D

[5:55:58 PM] simon shack: Hey Phil! Sorry if I offended you the other day. I called you a gatekeeper. Damn - am I mean! I'm sure that you are the nicest person in the world. When are we going to join forces and bring the PTB down? Are you ready?

[5:56:35 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Where did you call me a gatekeeper? I missed that...

[5:59:06 PM | Edited 5:59:15 PM] simon shack: Oh - I do think you have always been one. How could you possibly have ignored/dismissed/and even censored the evidence of TV fakery for all of these years?

[5:59:52 PM | Edited 6:00:00 PM] simon shack: Even my 9-year-old nephew gets it!

[6:00:03 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Wheres the link to where you called me a gatekeeper?

[6:00:35 PM] simon shack: How could you possibly have ignored/dismissed/and even censored the evidence of TV fakery for all of these years? Even my 9-year-old nephew gets it!

[6:01:58 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Got your gallon of wine tongiht, drinking with Mom again? lol

[6:02:29 PM | Edited 6:02:37 PM] simon shack: That's your best response? Fantastic.

[6:03:25 PM] simon shack: Why don't you tell me where you come from? What exactly motivates you?

[6:03:48 PM] Phillip Jayhan: If you had wanted an intelligent response, you should have said something intelligent! ;)

[6:04:31 PM] simon shack: Intelligence - aah yes. Is that your specialty?

[6:06:18 PM] simon shack: As in "military intelligence". Yeah - I guess it is.

[6:08:26 PM | Edited 6:08:54 PM] simon shack: You are losing ground, mate - and you know it. Too many good guys have joined your forum - and you don't know how to get rid of them . ha ha ! (rofl)

[6:11:41 PM] simon shack: The very fact that you are not responding to this tells me all I need to know.

[6:12:06 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Sorry, I am busy making a post (this post )

[6:12:24 PM] simon shack: Cool - I'll wait.

[6:15:40 PM | Edited 6:15:51 PM] simon shack: So while I wait, I'll type away and ask you - once and for all: What the hell is the matter with you? Can't you see the 9/11 imagery is totally forged? Why do you promote 'dummies being dropped from the WTC' when it is obvious that the videos are fake?

[6:22:02 PM | Edited 6:22:16 PM] simon shack: There is nothing more suspicious for a longstanding 9/11 researcher than to provide explanations to what we saw on TV (including all purported "amateur" imagery). You do exactly that. And that is why I call you a gatekeeoer, Get it?

[6:25:16 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Ok, taking a quick break from tht post. How can I help you? What is it exactly that you would like from me?

[6:25:48 PM] simon shack: Nothing. Good Bye.

[6:26:20 PM] Phillip Jayhan: You went to all that trouble to talk with me, then don't ant to talk? How rude....

[6:26:46 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Ready to pass out with Mommy? Gallon of wine gone dry for the night?

[6:27:07 PM] simon shack: You wanna talk? Well talk then!

[6:27:31 PM] simon shack: Make sure you say something, ok?

[6:32:58 PM] Phillip Jayhan: So what is it you want from me?

[6:33:17 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Why did you contact me tonight?

[6:34:50 PM] simon shack: Questions, questions. You never answer mine - why should I answer yours?

[6:36:17 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Well, I am busy. If you don't have anything intelligent to say and it doesn't appear that you do, I am done here... Anything else you need to spew out before I go Simon?

[6:37:17 PM] Phillip Jayhan: I take it this means your going to ban the hollow towers research from your forum again as well as all our other work, eh? Like you did a few months back?

[6:37:43 PM | Edited 6:37:49 PM] simon shack: Dear Phil - yes, I have a question for you: have you overcome your fear of questioning the TV broadcasts of 9/11?

[6:37:45 PM] Phillip Jayhan: What was that you said about "gatekeeping" Simon?

[6:38:24 PM] Phillip Jayhan: I think you know the answer to that.... ;)

[6:38:30 PM] simon shack: No.

It should be the MAIN feature of your forum. It isnt - not by a long way.

[6:40:42 PM] simon shack: Have you tried to contact Steven Rosenbaum? If not - why?

[6:42:17 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Now you have the gall to preach to me about how to run my forum? You have all of what, 5 active members, 4 13 year olds and yourself?

[6:42:22 PM] simon shack: Steven Rosenbaum has all the 9/11 amateur videos stored in his hard disks.

[6:42:38 PM] simon shack: And you don't care?

[6:48:19 PM] simon shack: Never mind...

[6:50:51 PM] simon shack: You are all-too-transparently linked to the Great 9/11 Gatekeeping Community. Your childish attitude is a clear give-away of this fact.

[6:51:17 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Which childish attitude are you speaking of in particular?

[6:51:50 PM] simon shack: Everything you have ever said and written in the last X years.

[6:52:11 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Everything?

[6:52:25 PM] simon shack: Very much so.

[6:52:48 PM] Phillip Jayhan: I am starting to get the idea that you reject all of our research at the forums...Tell me it ain't so Joe...

[6:53:48 PM] simon shack: Why haven't you made a phone call to Steven Rosenbaum? Are you going to dodge this question for the umpteenth time?

[6:56:14 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Because I don't have Steve Rosenbaums number. Nor do I know him. How's that for an answer?

[6:57:25 PM] simon shack: Lame.

[6:57:53 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Whatever man. Call him and let me know what he told you. Sound like a plan Stan?

[6:59:20 PM] simon shack: Thanks for the help, my American friend.

[6:59:58 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Sure thing Simon, glad I could help....

[7:00:26 PM] simon shack: How silly can you get?

[7:00:44 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Why do you want to know?

[7:06:54 PM] simon shack: Why do YOU want to know? What a waste of time this is, Phil. Why don't you just get another job?

[7:13:11 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Are you drunk again Simon? You get so mean when your drunk. Just down right nasty. You need to stop drinking Simon. It isn't good for you, and especially you because you cannot control yourself when under its power...

[7:09:22 PM] Phillip Jayhan: I am happy with my job I have thanks, and my job really isn't any of your business now is it Simon.... I think you have isues with respecting other peoples boundries. Wouldn't you agree with me Simon, that you do?

[7:13:11 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Are you drunk again Simon? You get so mean when your drunk. Just down right nasty. You need to stop drinking Simon. It isn't good for you, and especially you because you cannot control yourself when under its power...

[7:33:48 PM] Phillip Jayhan: Does this mean we aren't friends any more?

[7:37:28 PM] Phillip Jayhan: So you live in Mussolini's old house? Is this correct Simon?


Phil Jayhan : Simon Shack = Loser

2011-06-23 22:34

At this point in time, I have to conclude this guy in nothing more then a drunken clown or a troublemaker. Simon Shack is simply bad news. The man isn't even worth reaching out to or tracking him down. All that is inside of him is a big fat huge zero. The guy is simply a loser. No better way to say it. He is a leech, he used everyone else's good hard work and research and made a name for himself off of other peoples research which he never once gives credits to. And then this guy has the fucking audacity to claim ownership to the "movement" because of his false claims, and strife. The guy is a real piece of work.

Simon Shack = Loser


Phil Jayhan : this colossal asshole Simon Shack

2011-06-24 22:38

So how does everyone else here feel about Simon Shack condemning ALL of our research, with one single broad stroke of his paint brush?

He condemned all of you as well as disinformation. Lets open up this thread and see how people here really feel about this colossal asshole otherwise known as Simon Shack.

The guy is a waste of breath and time. But please do tell me how these latest actions of Simon Shacks make you feel. No reason to really be nice or kind as I have withdrawn my olive branch with this fucktard.


I will be removing his video, September clues from each and every thread which has links to it, and closing down all support of his video. And a note for the mods here. If you see one of the many hundreds of posts here with his link at the bottom link menu, PLEASE REMOVE IT ASAP! Unfortunately, there is no way to do this globally.

Phil Jayhan : September Clues & this Forum

2011-06-24 22:59

I have made an administrative decision to remove once and for all, all links to Simon Shacks September Clues which I had, till now, been graciously putting up in all of our new research posts. Simon Shacks erratic behavior and many attacks upon this forum and its members has lead me to this hard decision. I already know where this is leading which is why I made the decision to pull all support of September Clues and Simon Shack.

We are being vilified because we do not subscribe to each and every tenet of Simon Shacks faith in all being make believe. Thats right folks, because you don't believe each and every thing which proceeds from Simon Shacks mouth, you are condemned as well as all your research!

Simon Shack can go outside and play a nice long game of hide and go fuck himself. It really is a shame that Simon is acting like all of the other gatekeepers in 911. Is he one? Well, he did ban the hollow towers research from his forum and as far as I know it is still banned. That's called gate keeping by the way. All of their research is welcome here and he good stuff embraced.

And I was going to give Simon Shack a bunch of really great plugs & support in our upcoming video. "Was" is the key word. Ain't happening now.

So, a message to the mods here. When your on the forum and you come to a research thread with the links at the bottom, please see if September Clues is in there, and remove it if it is. I have already begun removing these links. But it will take months to remove them all, and I want each and every one of them scrubbed from this forum and removed. No huge rush, don't go searching them all out, simply when reading, see if the first post has a links menu at the bottom. If it does, edit the post and please remove September clues from the links.

Don't feel bad. Simon has banned any and all research of our on his forum! While we have actively embraced all positive and verifiable aspects of his research. And then had the audacity to proclaim we are gate-keepers! Simon shack is a clown, like Dave Vonkleist.

Simon bans our research while demanding that we all embrace his research as though it is gospel truth. Simon Shack bans all of our research from his forum, then boldly proclaims that everyone that doesn't subscribe to his 911 theology is a heretic. What a fucking joke Simon Shack is.

And a huge disappointment to all of us here at lets roll forums who were hoping for some kind of intelligent response from Simon Shack and his forum members. Simon Shack has shown himself to be a gate-keeper and has been a total disappointment to everyone here at the lets roll forums who were hoping for some kind of limited truce and cease-fire.


Señor El Once : fan of Simon Shack research


Dear Mr. Shack,

I've been a big fan of your research, although a relative late comer (2008) to it. It has elements, like simVictims, that has been difficult even for me to swallow, but I have eventually been persuaded on most of it.

Due to my own (negative) experience on Let's Roll Forums that reeked of gatekeeping and shutting down open-minded discussions of controversial research (e.g., Dr. Judy Wood's new textbook) because it would ultimately prove "hollow towers" somewhat hollow, I suppose your treatment there is of no surprise. So sophomoric of Mr. Jayhan... In fact, it was just a matter of time before they attacked you for trivial reasons.

I'm looking for nuggets of truth. September Clues has provided many. If I am a duped useful idiot on this front, I can say with confidence that those who argue against video fakery have not done so convincingly, which is why I always circle back to many of September Clues revelations. In fact, video fakery is the key that ties much of the 9/11 operation together as well as providing motivation for the perpetrators.

I encourage Mr. McKee's readers to research September Clues on their own.

Mr. Shack, thank you for your efforts and the courage to be "the target".

DupedUsefulI : Hidden Agenda


I don't get it. Herr der Elf was coming across as sensible and rather reasonable. What did he do to get himself banned? I've been looking up Elf's postings and their context, and for the life of me can't figure out why... unless I let my mind wander into Phil's taunts of February 28, 2011 regarding a hidden agenda.

[quote]Now why don't you tell us just what this hidden agenda is, since you know so much about it? And can you prove this rather ridiculous suggestion? Just what is our hidden agenda here Elf?[/quote]

I don't know what Elf was thinking, but I'll be damned if I haven't been seeing some unsavory trend lines in certain areas of LRF and by certain participants whose names and rank are in red (Moderators) or orange (Admin). Here are four data points:

- Dr. Judy Wood
- CIT and Flyover
- Simon Shack and September Clues
- William Rodriquez

I regret that I don't have links to their threads; some of them are old and I read them in haste from the archives just coming up to speed. Dr. FUBAR posted recently a link in the chat to a CIT discussion (from 2008?) that was most eye opening.

The summary of the CIT discussion was that one of the CIT principles made some raw comments about LRF on LCF much earlier. It caused some bad blood at the (earlier) time but was smoothed over and resolved. Yet those raw comments were dug up again six months later on LRF by the Admin, were spun as being current, and used as fodder to create discord against both CIT principles. In other words, the 2008 flame war on LRF was without merit.

Also in the LRF history are flame wars with William Rodriquez, some of the initially off-list and re-published here afterwards by the Admin. Whether or not Willy is genuine is a separate issue from the flaming treatment he got here. It is the latter that I make note of, particularly when it fits into the CIT exchange as well as a more recent exchange with: Simon Shack.

I read Phil's exchange and then his damning assessment:

[quote]At this point in time, I have to conclude this guy [Simon Shack] in nothing more then a drunken clown or a troublemaker. Simon Shack is simply bad news. The man isn't even worth reaching out to or tracking him down. All that is inside of him is a big fat huge zero. The guy is simply a loser. No better way to say it. He is a leech, he used everyone else's good hard work and research and made a name for himself off of other peoples research which he never once gives credits to. And then this guy has the fucking audacity to claim ownership to the "movement" because of his false claims, and strife. The guy is a real piece of work. Simon Shack = Loser[/quote]

Unfortunately, if only one participant in that chat could be pegged as [i]"colossal asshole"[/i] or any of the other colorful descriptions, it would not be Simon. Worse still, we get the administrative decision to the moderator troops to scrub each and every link to Simon Shack's September Clues.

And back here we are on this Dr. Wood thread. This thread and another are rather self-evident for the weak and ridiculous hatchet job on Dr. Wood and her book. (We should do a survey to find out who has her book and who has read it.)

The LRF trend line is not pretty. As a lurker reader going through the LRF archives, I regularly come across participants' names with the banishment line through them. It isn't always self-evident why they were booted... until the taunted phrase [i]"hidden agendas"[/i] is earnestly considered.

Duped? Useful? I.

Phil Jayhan : None of Your Business

2011-07-19 17:59


This is really none of your business to be honest. And even more brutal honesty is this. if you would like to keep up this line of inquiry, making innuendo against myself, it will be the very last thing you write on this forum.

I certainly don't have to give account to you, nor will I. If you go off along this path again, or even bring it up, your membership will be terminated.

It is none of your business how I run this forum. Period. Don't like it? Then leave now.

No further warnings will be issued. And if you care to argue about this or my decision, your membership here will be terminated as well. If you feel like making a smart ass comment and getting the last word in on this, your membership here will be terminated.

I hope that is crystal clear. Consider this warning 1 & 2. Next one your membership will be terminated without warning.

Phil Jayhan
Admin Lets Roll Forums

Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Shack's Treatment by Mr. Jayhan


Dear Mr. Shack,

You have seen comments of mine on Mr. McKee's Truth & Shadows under the alias "Señor El Once". I got banned from Let's Roll Forums under the alias "Herr der Elf", but have come back as "DupedUsefulI" just so I could subscribe to the various threads.

I'm writing is to call your attention to my posting in a Dr. Wood thread. You see, I spotted a trend in Mr. Jayhan's demeanor towards theories that aren't "hollow." You were subjected to that. Actually, in the chat session with you that Mr. Jayhan copied & posted, he was the one who came across as the idiot. No, not just idiot: govt infiltrator.

"Touchy, touchy" is my reaction to Mr. Jayhan's response,  warnings, and threats.

Do you think I nailed it? Sort of looks like it. Your thoughts and impressions here off-list are of interest to me, seeing how it is unlikely that I'll be able to start a thread on LRF to have others provide their view (LOL)!

In fact, I'm sure my days will be numbered if I post anything at all. If I value the information that I receive from the threads that I subscribe to, it'll serve me well to keep a low profile. All disinformation, to be useful, has to be built on a solid foundation of truth before subtle lies and misdirection can be inserted. LRF can't be completely dismissed, because it does collect some useful information and nuggets of truth.

(Hollow towers isn't among those nuggets of truth, and Mr. Jayhan isn't going to listen to reason on this front, so vested in it is he. His most damning piece of evidence is a picture that demonstrates how light can refract around objects. Sure, you don't see much content on the floors of that picture, do you? Well, you also don't see any of the vertical beams that make up the exterior walls. Yet we know those vertical beams exist, therefore floors and their content could exist with the light being refracted around it.)

Probably a good thing I'll be forced into a lower profile. Gives me a life and creates time to study other things.

P.S. I thanked you on Truth & Shadows on July 5 for your contribution to 9/11 truth. I repeat that praise here. You convinced me of video forgery and media complicity a few years ago; more importantly, those whom I debated could not provide evidence or explanation to convince me otherwise; most lowered themselves to Mr. Jayhan's ad hominem level, albeit without the benefit of being the blog owner to dish out banishment. So immature he is proving himself to be... and compromised.

All the best,


Phil Jayhan : No Room for Assholes Here

2011-07-20 16:07


I banned you a long time ago elf. Pretty much because you were an asshole then as you are now. No room for assholes here. Weird, the person who comes here and sticks up for your rather poor behavior ends up being you. Huge shock to my system there. Now take a hike and go away before I taunt you a 2nd time...

Your not welcome here.


Image of IP addresses, Herr der Elf & DupedUsefulI.

Phil Jayhan : Message to DupedUsefulI


Why are you still here at our forums? I told you to leave elf.

Need some help?

You made a promise and gave me your word, if I stopped responding to your emails, you would leave and never come back again under another sock puppet. Are you a man of your word or just another liar?

Leave these forums.


DupedUsefulI : Message to Jayhan, Gina, Dr FUBAR


Dear Mr. Jayhan,

You confuse the promises. One promise was that if you stopped sending me emails, I would stop responding to them. My posting on the forum was neither an email, nor was it addressed to you.

The other promise made in a fit of annoyance, which I did break, was that I would not sock-puppet back into LRF. I'm sorry.

Why am I back? The subscriptions. It is a pain in the ass to follow new information on the forums without a subscription. If you truly value the discoveries that LRF publishes, you can't really blame me. Consider it a compliment.

Be careful when you start talking about who is man of their word or just another liar. Let us both not forget that you twice went back on your word in a very public fashion. (1) You said you were through with the discussion on Dr. Wood's books and were leaving, yet the forum proves otherwise. (2) You warned me never to address you publicly again as "Mr. Jayhan" [a warning applicable only to the forums AND only to you; not to email nor to other participants] and then you went back on your word/warning and banned me with nary an infraction on my part (on or off-list) after the last warning but before banishment.

And such a silly reason that was, wasn't it? "Don't call me 'Mr. Jayhan', dickhead, or I'll ban your sorry ass!" Give me a break! Talk about manufactured drama!

And what is the true reason you want me gone?

I have no illusions that you're not going to ban me. I'm just too level headed and rational, and I don't get distracted too easily by your manufactured flame wars.

Here are two tests for you, Mr. Jayhan.

Test one is to just let me be. Avoid personal attacks on me, and I'll avoid the same against you and in particular with regards to exposing your willy-nilly administration of LRF and your manufactured dramas. If your research and theories are sincere, they ought to be strong enough to withstand any counter & on-point arguments from me. (BTW, I plan to go into serious lurker mode due to a class I'll be taking in the fall; I have no plans for active participation, but want to leave the door open just in case.)

Test two is predicated on you being too scared of me and my rational thought expressed in an articulate fashion, or on your research and theories being too weak to withstand having me debate them. Test two assumes you post-ban my "DupedUsefulIdiot" ass, err... avatar, but leaves in tact my ability to subscribe to threads and manage subscriptions.

Seems like test 2 is the least you can pass, if indeed you are sincere in the value you place on LRF content. The subscriptions are why I returned.

The IP address you've snagged is from work. Ban me based on that and you might prevent a few thousand of my employees from reaching your content as well. A little harsh. I really shouldn't be posting from work anyway. If I can avoid doing that, I'll have you know that I can return any time I like; my ISP uses dynamic IP allocation and a simple re-boot of my modem gives me a new one.

So focus on what is important, Mr. Jayhan. I seem to value LRF content enough to risk going back on my word (my apologies again) just so I can subscribe. Do you value the LRF content enough to allow such subscriptions to persist and to let "your (manufactured) enemies" keep abreast of what's happening? Or is the LRF "truth" only sacred and accessible to a few?

Duped? Useful? I.
Herr der Elf

DupedUsefulI : Manufactured Claims


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Phil Jayhan wrote:

I'll make this simple. You went sneaking around the forum behind my back and attempted to obtain proprietary FOIA records which we have obtained as a group for yourself. This is a no no. And you know that as well. Get your own fucking FOIA records. We aren't giving anything to you.

Please do not write back. I am tired of your emails and won't even bother reading them.

phil :wink:

Dear Mr. Jayhan,

I did not go sneaking around the forum behind your back. The 60 or so subscriptions that I signed up for are in full view of the site administrator: you.

I also did not attempt to obtain proprietary FOIA records. I went no deeper than the forums that anyone can get to. Refer again to the 60 that I subscribed to and monitored (on a weekly basis).

However, this manufactured claim of yours bears closer scrutiny. Freedom Of Information Access (FOIA) are public and not proprietary, as you so claim. Sure, LRF might have gone to the legwork to kick them off, but if you can get them, anyone subsequently can. Plus, the reason you want them is to then publish the data and analysis thereof on your website. So, WTF? Had I been searching for them, they were still a non-issue in the great scheme of things.

Your statement "we aren't giving anything to you" is most revealing. What? So little do you value the "truth" collected on LRF that you're not going to publish it to the world?

You know, Simon Shack said it best in his little chat with you:

You are losing ground, mate - and you know it. Too many good guys have joined your forum - and you don't know how to get rid of them. ... You are all-too-transparently linked to the Great 9/11 Gatekeeping Community. Your childish attitude is a clear give-away of this fact.

Yep. Your first banishment of me for calling you "Mr. Jayhan": most childish.

What was the reason this second time around? Not the manufactured reason but the real reason. That I called you on your manufactured griefs with other branches of 9/11 research? Or that you don't have the intelligence or rhetorical skills to take down directed energy weapons and Dr. Judy Wood's work? Better suffer the embarrassment of a lame excuse for banishment than endure defeats in the debates, eh?

Bottom line, Mr. Jayhan, you seem to exhibit very little respect for 9/11 Truth.

Am I wrong? Prove me wrong.

Re-enable my DupedUsefulI avatar. Or if that is really too hot for you to handle, then at least respect the truth and let me have & manage my subscription, but ban my postings.

Come on, Mr. Jayhan. Prove you aren't a gatekeeper. Let me back in.

Maxwell C. Bridges

Simon Shack : hurricane Erin


Dearest Maxwell,
I have made a post about hurricane Erin on the forum (I meant to address this issue some while ago, thanks for reminding me of it!).
And if you should wonder why I don't think much about Judy Wood, here's why... {Corrected Link.}

I'm having a particularly busy day (with house-related issues) - so I will respond to this mail of yours in due time! Yes - Jayhan is a true (t)roll! :O)


Maxwell C. Bridges : Dr. Wood as the Lady Madonna?


Dear Mr. Shack,

Thank you for your brief response, and am looking forward to any more lengthy one.

Regarding your link to Dr. Wood, I assume it was supposed to go to a specific topic on your forum rather than an icon image. (Although the icon image could have been taken as a joke, as well). I'd be interested in a true link.
{The original link in Mr. Shack's email was in error but is fixed in the version above. Mr. Shack sent a correction.}

I do not hold Dr. Wood up as the Lady Madonna nor do I religiously hold to all of her claims. However, her textbook was impressive and useful. It is worthy of our 9/11 libraries. It contains many nuggets of truth; she exposes much evidence that other theories don't cover. So far, her opponents have had very little substance in knocking down things in her book, which isn't surprising given that most don't own her book. In this sense, she runs parallel to September Clues.

Good luck on the house repairs...

Maxwell C. Bridges : Offering Dr. Wood's Textbook, "Where Did the Towers Go?"


Dear Mr. Shack,

Thank you for the fixed link about Dr. Judy Wood and what your impression of her is. Although some doubt remains in my mind whether your YouTube exchange was with the real person or a joker's sock-puppet, this is not a point we need to debate; let's assume it was the real person. In my online exchanges, I have regrettably found myself on rare occasions uttering sentiments that I should not have. Although aimed at someone else, they reflected poorly on me. Other people make mistakes on the Internet, too.

You think that Dr. Judy Wood is essentially a disinformation agent, right? I have hopped back and forth over that fence many times myself. Presently, I am not of that opinion, but don't hold me to it and let's not get distracted by it.

What I do want to point out is that her recent textbook "Where did the towers go" is an excellent reference to any serious 9/11 researchers library. Does it contain any disinformation? Quite possibly so! I haven't found them explicitly, and have some doubts on a few points. However, it also has many nuggets of truth and much evidence that should not be so easily dismissed as govt agents are want to do with crazy, kooky, and loony labels. (You should be empathetic to this for the parallel treatment that "no planes" and much of the work on September Clues have experienced.)

No planes (ala September Clues) and DEW are now the two trick 9/11 ponies that this truth seeker rides. I used to be convinced it was multiple milli-nukes and was reading Dr. Wood's book to bolster my case there. I have now been convinced of the better applicability of DEW and side-effects of their energy source (e.g., cold fusion? Tesla & Hurricanes?) more accurately and comprehensively explaining the evidence. Although I don't think space-based DEW hit the towers or WTC-7, I leave that door open for the massive crater in WTC-6, the multiple cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at the neat line separating it from the WTC-4 North Wing.

I have no illusions that I will convince you of the value of Dr. Wood's work in this email. I know that you are busy, and may not even relish discussing it off-list via email.

My main purpose in writing is to plant a seed. Much of the fakery exposed by SC dovetail nicely with DEW considerations, where control of the media would be essential to avoid exposing "glitches in the implementation" that might prove various mechanisms of the destruction and how 19 Arabs could not have achieved it with real planes.

In watering the seed, if you don't already have Dr. Wood's textbook, it would be my honor to purchase a copy for you and have Dr. Wood's distributor send it to you. You can either provide me with shipping instructions to where ever you want it to go (in Italy?); or you can order the book yourself, give me some sort of proof of purchase, and I will PayPal you your costs [~$50] (so I don't have to know where you are.)

I put my money where my mouth is. No sense us discussing Dr. Wood if we both aren't on the same page or reading the same book. It has already been my honor to provide David Chandler of A&E 9/11 Truth and John Wright of 9/11 Blogger with copies, as sort of my back-door channel to get these ideas seeded in leaders of the mainstream 9/11 truth movement. (The PSYOPS on Dr. Woods is such, that they would not have purchased the book on their own. Since then, they haven't debunked it; I'm sure I'd hear from them if they could. Of course, if I wouldn't have been convinced of the overall validity of her work, I never would have shelled out the money.) I also gave Craig McKee a copy, as sort of a donation for his work on his Truth & Shadows blog.

What is the catch? Honesty and truth. "Pay it forward." If you find nuggets of truth or important evidence in her research, if you find perceptions against Dr. Wood in your discussion out of whack with what you gleamed yourself from her textbook, you'll set the record straight. I'm just asking for an open-mind and objectivity. [And by golly, if it is completely screwed up, I want to know, so that I can evolve to a better understanding as well!!!]

You'll see from this link to Let's Roll Forum (where I'm "Herr der Elf") my evolution in thought, and more importantly that I was recommending Dr. Wood's book before I was even half-way done with it. It is a high quality book (e.g., if it is disinfo, they spent a lot of money on its production) that provides a solid pictorial reference to the damage with locations marked on maps to give readers perspective. I argued at the time in that forum that if the 2nd half proved to be disinformation, we'd still be justified in having this textbook in our collection to prove to our grandkids how our generation was played.

Just as importantly in that thread, you'll see how the long-running PSYOPS perpetrated against Dr. Wood tainted the other participants perceptions from the get-go. Phil Jayhan ultimately banned me from Let's Roll Forums (twice now), not because I was rude or disobeying forum rules, but because he didn't have the chops to "take me down" any other way than to manufacture it. (And after conferring with his NSA Q-Group superiors, Mr. Jayhan refused my offer of the gift book for the third time. It is much easier to smear something if you don't have to go into details.)

I did not enter that thread to defend Dr. Wood and her book; I didn't even have the book when I started. It is rather ironic that I'd get banned for the defense I provided. My initial position was: "Hey, wait a minute! Let's not dismiss this so quickly. The energy requirements of the destruction haven't been adequately addressed by other theories; Dr. Wood's does. Her theories might be wrong, but the other theories need to be revamped to handle the evidence that she points out, otherwise they're wrong, too."

Somewhat recently, I received this link that puts the smearing of Dr. Wood into perspective as well as my treatment throughout the 9/11 Truth  Movement.

I suppose if I had another agenda, it would be that -- if the textbook is found worthy -- your video efforts might be put to service, like in documenting the link above, how the PYSOPS was played out against Dr. Wood, how DEW was sidelined, etc.

I have rambled on long enough. I repeat the sincerity of my offer.

And thank you again for your research.

P.S. I am still smarting from my 2nd banishment (as "DupedUsefulI") from Let's Roll Forums. Guess what? I was banned because I pointed out in some images how DEW explained the evidence, and because I pointed out how Phil Jayhan manufactured drama against you (poorly.) He, subsequently, manufactured drama against me. Gatekeeper.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Anthony Lawson claiming to have debunked September Clues


Dear Mr. Shack,

In case you haven't seen this, Mr. Anthony Lawson is claiming to have debunked September Clues. I came to your defense with my Herr der Elf avatar. Mr. Lawson isn't responding to me anymore.

I'm sure you've had your bouts with Mr. Lawson in the past. He has written some interesting and valid articles for the 9/11 Truth Movement maybe to establish his street credibility. But his attentions are turned to September Clues, he comes up way short in debunking all aspects of it, and he's a bit too quick to dispense with everything under such a label. Thereby, possibly exposing an agenda.

I'll repeat my offer to purchase you your own copy of Dr. Wood's textbook, if you don't already have it. Such is the value I place on it that I would pony-up and pay-it-forward to worthy discussions partners in an attempt to get us reading from the same page (whether or not we believe or validate in agreement what we read.)

I hope that you are enjoying your Italian summer.


Herr der Elf : Bury the Ad Hominem


I guess it is too late for Mr. Lawson or Dr. Fetzer to bury the ad hominem.

I've been a waffling no-planer 9/11 troofer since 2008. I have yet to see a point-by-point debunking of September Clues to trash the whole premise that pixels inserted into the video imagery duped us all -- even "eye witnesses" -- into believing that commercial planes smacked into the towers.

To give you an idea of the extend of my duped useful idiotness over the last decade, I was a big fan of "pods on planes" and "planes being swapped" until SC convinced me otherwise. Because so many people claimed to have seen a flying object, my wild-ass speculation had me change my belief to "planes on pods", that is: missiles with wings hit the towers and the media footage was manipulated to plaster pixels of a plane on the missile pods.

Although Mr. Lawson's article is tiresome to dig through, a couple of valid ah-ha points stuck out. If real planes hit the towers, they were not "standard" 767 and the reported commercial planes. It wasn't just the measured speed of the "pixels" in the video footage or from radar records that disproves "standard" commercial aircraft, where the speed exceeds its rating when flown at altitude. It was that this speed and seeming control was achieved at a scant 1/4 mile above sea-level where air resistance would have torn "standard" aircraft apart.

Thus, Mr. Lawson brings up the concept of a special plane, an enhanced 767 that could achieve this. In other well-written pieces, Mr. Lawson proves that the govt has never conclusively proven via the hundreds of thousand (give or take an order of magnitude) of serial numbered parts within an aircraft that the 9/11 planes were the specific ones claimed to have hit the towers, Pentagon, and Shanksville field.

I've been hopping from one side of the no-plane fence to the other so often, I'm not even sure what I firmly believe on the matter except for this. Corporate media was complicit. They had the Hollywood script written up and the actors in the wings to spread the story they wanted to dupe America and the world with.

An analogy: Magazines are full of pictures of drop-dead georgous women. Yet still, the editors of such publications find it necessary to photoshop those images into even more (unrealistically) beautiful women.

If real "special" planes hit the towers, September Clues proves that corporate media found it necessary to enhance (some of) the videos and images for improved shock-and-awe effect. SC wants to draw us into the meme that no planes hit the towers, because they have proven discrepancies in flight paths video-to-video and other anomalies. However, such discrepancies don't disprove real planes as much as they prove corporate media's willing participation to enhance certain footage.

At any rate, I've jumped back over the fence into thinking that a real plane hit the towers. Moreover, the reason no serial numbered parts were recovered and correlated to the reported planes is the same reason the debris was devoid of desks, chairs, toilets, and other things to give the impression that the towers were once office buildings for people. Namely, nuclear-powered (or cold-fusion powered) DEW dustified the content (by turning residual water molecutes in content instantly into steam whose rapidly expanding volume blew apart the containers for such content.) DEW removed evidence of the aircraft.

This is my present line of wild-ass speculation from 10 years of doubting the official story and my own research (and standing on the shoulders of other people's research).

Anthony Lawson : Thoroughly Debunked in Two Videos


Herr der Elf,

The no-planes-in-New York issue is not one which can be glossed over; it requires in depth examination, because there are so many facets to it, not to mention the lies, both in print, and video, that have been told about it. You mention September Clues, which I have thoroughly debunked in two videos:

September Clues – Busted!


9/11: The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax

Simon Shack will declare, not doubt, that he has corrected some of his “errors” in a later version, but they were deliberate lies in his original, to boost his own theories, removing a part of an eyewitness’s statement, and deliberately distorting a comparison, in the Nose In Nose Out issue, are two shining examples.

Being astonished that there can still be people who believe that Simon Shack has scored even one point, for video fakery, I was messing about with the Nose-In, Nose-Out shot, a few days ago and I have proved, beyond all doubt, that Shack’s claim about the Fox 5 shot being faked does not hold water. What I have done has nothing to do with the apparent shape of a plane, emerging momentarily, from the opposite side of the tower (smoke and drywall dust, in fact) but with the movement of the alleged computer generated graphic. Shack’s claim is that someone faded the scene to black, because the nose in the graphic began to be seen on the opposite side of the building, but I have proved that it emerges far too late, to be a steadily moving graphic of a plane, or the real plane, for that matter. In other words, if you continue with an graphic line that represents the velocity of the plane going in, the “nose” comes out a lot later than it should, had the velocity of the graphic been maintained.

In any event, the whole idea of CGI on this shot is ludicrous, because the final camera zoom-in ends the frame before the plane appears, which is something that would not have happened, had this been a planned graphic overlay. Simply put, no cameraman would have cut it so fine.

What you have written is not true, either: “they have proven discrepancies in flight paths video-to-video and other anomalies.”

Just saying that there are discrepancies is not proving that there were. There are no discrepancies that I can detect, as a long-time editor, well versed in the field of continuity. Watch:
UA175 – the last 12 seconds by achimspok

Herr der Elf : Debunk September Clues in its Entirety


Dear Mr. Lawson,

Thank you for thoughtful reply.

Unfortunately, I must take issue with a couple of points, as well as a seeming overarching agenda that you and possibly Mr. Shack should amend.

I pride myself on being open-minded and tolerant, which means having the courage to explore the other point of view thoroughly and objectively and coming to my own conclusions regarding the merits of an argument. This is demonstrated by the fact that I now seemingly champion probably the work of the most vilified member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, namely Dr. Judy Wood's textbook, "Where did the Towers Go?" as well as my esteem for the work of September Clues.

Contrary to your statement, "I have thoroughly debunked [September Clues] in two videos", I most courageously declare that you have not. September Clues has like 9 parts plus A through some alphabetic letter addendum.

Now, you may have indeed raised some doubts regarding the voracity of one or two points brought out in September Clues, but the vast majority of September Clues remains undebunked and valid in my books, and still paints the very clear picture of some of the extent of complicit, conspiratorial, corporate media involvement in the 9/11 ruse from the onset.

All disinformation to be valid must be laid on a solid foundation of truth before inserting the deceit or zinger that leads followers astray. Indeed, the concept of no planes hitting the towers may in deed be the deceitful zinger of disinformation of September Clues. But your blanket statement (paraphrased) "September Clues has been entirely debunked" and observed debate tactics quite possibly exposes a more destructive agenda on your part, namely that of burying all the other valid nuggets of truth from September Clues that can't and shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

Take my lead, please, and mine these supposed "disinformation sources" for nuggets of truth.

For what it is worth, you say you debunked Nose-In / Nose-Out and thereby seemingly validate the Fox 5 shot not being faked. However for me the far stronger argument of the faking of the Fox 5 shot was always (a) the miraculous zoom at just the right moment and (b) the reverse-play zoom out that does not show the plane where it should be. The helicopter was x miles away, and we see how tiny the plane should become for the camera, much less the weaker human eyes of the pilot/camera operator whom you claim saw the plane and zoomed accordingly.

And having studied physics, I know that even the premise of an enhanced plane that can fly those amazing speeds in the heavy air resistance a quarter of a mile above sea level with control and precision and effect more slicing of the tower's steel, crash physics in the form of deceleration and deformation should have been evident. The videos clearly document that the pixels of the plane's tail traveled into the steel building at the same speed those pixels traveled through thin air.

You do not address this. Thus I must question again what your larger over-arching agenda might be to have this nugget of truth dismissed and the entirety of September Clues due to a few pixels of nose-in / nose-out debunking.

You wrote:
"Just saying that there are discrepancies [in flight paths video-to-video and other anomalies] is not proving that there were."

And likewise, you saying "there are no discrepancies that I can detect" does not prove there were none.

As a student of this video fakery front for quite some time, I made my statement about flight path discrepancies as the take-away points from this whole genre best summarized and accessible to the lay person in September Clues. I have not seen it convincingly debunked by others or by you.

If you have the ability to debunk September Clues in its entirety, more power to you and I will relish changing my opinion so that I am no longer such a duped useful idiot in this regard. But having the ability is different from having done. You have not debunked September Clues in its entirety, so I would appreciate you deploying more exact language in your descriptions. Otherwise, ... well... to paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "Oh, the places we will go, and the nefarious agendas we will expose."

Anthony Lawson : Contesting a generalization


Contesting a generalization is not possible.

Cite me one instance that I have investigated in my video “September Clues — Busted!” where I have not succeeded. The point you want to make, and the reference counter in my video. No personal opinions, please. This is about what Simon Shack was trying to prove, not what you think, yourself.

You wrote: “And likewise, you saying “there are no discrepancies that I can detect” does not prove there were none.”

Cite me the links to two 9/11 videos which you can demonstrate show discrepancies in their flight paths.

As for debunking the rest of Simon Shack’s material, why would anyone want to go looking for more lies, having already uncovered three or four, plus as many absurdities such as the “Riverboat Cruise” up to Chelsea, which is designed to denigrate Theresa Renaud’s eyesight and hearing abilities. Go and check out how easy it is to see a large plane and hear a loud explosion from that distance and then come back ant tell me that was not a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Got that? All definitive tasks where you can prove I am wrong about “Septemeber Clues” and don’t start moving the goalposts.

Herr der Elf : Humility in Postings and Exactness in Language


Dear Mr. Lawson,

You are the one with the video library of 9/11 clips and the video production technology that enables you to produce in a near BBC accent quite polished video entries. You are also the one over-confidently boasting to have debunked ~all~ of September Clues, despite admitting that you haven't seen all of it via inference from your lazy statement: "why would anyone want to go looking for more lies, having already uncovered three or four, plus as many absurdities?"

The answer, dear Mr. Lawson, regarding why anyone would want to go looking for more lies [in September Clues] is to validate the lies as lies and to cherish what remains as nuggets of truth. It is precisely those nuggets that your blustering snow-jobs are trying to bury, and where I'm calling your bluff.

This isn't about moving the goal posts. It is about you carrying the ball the full 100-yards for a touch down and the bragging rights. Therefore, don't go making busy work assignments for me, lazy bones. If you want the title of having debunked September Clues, you will have to earn it in my book.

Here's a clue for you. My hazy memory seems to recall that 75% of what I know about flight path discrepancies comes from September Clues, probably in one of those chapters that you have failed to click on, to watch, and to comment objectively. Thus, you can kill two birds with one stone: one is the busy-work video links you want from me [because I'm sure you know how to Google September Clues]; the other is overcoming your laziness and ignorance about the vast nuggets of truth remaining in the other September Clues episodes.

Until then, some humility in postings and exactness in language would be appreciated.

Herr der Elf : around the 9/11 block


In my travels around the 9/11 block being duped by one notion or another, evidence and convincing arguments are what got me to believe one thing and what can get me to believe another.

I do not assert a mutual exclusive causality to any of the towers destructions. They had back-up plans to their back-up plans to assure the thoroughness of the destruction. What happened within the confines of the steel outer shell was different than what happened to the outer shell itself.

9/11 was an overly thorough and redundant operation. Nano-thermite may have been involved as one of the mechanisms of destruction. The issue is: nano-thermite cannot explain all of the features of the destruction and its aftermath.

I am such the duped useful idiot that I was championing milli-nukes (ala the Anonymous Physicist) for a few years there, because it addressed the energy requirements of pulverization, the tritium radiation readings, the hot spots (unspent but fizzling nuclear material), the anomalous damage to vehicles (EMP slipping out through window slits), etc.

I ordered Dr. Wood's textbook with the expressed purpose of mining it for nuggets of truth from the disinformation, nuggets that could bolster my nuclear 9/11 premise. To my surprise, her textbook is a quality effort. I found many nuggets of truth in the form of unaddressed-by-other-theories evidence or features of the destruction. I found no blatant disinformation or conclusions that are outright wrong (but am open-minded enough to change that opinion if reasoned argument convinces me otherwise.) Mostly what I found was an attempt to get us to think outside-the-box and consider other forms of destruction and energy sources that we know were planned and paid for overtly starting in the Reagan administration. Star Wars, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and other names it went by was not some public works project for the overly educated without any mandate to produce something useful for the Department of Defense. The $2.3 trillion in missing defense spending paid for some things.

Also to my surprised, Dr. Wood's efforts got me off of my milli-nuclear one-trick pony and onto the directed energy weapon (DEW) pony. I am now in the camp of directed energy weapons, due to their ease in installation and targeting.

A key out-of-the-box premise is to separate the DEW device from the energy source.

Directed energy weapons (DEW) could be planted within the towers, not just hosted in space. The WTC power-down periods in various weekends leading up to 9/11 could very well have served to install either new bad-ass power distribution cables down the elevator shafts or energy diverters that would, when required, re-use main trunks of the building wiring to re-route building power lines to DEW devices and energy sources.

More wild-ass speculation on my part follows.

My premise is that much of the "smoke" we see in the pulverization of the towers isn't smoke. It is instead the dustification of content and steam created by the energy directed at content (e.g., concrete, drywall, humans, etc.) The DEW mechanism excited residual water molecules in the content whose sudden and rapid expansion into steam caused the content itself to blow apart, not unlike what happens when food (e.g., refried beans, stew) is excessively microwaved in a kitchen. Directed energy is the key phrase.

Both towers had spires or residual structure left standing after floors and walls seemingly collapsed around them. My premise is that these residual structures supported the DEW devices for a time with the destructive energy directed away from them. Energy was directed in a narrow cone up and then down. Their planning required the outer shell to remain in tact for milli-seconds longer than the inner destructive aspects both to contain the inner destruction and to shield the observation of its destructive mechanisms from outside observers. Once the insides were dustified at a certain level, something like nano-thermite could blow the bolts connecting the outer mesh together.

Pulverization of concrete and drywall is a massive energy sink. Where did the energy come from? This is a separate question from what caused the destruction. Could it have been "directed free energy" from the weatherman-conspiracy to completely unreport Hurricane Erin that they'd been tracking and reporting all week, just not when it was close to NY on 9/11/2001? Or could it have been bad ass power distribution cables they ran down the elevator shafts and plugged into some nuclear or cold-fusion reactors?

I believe that nuclear or cold-fusion reactors fits with more of the evidence.

The measured anomalous radiation levels, while not matching that of conventional nuclear weapons, could be attributed to the power sources, as can the hot-spots (e.g., fizzling nuclear material). The fields created by both DEW and the energy source can explain much of the anomaloous damage to vehicles. Pack/paint the power generator and the separated DEW into their own "blanket" of super-duper nano-thermite, so that much of the mechanism remnants can be destroyed and obscured. Nano-thermite burning up the encasement of the power source could explain the traces of nano-thermite from places where hot-spots burned.

A small detour here into nano-thermite land. I mentioned before: nano-thermite cannot explain all of the features of the destruction and its aftermath. The proof is in the math.

How long could nano-thermite burn under the rubble? Trick question. A more accurate question is, what quantities of nano-thermite would be required to achieve the recorded duration of the under rubble fires?

More math. Calculate how much nano-thermite would be required to bring down the towers. Then calculate the energy requirements of pulverization of content. Then extrapolate and determine how much additional nano-thermite would be required to achieve this and meet that energy requirement of pulverization. Then Occam Razor figure out how many man-trips and effort it would take to wire it all up.

Your answers to this challenge will prove to you that nano-thermite does not explain all of the towers destruction. Another destructive mechanism and its energy source must be sought.

Yes, elements of my wild-ass speculation are probably wrong, and I want them corrected. I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on this front. Dupe me of something else. (Your videos have me teetering.)

Maybe we all will agree one day that some elements of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook are disinformation. Our task, though, is to find them and prove them as such. More importantly, our task is to recognize the nuggets of truth in her evidence, preserve them, and assure that whatever theories we promote also address them.

Herr der Elf : threshold for "discrediting" a whole genre of research is rather low


Dear Mr. Kouby,

The reason I refer to these theories as stupid is that, in my view they have been easily discredited. Let's start with the TV fakery.

Most of the claims rely on poor quality videos and on the fact that the person watching is probably not versed in the art of file transfer and conversion protocols. As explained perfectly here, the vast majority of the TV fakery claims can easily be explained by either poor quality videos and/or distortion of video footage.

Evidently, your threshold for "discrediting" a whole genre of research is rather low. In my books, if the case is built on 1-9 and A-H videos each with N independent aspects, then the debunking must also go through those N aspects in all videos.

The Salter document you reference does not. Neither does Anthony Lawson who more recently tries to debunk September Clues with a single video.

As for the poor quality video argument, this could be easily solved with the corporate media releasing the original footage without all of the obnoxious banners and logos. This they haven't been motivated to do, just like the FBI has never released the surveillance videos they confiscated from neighboring businesses to the Pentagon.

The lack of crash physics and the unbelievable nature of a weak material (e.g, aluminum wings) slicing a strong material (e.g., tower steel) out to the wingtips like a Road-Runner cartoon are damning pieces of evidence that do not rely on poor quality videos. The miracle pan and zoom-in's, particularly the ones where playing the same video in reverse to get a zoom-out that does not reveal ANY plane, stand as glaring pieces of video fakery.

The speed of the plane pixels has always been an issue, because at near sea level with significantly heavier and resistive air the calculated velocity exceeds the rated maximum of the reported aircraft when flown at high altitude. It isn't just that the aircraft would have been hard to control by even experienced pilots; the aircraft would have torn itself apart.

Furthermore if you look up the main proponents of the theories, strange coincidences start appearing (either low credibility sources or utterly incredulous claims attached to the 9/11 discussion by close proximity, ie. one section of the site debates 9/11, and another section of the site debates whether aliens are in fact ruling the world from space with mind controlling lasers on the moon...).

Mr. Kouby, I took exception to earlier postings of yours where you attempt associating a well grounded premise with something way out there in hopes that craziness will rub off and discredit the premise.

Kindly show us where September Clues has a section on "aliens are in fact ruling the world from space with mind controlling lasers on the moon." Otherwise, consider my STFU on the matter as solid advice to improve the credibility and voracity of your arguments to avoid us associating you with govt agents who also employ such under-handed discussion techniques.

As far as the energy question you keep referring to, I cannot be of much practical help as I do not have the scientific knowledge or know-how to explain anything. I just go along on the simple fact that if you add a shit-load of explosives and set off the thermite and explosives at the right time, it seems plausible to me that you could get a scene resembling what we saw on 9/11. As there is no need for DEW weapons to achieve the result, I do not see why the perps would want to risk revealing one of their aces when the job could be done with perfectly ordinary explosives.

Mr. Kouby, you admit your own ignorance on scientific matters yet proceed to promote a position that ignores scientific evidence. How does a shit-load of explosives and of the thermite and explosives explain measured radiation levels, anomalous burn damage and flipping of vehicles, under-rubble fires burning for months, and pulverization of content?

Granted, the shit-load you speak of might account for the demolition, were it not for the audio signatures of such not being in agreement (as pointed out by NIST). However, the shit-load has to be tripled or more to account for pulverization; it has to be acquired and installed. The shit-load starts losing its shine as being plausible in a logistics sense, all the more so when the milli-nukes and/or DEW are in the readily available arsenals of those who most likely planned and benefited from the operation.

And when the perps had control of the media, they mitigate the risk of revealing their aces.

Now if you've seen the footage, as probably everyone reading this topic has seen a thousand times, there were quite a few people at the place of events who witnessed explosions, there's even some explosions on film. Now the fact that the official version hid this to the public, to me is just a giant red sign saying "hello hello, we've got a problem here".

Redundancy, Mr. Kouby. I'm not questioning the visual and audio witnessing of explosions. I'm saying that for many reasons it would be foolish of the perps to rely on those mechanisms exclusively when they had much better options in their hip-pockets and itchy-trigger fingers to give them a go, and when incorporating exotic means would remove many tell-tale finger-prints of conventional shit-loads to align more easily with the ruse promoted by media before the dust had settled of Osama bin Laden devotees flying aircraft into buildings that had jet fuel and office furniture fires melting steel to initiate complete destruction at gravitational speeds.

So we have explosives, and we have thermite. Again, I don't see the need to search any further for the explanations as to why the towers fell.

Because they fall short. Do you want to know whether the con-artist stole $20 from you or $2000? If you don't realize it was $2000, then you'll never get the siphon from your wallet, and we as a nation will be manipulated further.

And again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to fake the TV imagery when you've got a compliant and docile press corps...

Here you are making a conclusion without any supportive material.

Apparently, we agree that they had a compliant and docile press corps in their hip pockets. The military-corporate media promoted exclusively the message aligned with PNAC and Bush Administration (and global elite/NWO) objectives.

Why would they not use this weapon to its fullest potential? It would be useful for you to do the risk analysis and cost. How many make-or-break risk junctures are involved with (a) commercial aircraft, (b) military aircraft marked-up as commercial, or (c) pixels of aircraft? Could four planes be hijacked? Could they be flown through US airspace without interception given the clear indications of something wrong (e.g., no transponders, radical deviations from flight plan, pilots unresponsiveness)? Could the planes be targeted? Would they provide sufficient damage to be plausible as the initiation of destruction?

The last question is a duzy. When crash physics is taken into account and how much of the plane (e.g., wings and tail) should have bounced off of the towers and landed in the street, then taking full advantage of control of the media in faking pixels of planes is really the lowest risk option.

I suggest you review September Clues. Only one shot of a plane smacking the towers was aired almost live. It had a 17 seconds delay, which is lots of time for computers. This is the shot that has nose-in/nose-out issues, has pixels going too fast, has pixels of the plane's tail entering the tower at the same speed it traveled through thin air, has zoom-out's that don't depict the plane (and as such question how the miracle zoom-in's could have happened in the first place.) Etc. Other video footage was release during the course of the week, but end up with other issues, like not being in agreement with one another, having differing flight paths, etc.

Herr der Elf : word for word belief?


Dear Mr. Kouby,

I take partial responsibility for the situation, but it appears you and I are diverting this Dr. Wood thread with our September Clues discussion. Would you be so kind as to start another thread on this subject, maybe re-post your message from yesterday, and provide us with a link? I would do it myself, but am a bit pressed for time.

On that subject, here are some quick responses. has the entire set of movies.

I do not believe September Clues (or Dr. Wood) word for word. However, the greater premise of the work has not been sufficiently addressed in detail to discredit it completely in my mind. More importantly, nuggets of truth from the work must be mined, preserved, and addressed by whatever theories we all march behind.

I'm not opposed to your statement "the point of these disinformation documentaries are to kill the credibility of the truth movement." What I am opposed to are the attempts to sweep the nuggets of truth off of the table with the same dismissive disinformation gesture, because without the truths, the disinformation would have no traction.

Here is a nugget of truth from September Clues. The newscasters in the studio observed almost live the pixels of the 2nd airplane hitting the tower; the reporters on the scene had no indication of anything wrong until the explosion. Not that the studio newscasters were in on the ruse, but that they were the first ones duped by the computer doctored footage, and their authoritative words immediately corrected the perceptions of both the viewing public as well as eye witness reporters on the scene.

You wrote:

"Do you realise that literally ANY material can slice through ANY other material given enough pressure/speed/etc."

While theoretically true, kindly calculate the kinds of pressure and speed required. The numbers are not trivial, and you'll see don't apply to 9/11.

The issues with the supposed planes begin with the fact that calculations of their depicted pixels speed represent velocities at sea level exceeding not just the maximum recommended speed at high altitude, but also the structural safety maximum of the aircraft at high altitude. Such velocities at low altitude in heavier air should have torn the supposed make-and-model of the plane apart, and certainly would have made the plane hard to control and would have been observable.

The issues with the alleged 9/11 planes continue with other historic cases and blatant examples of the flimsiness of the aircraft (their engines excepted) in minor and major accidents & catastrophies. Lots of examples exist of the damage birds have inflicted on aircraft, and this at velocities less than the 9/11 pixel velocities. The steel towers weren't some flesh and bones birds.

The theory of relativity applies. Instead of saying "a fast moving plane crashed into the standing still towers", this can be turned around to say "from the perspective of the plane, it is as if fast moving steel towers crashed into a standing still aluminum and fiberglass plane." When thought of in this manner, it can be easier to perceive why the depicted 2nd plane's lack of crash physics castes the initial shadow of doubt onto the voracity of the alleged planes.

One example: the Judy Wood bunch like to point to burning cars in the streets and pieces of paper lying all over the place. Then they imply that as the car was quite obviously burnt, it is therefore strange that the paper didn't burn... Take something, set it on fire, take some paper, stick it down on the floor next to the burning thing... WOW... We must have used space laser beams because our burning thing is still burning but the paper around it is not!!?? How amazing is that hey!! We've got leet skillz for sure...

Mr. Kouby, you are flouting your lack of scientific education as well as misrepresenting Dr. Wood and space lasers. Show some objectivity, please.

See if you can get your non-science-oriented mind around this explanation.

The LENR energy source (and/or destructive mechanism powered by the energy source) created large electromagnetic fields (or other types of fields) as a side-effect. Such fields would normally have been contained within the towers steel structure, except for the window slits. They thus leaked out line-of-sight and could induce large Eddy currents in metal within their path. Large currents lead to large heat which could then burn off paint, rubber seals, plastic door handles, plastic gas caps, etc. Such current/heat was directly proportional to distance, line-of-sight impact, and not being shaded or blocked by neighboring structures or objects. This can explain fire damage to only the front or rear or side of some vehicles. Of course, once a fire was started in one part of the vehicle, many other chance factors would play a role regarding how much of the vehicle would be consumed.

The unburned paper is just one example; unburned trees and people are others. The anomaly affected metal initially. Thermitic and burning dust does not explain this.

Recall the testimony of one of the paramedics. After being turned away by authorities from taking refuge in the lobby of WTC-6 (I believe), she ran West on Vesey Street and notices cars "popping off" (igniting) for no apparent reason. She was slightly injured when a car door from a car not on fire literally popped off of its hinges and out of its housing to smack her against a building. At some point, her jacket caught on fire, which she supposed was from falling material, but might have also been from materials within the jacket (e.g., reflective tape) reacting to field effects.

Take a look at my avatar. (I recall) this firetruck was parked next to WTC-7 before it was taken out. West Broadway NE of the WTC had two or three blocks of torched vehicles. Not torched trees. Not burning asphault. The parking lot of toasted cars at Vesey and West was considerable distance but line-of-sight from WTC-1 (and WTC-6).

You'll probably find that nearly everyone believes in these technologies around here, that's probably why we're all here on this forum. The problem is that we believe in the scientific method as well. That means that if something does not agree with the evidence, then we discount it and search for a more plausible answer. Nanothermite is plausible. DEWs are not.

Nanothermite is plausible as one of the mechanisms deployed.

When not misframed as space-based lasers and when properly framed as spire-based with LENR energy sources, directed energy weapons (DEW) are not just plausible as well, but are also capable of addressing with the scientific method more of the evidence.

I'm not saying that Dr. Wood's textbook doesn't have issues. Where it accels are in documenting evidence, in raising important energy questions, and in opening our thoughts to consider other mechanisms and sources that too easily are brushed aside as science fiction on purpose under the guise of "it could discredit the movement." If the truth goes there, the truth goes there.

No comments: